The Brain Of The Medical Field Is An Innovative World Of Experimentation And Discoveries

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 of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

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.

Potential grave consequences that can result from irresponsible, or criminal, medical experiments. While we must be vigilant to protect innocent victims from such experimentation we cannot let that stifle our duty to continue making advances in healthcare and improving the lives of patients.

This standard relies on the process through which a decision is to be made. But when a patient is unable to go through such process, this standard fails to stand on its ground. It is to some extent an ambiguous concept that tries to meet both sides of the previous two standards. Determination of competence is the core part of the ethical and legal decision making. Brock and Buchanan (1989) have made it clear that competence is not a global concept, but it is mainly related to specific decision-making. We all have to understand the standard values of this problem. To decide the competence of a person, we must analyze the situation under which a decision has to be made and also the nature of the decision that is to be made. Thus, time and condition play vital and defining roles in decision making. In medical decision making, it is the complexities of a particular treatment and of the given information that have a great influence. A patient can give consent to a life-saving treatment and it does not require a high level of

Why does testing play a crucial part in medical research? It is necessary for understanding and sorting out the problems that we human beings are vulnerable to, researching and testing using animals have been a practice of scientists for a long time now, and in profuse instances, it has deemed beneficial, given the medical advancements that were possible due to it. However, in the recent past, this practice have been regarded as immoral; animal testing has been seen by communities as the breaching of animal rights. This issue requires being a subject matter of extensive debating if we want to understand whether we humans have sacrificed morals and ethics for our own gain. However, what has been a rather controversial topic of discussion is the use of animals in various medical researchers. Should they be included in medical research?

For years, there has been a debate regarding the use of animals in medical testing for the sole benefit of humans. Many people believe that testing on nonhuman animals solve the many issues that humans face, but most of the time animals are exploited and put through painful experimental processes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible alternatives to animal testing and the evaluate whether there is a reduction in animals being used for experiments. The author of this paper will examine four journal articles titled as the following: Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives, Scientists and Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?, Strategic Focus on 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the Use of Animals in Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing, No Animals Harmed: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Testing. Each journal article highlights different arguments of the said problem and reveals information about animal testing that many may not be aware of. The author will summarize all four journal articles and apply a response to each one.

Scientists are able to study the brain in many ways. On a physical level, they study the brain using several methods. Brain imaging is used to visually see what the brain is doing at any time. Some patients are asked to visualize different things to see how their brain reacts and in what area it is affected. CAT scans and X-rays are also used to get pictures of the brain. Another physical way to study the brain is through open brain surgery. Psychologists are able to preform experiments with the patient having no pain. They use electrodes to stimulate or suppress the firing of certain neurons (Hillman, 2014). They would then continue to ask the person to describe what they feel and experience. According to Keith Hillmin at Psychology 24, “using

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

As a little girl with cerebral palsy, I struggled to do many things. When I look back on it, I can see that my mother was a pretty good brain trainer. For example, I had very poor hand coordination, so I had difficulty cutting with scissors accurately. My mother, however, was not fazed by my decapitated paper dolls; she devised lots of ways to help train my brain to improve my fine motor skills.

Chemicals, cosmetics, household products, and medical devices have been tested on animals such as mice, rabbits and rats, and more for a number of years. It is assumed that a humans’ response to these types of products will often correlate with the responses of an animal (Testing). Animals are tested because they are deemed as key information to help develop new medicines, and discover more about human health and biology. Some believe using animals only for human advantage is morally wrong, while others believe not experimenting at all would hinder our understanding of well-being and ailment, which would affect the progress of new and vital treatments. Researchers are mandated to follow specific instructions in order to minimize the harm experienced. The first of the instructions is using a substitute like human volunteers, cell culture, or computer modelling when applicable. Next, is bettering experimental procedures and communicating with other researchers so that the same experiments are not being repeated by several people, which will accordingly reduce the number of animals used. Lastly, less invasive procedures are used when possible to reduce stress or discomfort, and expand medical care and living conditions (Should animals be used in research, 2017).

Billions of football fans around the world were amazed in the summer of 2014, when 29 years old Brazilian Juliano Pinto [1], who was paralyzed from waist down, was able to kick a football to ceremonially open the World Cup. Pinto made the kick while wearing a robotic exoskeleton controlled by his brain. The high-tech demonstration was orchestrated by Duke University neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis, as part of the Walk Again Project [2], to develop and implement a brain-machine interface to allow severely paralyzed patients to regain mobility. The sight of such futuristic technology straight out of the Iron Man movie becoming a reality is simply exhilarating.

However, some people claim that these experiments should be banned due to the harm and pain they cause to animals, thus raising a moral issue whether sacrificing the lives of animals in scientific experiments would really benefit the progress of medical research. On the other hand, many others support the idea of animal testing due to its major role in avoiding scientists with samples to test their products on, apart from human sampling which is considered quite harmful with unpredictable results. Thus, this essay will examine the both ideas with some explanations and evidence.

Experimentation on animals has animal rights advocates and some scientists questioning the effectiveness and validity of animal testing for medical advancement. Dating back to the 2nd century B.C., early Greek scientists performed experiments on living animals for the purpose of advancing their knowledge and understanding of the human body. However, recent research has confirmed that, “animals rarely serve as good models of the human body” (Animal Testing). Everyone agrees that animals are used for research. Some people believe that using animals for research is cruel and unethical, while others believe that using animals for research is necessary to explore medical treatment for humans. Experimentation on animals is costly, unethical, and unreliable and should be prohibited.

Animal testing is a necessary evil used at medical facilities to advance scientific research. In recent years the use of animals has come under some intense pressure and criticism by animal protection and animal rights groups. The use of animals to advance research has undergone intense revisions allowing for a more effective way to utilize them in research facilities. Debate about whether the use of animals in medical research is humane or not has been debated since the 17th century (Ballentine). Since its beginnings, many countries have enacted strict laws that govern the use of animals within research facilities.