Animals experiments have been widely used to develop new tests in medicines and also to test the safety of other products. The controversies that have been raised by different researchers who wonder if the path that was taken is an ethical one have been great. The researcher has inquired whether torturing the innocent animals in the name of the test is morally right (8). Numerous of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved.
The pain also reduces the quality of life in various ways. The issue of whether it is morally wrong to cause an animal to suffer at the expense of medicine research has led to the emergence of serious moral problems (1). The fact that animal experiments are what has been the cause of new medicine invention and the test of whether the products are safe to use has left others wondering which is the best course. A new drug cannot be used directly on a person without knowing the side effects, but the question is, can the violation of animal rights be justified on the medical tests?
Some experimenters support the experiments on the animal in the condition that the suffering of the animal should be minimized in all the experiments, and there is a benefit that is gained to the human and could not be obtained by using other methods. Other experimenter claims that experimenting on animals is completely unacceptable since it causes suffering to the animals and the benefit to the animals is not proven (5). If the benefit that the human gets is at the expense of few animals, maybe the justification could be considered, but the level of suffering and the number of animals involved are so high such that the benefits obtained from the animal testing don't provide the moral justification.
Other scientists claim that if the animal experiments are banned, it would mean that there would be an end to the testing of new drugs and discovery of new diseases. They claim that animal experiments are not used to show that a drug is safe, but rather it is used to help decide whether a particular new drug should be tested on people. The experiments, according to the researchers are used to eliminate some of the potential medications that are considered to as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings (5). If a drug passes the animal test, it can be gradually accustomed to a small group of a person before large-scale clinic trials are used.
Animal experiments, however, do not have any benefit to the animals, but the benefits only go to the human being. All the scientists are not convinced that the animal testing is useful and valid. Some think that the animals have not been critical to the advancement of medicine as it has been typically claimed by the proponents of animal experimentation (3). There have been a mislead of the animal testing in the fact that the tests withhold the drugs that sometimes could be useful and beneficial to the humans. Though the tests have been harmless to the animals, it has been the cause of suffering and death to the human in different cases.
Animal rights extremism has been on the issue and has examined the act as being cruel to the animals that cannot defend themselves.
They have claimed that the experiments have forfeited the moral standing and were an act of violation of the animal right to live (3). The arguments, however, have been for a long time and no one has literally agreed to whether the experiments are morally right or wrong. John P Gluck suggested that the relevance thing in the experiments was the ethical approach of the analysis to each experiment. The lack of ethical self-examination is common and involves the denial or avoidance of the animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects( Gluck, 1991). Glunk advised the researcher that self-examination involved a careful self-analysis of ones personal and scientific motives. It also requires recognition of animal suffering and the satisfaction that one gets while working through pain regarding ones ethical values.
Another dimension that the researchers view is that if an experiment violates the rights of an animal, then it is morally wrong. The possibility that the human will benefit at the expense of the violation of an animal right, then the experiment should not take happen in the first place. The dilemma of deciding the morality of experiments on animals by rights is the reason most people justify the animal testing on the consequentiality ground. They show that the benefits that are obtained from the animal experiments can justify the pain inflicted on the animal during the tests (6). The supporter of the operations claims that the good that is done to the human beings outweighs the harm done to animals.
A continuing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation has never ceased to end as some people dispute that all animal testing should stop since animals should not be treated as tools for obtaining knowledge. Arguing in that direction leaves a question of how scientific research would be carried out. The laboratory animals like rat and mice are the one that provides a model that is required in the research field (6). Other proponents of continued animal experiments suggest that although it is morally wrong to torture the animals, efforts o improve the living conditions in the laboratories like the use of anesthesia can minimize the suffering and prolong the lives of the animals.
On scrutiny, an extensive existence of debate on the animal testing has brought about a two opposing end of the spectrum. Some possess views that accept experimentation and others maintain beliefs that prohibit the heinous act against the animals (2). They claim that the unnecessary use of animals in scientific research can be eliminated, and other alternatives are created to spare the animals of the torture. Debate on the animal experimentation will never end as different groups think differently. The strongest pro-animal right will suggest that non-human animals have the same moral right as the animals are entitled to possess. But the ethicist will claim that the animals cannot be endorsed for the same treatment as the humans even if they have got their rights (8). The animals do not have the right to vote, but the human does not have the right to kill them and force them into their services or treat them as a means to further their goals.
