Persuasive Essay On Choosing Who Die

In our ever-changing world the race to find the best technological advancements has never been higher. Progress within the medical field has changed drastically in the last 50 years. “Health is driven by the technologies that cure the unhealthy. These technologies need to advance along with an advancing society. In the last five decades new and improved, less expensive, medicine has been produced” (Leonard). Behind all this advanced medicine are the technologies, or creatures, that are used to test and improve the medicine. Animals are used to test the drugs and medicine that are in route to be produced for human use. “The term "Animal Testing" refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products” (Humane Society). There are people who side with, and agree that animal testing improves the lives of humans, and there are individuals who believe the harm this research brings to animals is unreasonable and can be prevented.

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for

A life can be taken or created in a matter of seconds and with that has come the miracles of modern medicine. People have come to expect science to save lives, prevent illness, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life. The means of curing, treating and preventing diseases are not achieved by magic or accident. Medical advances are gained through years of intensive research -- research in which laboratory animals have played, and continue to play, a critical role. Opponents of animal testing are wrongfully determined that this process is completely unethical.

Most of the procedures we have these days are there because animal testing has helped in developing it. In addition, when new treatments should be developed, there is no safer and more accurate way to prove it harmless than testing with animals. Although there are certain alternatives such as computers, undoubtedly for human rights scientists should choose the assured and guaranteed way of animal testing. Therefore, until a suitable substitution as exact and as precise as testing with animals appear, animal testing shall be mandatory. Animal rights should be protected, but it is not only animals that need to survive: we, as human beings, have the right, not a privilege, to live a healthy

Summary/Description: This book discusses the pros and cons of animal testing. It gives a brief history of the animal right movement, and It also address the legal and ethical issues involved around this cruel testing. The Animal Act was rejected by Congress in the United States and animal testing became a part of scientific and medical life.

This dichotomy remains relevant as certain groups of animal rights activists continue to progress research towards more humane protocol (Galvin & Herzog, 1992), while research advocates believe such practices are necessary and should involve less hindrances in order to fulfill research goals (Lyons, 2011). Precedent suggests that the majority of surveyors support animal research due to its benefits in furthering medical applications (Dolan, 2002; Lund, Morkbak, Lassen, & Sandoe, 2014), yet animal rights advocates have endured a historic conflict. Such advocates have perpetuated paradigmatic discussion for contemplating the weaknesses in animal research policies (e.g. the subjective scaling of research severity – mild, moderate, severe) (Lyons, 2011). When analyzing the perspectives of advocates and adversaries through history and studies, the ability to determine the ethicality of animal research is impossible. More legislation against animal research is not necessarily the answer, but one political solution has been to settle the dissension through a personalized assessment of individual cases (Rollins, 2006). If animal research continues, a case-by-case analysis of research studies is the only ethical manner to appease the tension between advocates and adversaries.

Debates about animal research are often polarized. On one hand, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify any harm. On the other, animals have rights (Fisher, 2014). Ethics, alongside a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, may in fact produce a more sophisticated common ground between both sides of the debate.

“Man is the cruelest animal.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche (“Quotes About Animals”). In the search for advancements in medicine, mankind has completely forgotten the values of caring and loving to all creatures. This is because humans force other animals to undergo the grueling process of testing medicines. Although animals provide a medium for medical testing, the fact that the process and results are unreliable and dangerous, ultimately make animal testing a waste of resources.

Scientists putting animals through suffrage through medical research, but in any case, it’s not contested, but on a scale it often is. Some people know that there can be an up and downstream of whether animal experimentation is a part of good science and also result in medical breakthroughs for humans. Depending on whether the progress may have achieved by any means. Millions of animals each year in the United States are experimented on for testing to help find cures and medicine for sick people/patients. Toxicity of medicine is put into animals and take the risk of whether the tests are successful or not so that people can research further more. Research is led into saving lives, but what about the ones that are tested for hours on end and

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

For many years, there has been numerous debate on animal testing. There is a problem in many countries with animal testing; It remains to be very controversial because it has to do with animals being tested with chemicals. The reason for the debate is that it's hard to determine the rights animals have. Some individuals believe that the research is outdated and inhumane while others believe animal testing is necessary to help further evolve medical research. Although this has been a never-ending war, many think there may not be a solution and with a battle, there come two sides of every argument. On one hand, there is the animal activist and on the other hand, it is the people who are for animal testing. Both groups are significantly impacted

Animal testing, otherwise known as animal experimentation, is defined as the use of animals in laboratories in which experiments are conducted in order to observe the effects of the behavior or biological actions of the animals under the study. Accounts have dated as early as 322 BC, in which early Greek physicians, such as Aristotle, have performed experiments on animals. The use of animals have since then continued to be a present aspect of biomedical research throughout the course of human history. The issues regarding animal testing were not addressed until the mid-nineteenth century when activist in England first protested for animal protection and rights (Jayshree 1038). These protests gained much attention within the masses and thus began the controversy which now exists toward animal testing. Laws have since been created as a result of these protests in order to testify against the use of animals in experimentation and also to search for alternative methods. This led to a huge debate on whether animal testing is ethical or not, and if it could really benefit humans. As a result, more people are beginning to believe that animal testing is inhumane and researchers are slowly drifting away from the use of animals in search for a better alternative. Although it is a necessity to perform experiments, animal testing is not the best option because it is unethical and inhumane due to the fact that many innocent animals’ lives are being taken due to our selfish needs.