Summary Of Professor Z's Experiments To Avoid Electric Shocks

The Helsinki declaration was founded in 1964 and since here they have been updating principles of good practice in this kinds of experiments. They say, “Welfare of animals used for research must be respected”. Since here the ethical views for non-humans subjects started. Later on the APA gave instructions to determine whether an experiments on animals is acceptable or not. For example animal research should not harm the animal or distress it on any way. If the researchers don’t follow this code, they wont be allowed to keep on with the experiment.

In module 4 in our book it talks about codes of ethics. The APA guidelines have very similar information. one thing you have to have informed consent from your patient. Second, many people talk about using animals for experiments. Some people think it is unfair to the animals. As long as the psychologist is trained and follows the states and country laws, then they are okay to experiment on animals to find research. They try to give pain medicines and surgeries to keep the animals out of harms way and pain. They don't try to kill the animal. Third, all people that are involved in an experiment has to be voluntary, you can't make somebody be in an experiment. Fourth, psychologist try to maintain confidentiality. Fifth, they try to prevent experimental

An estimated 30 million animals are used per year in biomedical and research experiments ("Update: Animal Testing" 1). In particular, about 75,000 dogs, including thousands from homeless shelters, are abused every year in laboratories in the United States ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). “Man’s best friend” is a preferred choice by scientists for use in toxicology experiments. Dogs are tormented as they undergo tests involving overdoses of pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, or household products, gradually poisoning them and sometimes resulting in death ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). In what way does treating animals with such disrespect seem ethical at all? Animals were not put on the earth to be destroyed for research in the name of “science.”

Animals are living creatures and we should not experiment on them, forcing them to live with injuries or illnesses: It is wrong. We should not be able to manipulate them and hurt them forcing them to live with injuries or illnesses we inflicted without them being able to fight back. They suffer everyday being held in small cages with no freedom until they find their untimely end most likely being euthanized. Testing on animals is not even a reliable study; this is something that the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) argues. The AAVS is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to advocacy for animals and eliminating animals from all experimentation in the USA. The AAVS believe “animals have the right not to be exploited for science and we should not have to choose between helping humans and harming animals.” (2013, paragraph 9) Using animals in experimentations is questioned more and more every year because of the reduced reliability shown over time. Some scientific limitations are that even though a treatment or medicine may work on an animal the outcome on a human may be entirely different. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt says, “nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” (2013, paragraph 16) Studies using animals are flawed because of the differences in physiology, metabolism, anatomy, and genetics. Helen Marston brings up a

Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.

A lot of people all over the world have pets of all kinds. Dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, etc. Have you ever imagined your own pet being tortured with experiments? Alone, scared, in pain. Animal testing is a very real thing and I real problem. Animal testing will eventually lead to the extinction of our own pets. Even with other methods of testing, they would rather inject, burn, and kill these animals. Testing subjects can be any where from a tiny mouse to a big Golden Retriever. These innocent animals go through painful and terrifying procedures every day. Scientist force these animals to feed, force toxic inhalation, deprive them of food and water, inflict burns and pain, even decapitation, neck-breaking, and killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation.

The supporters of this concept argue that computers can be unreliable in giving accurate results or information on issues related to cells, environment or molecules (Christopher 17). Animal testing has therefore been used to give very reliable and substantial scientific information in the last century. On the other hand, opponents or individuals who challenge the concept of animal experimentation argue that animals, like humans, feel and experience pain and should not be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. Furthermore, they posit that animals used for research are often subjected to cruel and traumatizing conditions, therefore, negating fundamental animal rights. Moreover, other arguments indicate that animals should be respected because they have natural rights just like all other beings (Hackman

People always talk about how awful cruelty to animals is, but they don’t realize that they could be using products that are the result of animal cruelty. There are organizations that are designed to protect animals from cruelty, but there is nothing for animal cruelty when caused by research. There are no laws in effect protecting animals from abuse while in the use of research. Animals used in research suffer some of the worst animal cruelty seen before. Most animals die by the endpoint of research. The few lucky enough to survive throughout the tests are more than likely killed afterward (Groff 15). The number of animals killed in the use of research is one of the highest cause of death in animals recorded. Animals are forced to endure pain such as force to ingest deadly substances, contaminated with diseases, undergo chemical reactions, and so much more. The majority end result of animals used in research is death. “No laws protect animals from being subjected to protocols that include severe physical and psychological pain and suffering once the research is approved by in-house institutional committees” (Groff 15). There are laws protecting animals from people harming them out in the world, but when animals are placed in a building that states the organism being used for research there is nothing protecting them from what is done to them behind closed doors. Test subjects

Animal testing is a rampant controversial issue in today’s society. Safety tests are conducted with a massive range of chemicals, including: new drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, and packing materials. Approximately 4 million animals have been/will be used in safety tests. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University states: “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment… This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment.” Animals that are used in these safety tests are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they never have the option of participating or not. There are plenty of reasons for understanding

Despite there being a large number of Americans favoring animal testing whether because they are misled as to its efficacy, are unaware of the true practices in this field, or simply have no regard for the life of these creatures in the slightest sense, animal testing has many negative aspects. Throughout the world and more specifically in the twenty-first century scientific community, experimental research done through the use of animal subjects has detrimental effects on animals. In addition, the processes tested on animals are not carried out with good moral standards, and the true value of scientific understanding gained from using these species is irrelevant. Animal testing should be prohibited.

Though the problem with this is that it restricts the freedom of researchers which ultimately affects the integrity of the research and these actions will produce weak results. Although all researchers aren’t knowledgeable or have a fixed standard when it comes to animal ethics personally, the fact is that most researchers don’t intent to harm animals. Intent is just as important to consider when accusing researchers of ethical violations. It is acceptable to have certain guidelines such as Psychologists should make every effort to ensure that those responsible for transporting the nonhuman animals to the facility provide adequate food, water, ventilation, space, and impose no unnecessary stress on the animals (American Psychological Association [APA], 2012)..It’s not acceptable to impose more stringent sanctions such as..... use procedures that minimize the number of nonhuman animals in research (APA, 2012). Such propositions although it’s already been implemented in the APA’s Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals (APA, 2012), is going way and beyond the absolute requirements needed to fulfill moral obligations to animals. This guideline is yet another example of controlling researchers’ autonomy to do what is best to achieve scientific

For example, Singer illustrates an example of a dog undergoing varies shock from jumping to floors that each had the shock. Eventually, the dog stopped resisting, and thus researchers stated that the experiment should how to eliminate jumping in dogs. Singer saw this as up scoured and unnecessary. This example can be seen as psychological since it determines the behavior of dogs after an experiment. Now many people may agree with Singer and find this inhumane but will agree with the medical animal research. Frey, in "Justifying Animal Experiments: The Starting Point" in Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffery Paul, eds., Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Reseach (Transaction, 2001), states "Genetic research involving animals promises new treatments for diseases that previously were thought to be intractable defects in the human condition". Many people would agree that these animals testing to be useful since it helps medical issues, yet do not realize the hypocrisies of agreeing with animal testing that benefits them while disagreeing with animal testing when it hurts them in psychological.

Animals unnecessarily suffer physically and emotionally in animal experimentations. Supporters of experiments involving animals argue that there are laws and committees in place at all research institutions to prevent the abuse and wrongful treatment of the animals,

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 the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.