There is a form of argument that claims that the moral status originates from the capacity that one has to suffer or to enjoy life. Many animals are no different to the humans as they can feel pain and also experience pleasure (4). In that context, there should be equal and moral status with equal treatment of all the species. Granting animals less moral status than human is a form of prejudice. But what has never been clear is whether humans are more morally significant than all the animals as to gain benefits at the expense of other animals suffering.
2. Beautiful cruelty: The need for more ethical practices in cosmetics testing: Discovery Service for the University of Alberta Libraries. Eds.a.ebscohost.com. 2016 [accessed 2016 Mar 18]. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNRsqavULak63nn5Kx94um%2bS62ntUewpq9Onq%2b4S7Ows1Get8s%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrSbOutUy2rK5Kr5zqeezdu33snOJ6u9vii%2bXX7T7y1%2bVVv8Skeeyz43zx3eGErKqxS7SstUy2qqR%2b7ejrefKz5I3q4vJ99uqkf%2fPb8Yy7yvCN4wAA&hid=4205
6. Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?: Discovery Service for the University of Alberta Libraries. Eds.a.ebscohost.com. 2016 [accessed 2016 Mar 18]. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNRsqavULak63nn5Kx94um%2bS62ntUewpq9Onq%2b4S7Ows1Get8s%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrSbOutUy2rK5Kr5zqeezdu33snOJ6u9yzgKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7TrCmt0murq8%2b5OXwhd%2fqu37z4uqM4%2b7yPuXr44vys9KK89sA&hid=4205
3. Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy: Discovery Service for the University of Alberta Libraries. Eds.a.ebscohost.com. 2016 [accessed 2016 Mar 18]. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNRsqavULak63nn5Kx94um%2bS62ntUewpq9Onq%2b4S7Ows1Get8s%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrSbOutUy2rK5Kr5zqeezdu33snOJ6u9vii%2fPm8T7y1%2bVVv8Skeeyz84jxpLdPtqa2SbSstUy0rrZGrqavRq6mrkmk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faMpN3zffHqu2zw6%2bMA&hid=4205
5. Rational Engagement, Emotional Response, and the Prospects for Moral Progress...: Discovery Service for the University of Alberta Libraries. Eds.a.ebscohost.com. 2016 [accessed 2016 Mar 18]. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNRsqavULak63nn5Kx94um%2bS62ntUewpq9Onq%2b4S7Ows1Get8s%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrSbOutUy2rK5Kr5zqeezdu33snOJ6u9vii%2fPm8T7y1%2bVVv8Skeeyz84jxpLdPtqawTrCmr0%2burK5GrqaxRq6mr0yk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faMpN3zffHqu2zw6%2bMA&hid=4205
7. Rosoff P. I'll be a monkey's uncle: a moral challenge to human genetic enhancement research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011 [accessed 2016 Mar 18];37(10):611-615.
1. Taylor R. Testing drugs on animals: a test case for socially responsible investment. Business Ethics: A European Review. 2005 [accessed 2016 Mar 18];14(2):164-175.
4. University of Alberta Libraries. Eds.a.ebscohost.com. 2016 [accessed 2016 Mar 18]. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNRsqavULak63nn5Kx94um%2bS62ntUewpq9Onq%2b4S7Ows1Get8s%2b8ujfhvHX4Yzn5eyB4rOrSbOutUy2rK5Kr5zqeezdu33snOJ6u%2bj4gKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7Sa6qski3r7dPpNztiuvX8lXk6%2bqE8tv2jKTd833x6rts8Ovj&hid=4205
8. Waters N, Holmes E, Williams A, Waterfield C, Farrant R, Nicholson J. NMR and Pattern Recognition Studies on the Time-Related Metabolic Effects of I-Naphthylisothiocyanate on Liver, Urine, and Plasma in the Rat: A An Integrative Metabonomic Approach. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2001;14(10):1401-1412.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: