Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status — that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status.
They are called anything but living, feeling, sentient creatures.
It is precisely these differences which have an impact when it comes to assimilating drugs. For example, rats, the species most commonly used in vivisection 1have no gall bladder and excrete bile very effectively.
Rats always breathe through the nose. Because some chemicals are absorbed in the nose, some are filtered. So rats get a different mix of substances entering their systems. Also, they are nocturnal. Their gut flora are in a different location. Their skin has different absorptive properties than that of humans.
Any one of these discrepancies will alter drug metabolism. Medications act on a microscopic level, initiating or interrupting chemical reactions that are far too small for the human eye to observe.
At present, therefore, there exists no possibility at all of a scientifically based prediction. In this respect, the situation is even less favourable than a game of chance. Mothers who took this drug to relieve morning sickness gave birth to children with shocking deformities, with most lacking developed limbs.
Animal tests had not predicted this. The first recorded case of side effects occurred on Christmas Daybut in the drug was released anyway. More generally, it is used to describe any invasive experiment upon living animals, or any live animal testing, typically for the purpose of physiological or pathological scientific investigation.
Hau, editorsCRC Press, vol. Testing on animals only benefits big business by Dr Ray Greek MD Many people are morally opposed to experiments on animals, even if they are of supposed medical benefit. Such people are often portrayed as wishing to sacrifice medical progress to avoid animal suffering.
But what if there were no medical benefits from experiments on animals? What if they were actually an obstacle to medical progress: Clearly, a careful study of the medical literature is required in order to make an informed judgement.
After completing our medical and veterinary training, my wife and I spent ten years doing just that before we wrote our first book, Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: We reviewed thousands of scientific papers and examined the history of medicine at length.
We found precious little evidence of human benefit but abundant evidence of human harm. Heart-valve replacements, penicillin and many other therapies were similarly delayed because of misleading test results in animals. People died as a result of those delays.
Smoking cigarettes and eating lots of cholesterol were given the thumbs-up by animal experimentation. Probably no two mistakes have cost as many lives. Now millions of women on hormone replacement therapy are at twice the risk of breast cancer and heart disease, thanks to tests in monkeys which predicted the opposite.
How many more people have to die before we admit there is a problem with animal testing? It is commonly known that cancer, heart disease and stroke are the leading causes of death in the West. But many people would be surprised by one of the next biggest killers:Ethics of Animal Testing Essays, words.
Animal testing is an extremely controversial topic with people having most divergent views. Some people feel that animals should not be used as guinea pigs for experimentation and that all animal testing should be banned. The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years.
Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion. An Ethical Argument Against Animal Experiments. As animal advocates, we oppose animal experiments, on ethical grounds, believing that it is morally wrong to .
Against Animal Testing essay. As any other field, we have people, groups, and nations that support the argument for animal testing and those that are against the concept of animal testing. The supporters of this concept argue that computers can be unreliable in giving accurate results or information on issues related to cells, environment.
The format I chose for the debate was a six-minute opening argument from the pro-animal testing side, a four-minute rebuttal from the opposing team, then the response to the rebuttal in 2 minutes, as well as a concluding 2 minutes from the pro-animal testing side.
Arguments Against Animal Testing That Everyone Should Know About. drinking water to the entire population of the planet can save far more lives than the drugs that are a result of animal testing. Where is the evidence proving that animal testing is absolutely and undoubtedly necessary for improving the quality of human life?