Why Is It Morally Wrong To Use Animals In Biomedical Research

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

Animals have successfully been used to understand biological processes, assess safety of different chemicals, develop vaccines and antibiotics, produce treatments for hepatitis C, rheumatoid arthritis, polio, diabetes and many more . However, it is impossible to know if the use of animals was required to acquire this research or if the amount of suffering and death could have been reduced or avoided in order to achieve the same results. It is well established that animals have been invaluable in the pursuit of biomedical research, and the benefits from using animals currently means that eliminating animal research is also immoral. This is because the benefits received from some research greatly outweigh the potential costs to the animals and it would be unjust not to perform such experiments. Consequently, animal research should not be fully banned due to the benefits it yields, but should be more heavily regulated to reduce the moral costs.

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

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

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.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

People often use animals for a lot of experiments even though most people think that is it wrong. People make up countless excuses to why it’s okay to do this. But it is not okay. Animal researchers and such agree with my opinion that using animals for tests that we as humans would never want to do, is bad and very hypocritical, yet unfortunately there are just as many scientists who say that it is completely fine and that there isn’t really much harm brought to the animals. Mind you, these scientists have apparently never owned a beloved pet close to their heart. The two essays, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" by Tom Regan and "Proud to be Speciesist" by Stephen Rose, talk about the issue of animal rights, but are written on completely opposing

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

There is tremendous amount of debates that go on in this world on a daily basis. One of the most talked about debates of the century is that of animal rights and experimentations. This debate, also known in the animal rights community as vivisection, is one of the most difficult to understand. Individuals have numerous different outlooks on animals. Many individuals view animals as friends when others look upon animals as an object of the advancement of medical technologies. No matter what ones perception is about animals, the fact is that animals are being tortured by research facilities and cosmetics companies on a daily basis. In spite of the fact that humans frequently benefit from successful animal experimentations, the pain, and occasionally

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

According to Singer’s argument choosing to ignore the interests of other species is like discriminating people based on race and sex, this attitude towards animals is what he calls speciesism. Singer claims that animal suffering should be given equal consideration as human suffering. In his arguments, he highlights that animal and human pain are on similar levels; hence animal suffering deserves equal respect. Animals do not have the ability to reason or communicate their interests. Nevertheless, according to Singer we cannot discriminate animals based on the skills they possess. They might

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.

The essence of the issues is if animals are being subjected to medical research against their will; is liable to say that we don’t place a high value on living things that are outside our human race? Subjecting animals to experiments that we would not consider ethically feasible to apply to humans. There are limitations that are placed legally to protect humanity. When considering animals for experimentation, there are no legal guidelines that restrict scientists from harming them. Ascribing animals to a lower moral status because of their lack of intelligence, communication skills, and human relations; taking advantage of them are quite easy. “According to the “Moral Theory of Animals, “there are two types of approaches that support this idea. One approach starts from the position that the interests of animals, particularly in avoiding suffering, should be taken into account when judging whether it is acceptable to use them for medical purposes that benefit human beings. The second approach argues that animals, like human beings, have rights that must be respected when considering their use for such purposes.” (Stanford

Curious minds since the beginning of time have used animals to explore deeper into the realms of science, whether behavioral or biomedical. Despite many medical advances since, people have developed a division between what they feel is beneficial or not to the modernizing world as to whether animal cruelty is acceptable and humane or not. Animal testing is research science, typically regarding chemical exposures, drug overdoses, genetic manipulation, and surgical procedures that result in prolonged suffering and eventual death. According to Bernard E. Rollin’s journal entry from the Hastings Center Report, The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research, “Science is ‘value free’ in general and ‘ethics free’ in particular” which indicates scientists are not concerned with the ethical matters but more so the results.

Animals have been used from the beginning of time the ancient civilisations used animal testing to find answers to the unknown for example why do animals exist romans & greeks simply dissected animals to have knowledge. Now days animals are used to understand basic human biology, so called “models” for studying human biology and disease. Improvements in human health, vaccines and medicines. Another type of animal use is for cosmetics. Even though people believe that biomedical research is a way to improve human health by testing on animals for cures and vaccines I believe that animals should not be used for biomedical research because biomedical research leads to animal suffering ,number of animal death and most studies are unthinkable.