The new standards stated that three requirements had to be satisfied: (1) “the voluntary consent of the person on whom the experiment is to be performed,” (2) “the danger of each experiment must be previously investigated by animal experimentation,” and (3) “the experiment must be performed under proper medical protection and management” (Washington, 2006, p. 221). These standards were violated when doctors injected Elmer Allen, a black man who had escaped the South and made a good life for himself and his family in Chicago, with plutonium-238 (Washington, 2006). Plutonium-238 is an even more intensely radioactive isotope than plutonium-239, which was given to most of the other patients (Washington, 2006). Allen suffered a similar experience
“Animal testing violates animals' basic rights, and experiments conducted on them result in extreme and even torturous pain” (Conn). The tests are produced to determine the potential harm of a drug or cosmetic product on numerous animals like mice, rats and rabbit’s attempts to
Their Experiences Animal testing on bunnies is also a controversial issue because many people believe that it is unethical to use animals this way. “In addition to the suffering caused
Cosmetic companies use the Draize eye test to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos, which involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eye lids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days so they cannot blink away the product being tested.” Proverbs 12:10 says that “The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.” Scientist may have the best intention for humans when testing animals, but have a lack of compassion for the animal. Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 “Humans and animals have the same destiny. One dies just like the other.
Animal testing has been a subject of controversy for many years and there have been some great discoveries because of it, however, has this practice been done ethically? For a cosmetic company to inject rabbit’s eyes of chemicals, thus causing it pain, is unethical and immoral. This practice negates the theory of Kant’s Practical Imperative, where animals are used for experiments, not only for life and death experiments, but for experiments that indicates whether a product has irritating side effects for humans, for example (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015). The immorality of this practice is where scientists are subjecting pain and sometimes torture to animals for results to tests. It is immoral, as Kant suggests, to subject sentient beings to pain
Animal testing goes as far back to greek philosophers such as Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) and Erasistratus (304 – 258 BC). Whom once performed testing on animals to advance behavior of something or who aspired to alter brain activity. However there was scientists such as Galen (129 – 199 / 217 AD), who used animals in order to attempt to improve various human activity within the body. Specifically focusing on cures and treatment for those who don't have them. Later, Ibn Zuhr began to use animal testing to benefit humans in which he would perform surgeries on them to ensure that the procedures would not harm humans.
Animals are being used for personal needs and used against their will so morally this seems wrong. There has been many side effects to testing that have hurt mankind so there are very good reasons to do away with animal testing. Do the pros of animal testing outweigh the cons? I believe they both cancel each other out and no matter what we do there will be a risk for reward. Seeing what animal testing has done for mankind is a major factor in this paper because it has done wonders for us in the medical field, but the cost has been equal and has hurt many.
Animal testing is a subject that has been deemed controversial for quite a long time now, and is still argued today. Now, you'll see many companies breaking from this animal testing, and making vegan products and selling almost just as well. Just listening to the word,"Animal testing" automatically makes you think of something horrible and inhumane, but there are reasons that it isn't. California Biomedical Research Association says that almost every medical breakthrough within the last 100 years has been derived from animal testing. Animals, especially those that have extremely similar DNA to ours, have been exceptionally helpful in medical research.
As a small beagle puppy named Sophie wakes up to burning sensations, needles, and relentless torture, she can’t help but cry out. Sophie happens to be an animal used for chemical research. Everyday she is attacked by test that only leave fatal results and excruciating pain. Sophie is just one of the many animals plagued by experimental testing through out the world.
“The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?’”(Jeremy Bentham, 1832) .Whether we should use animals for testing or not. Some would say it’s beneficial for the human race while others look at it as a form of cruelty. A high number of people, according to polls, state that they would rather like to see an alternative to testing.
Unfortunately, the difference between humans and animals lies in the way their environment affects their behavior. In Vitro testing is sometimes regarded as even more accepted and effective than animal testing itself, along with being way more ethically sound. This is also way less expensive, and can save a lot of animals from death without meaning. Many of the tests that happen to animals end up inconclusive and a fair amount of animals who are tested on end up dying. Because of the cosmetic use for animals declining, new tests are being used to show tests and side effects of makeup and other products without using an animal.
Many beauty brand companies are now turning to this kind of test rather than harming the rabbits. (Alternatives to animal
Animal testing exists to prevent certain medicines from being experimented on human beings; most often used in this research are rats, rabbits, cats, many forms of primates, and the list goes on as an estimated of ¨more than 115 million animals worldwide are used in laboratory experiments every year.¨ (Humane Society International). With this information not being common knowledge among much of the world, there is, like any situation, two sides to this
Animal Testing Sometimes when we test different medicines or different products on animals, there are serious side effects. These side effects can be very harmful and painful to the animals. These tests can be very beneficial because if we test it on an animal, then we would not give it to a human if it would harm or kill the animal. We should continue with animal testing, it may put the animals in some pain but it is better than having a human die after using it.
Whether this is morally right or wrong, I will present both sides of the argument as well as my opinion. PROS OF ANIMAL TESTING Nearly every nobel Laureate in physiology or medicine since 1901 has relied on animal research. Animal testing has decreased heavily over the years, with not very necessary things like makeup. Without animal testing we wouldn't have the many of the surgerys that we can today such as hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants, or blood transfusions.
