|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings? |
|
|
| |
Author:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom )
Dr. Thomas Dixon is research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. |
Created: Wednesday, June 28, 2000
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 07, 2009
|
| |
For many centuries people have experimented on animals. There are two main reasons for doing this: first, to find out more about the animals themselves, and, secondly, to test substances and procedures to see if they are harmful (with a view to deciding whether or not they can be used on human beings). In the second category fall cosmetic products as well as medicines and surgical techniques. There is a growing consensus that it is not acceptable to test cosmetic products on animals. This debate is about whether we should experiment on animals for scientific and medical purposes. The debate about the pros and cons of animal experimentation (or 'vivisection') is one that elicits very strong emotions: animal rights activists have resorted to trespass, violence, death threats, and hunger strikes in their single-minded (and sometimes illegal) mission to end this practice. |
 |
|
|
| Experiments on animals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proper principle to apply, however, is that the reduction of human suffering is our first priority and the prevention of animal suffering or death is secondary to that (although still important). So that if there is a decent chance that an experiment will result in an important medical breakthrough that will reduce human suffering and death then it is justifiable to allow animal suffering. Animal experimentation is the (sometimes distasteful) means to much greater ends. |
|
Animals have the right to be treated as beings of value in themselves, not as the means to human ends; this principle must be applies in order to guarantee the end of cruelty to animals. The application of this principle means that animals should never be experimented upon whatever the potential gain for humanity. To infect monkeys with the AIDS virus or to expose rodents to toxic chemicals and radiation is simply not acceptable, whatever the supposed benefits. |
 |
|
|
| Although in principle it is more important to reduce human suffering that to prevent animal suffering, in practice it is possible (and absolutely right) to keep animal suffering to an absolute minimum. Animal experimenters should aspire to the highest levels of animal welfare in their laboratories, using anaesthetics wherever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. In short, it is possible to experiment on animals without being cruel to animals. |
|
In practice, as everyone knows, animals are not routinely treated well by animal experimenters. Apart from the fact that millions of animals die each year in experiments, others are often not adequately anaesthetised and are abused by handlers and experimenters. It is idealistic to suppose that this will ever stop as long as society endorses vivisection. |
|
|
|
| Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity. |
|
In fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects. Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory. |
|
|
|
| Human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees and only slightly fewer with other monkeys. As a result, the reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. Even lower down the scale, other animals share the same basic physiology with humans. Furthermore, it would be immoral to risk the life of a human being when a medicine or procedure could instead be tested on a non-human animal. |
|
In fact, most animal experiments are done on animals that are nothing like human beings - rats and mice - which undermines the argument that these experiments are a reliable guide to human reactions. Scientifically, as well as morally, most animal experimentation is to be rejected - the reaction of a mouse to a substance is no guide to human reactions. Each species has its own unique physiology. And the more similar an animal is to a human being - e.g. a chimpanzee - the more intelligent and sentient it is, and so the more immoral it is to treat is as a disposable and worthless biological object. |
|
|
|
| There are indeed new issues raised by the advent of genetic engineering and 'transgenic' animals; these, like all animal experiments should be closely monitored so as to minimise animal suffering. The fact that there are new issues here does not mean that there should never be any experiments on animals. |
|
The advent of genetic technologies has made possible all sorts of new and horrific acts of animal exploitation, from cloning sheep to creating mutant and hybrid creatures with no dignity or quality of life at all. We should end animal experimentation before things get even worse. |
|
|
|
| What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. |
|
It is only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their consent. Non-human animals are never able to give such consent. It is therefore never acceptable to test medicines on perfectly healthy animals, even if the treatments are for use on other animals. |
|
|
|
| | This House Would Experiment on Animals for Human Benefit
This House Puts People First
The House Would Break the Law to End Vivisection
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
Meg O
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 5, 2010 08:11 pm |
|
| I am definitely against animal testing. Tanjim, i'll be sure to sign you up for the next drug testing for a dog perscription. Yes i didn't think that would appeal to you. Animals can become seriously harmed when testing drugs and other things on them. I would much rather pay more for a drug that wasn't tested on some poor persons dog than pay less for one that was. The money is well worth saving an animal from a harmful situation.
|
rajesh005.703
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 09:58 am |
|
| i support this argument but only on 1 basics experimenting on the animals when ther er are alive is ligeal but it should be done after the dead ......i dont consider killing animals is good we should be treated them as human being ....but to improve the technlogy and medicice we have to experiment on the annimals it is facts medicine
|
tanjim
Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:54 pm |
|
I am supporting experiment on animals on this basis that if experiment done on human beings it would require more cost than that on animals .As it is not possible to market a drug or procedure on a large scale without testing it formally and in point animals are a reliable source.Suppose in case of human there is a demand of insurance I mean if men experimented if died or somewhat out of order then it is the responsibility of experimenter to compensate and it will ultimately lead to increase of cost. Therfore with respect to cost it is a pretty good choice to make experiment on animals.
Also we have to take easy realities and conditions of our nature ,here in every phase it is evident that superior has a controlling power on its inferior .If we say on that viewpoint then this motion favors us that experiment on animals is just.When we swallow animals then there does not raise any question with regard to validity of this type of job but whenever they are taken as the means of experiment some are screming as invalid or unjust that looks somewhat ill tempered .Therefore it is rational to respect nature and advocate this job.
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
