| Login | Become a Member | Add a Quote | | Saturday, September 6, 2008 |
| ||
|
| ||
| Home | My Profile | Browse |Search | Submit | Links | Contact |
| Words of Wisdom: | "there is so much good in the worst of us...and so much bad in the best of us...that it hardly becomes any of us...to talk about rest of us..." - mehak |
|
| ||
The Right Choice for Animal Experiments The animals use in medical experimentation has had been one of the most divisive issues since the seventeenth century. Edward Augustus Freeman, one of the most distinguished of recent English historians stated, “The awful wrongs and sufferings forced upon the innocent, faithful animal race form the blackest chapter in the whole world’s history” (Freeman). In the United States, it is estimated that twenty to seventy million animals suffer and die in the name of research. At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide, one every four seconds (Does Animal Testing . . . 32). People say: We have rights over animals. They are given to us for use. Annie Besant is often described as a theosophist, educator and friend of India say: “[No one has the] rights to over them. [Everyone has] duties towards them” (Besant). At no point and time should we ever justify ourselves through the pain and suffering of another being. Animal experimentation is a matter of life and death, regardless of what position one takes. The better informed individuals are about the issues, the more rational and logical their actions will be. The morality is rarely questioned by researchers, who generally choose to defend the practice rigidly, rather than challenge the obvious moral issues it raises. Experimenters betray their efforts to avoid morality. Scientists quickly learn to take on such a mind-set from their superior, as Cindy Mur, a teacher and an editor, explains: "One message – almost a warning – that newcomers got was that it was controversial or risky to admit to having ethical concerns, because to do so was tantamount to admitting that there really was something morally wrong with animal experimentation, thereby giving ‘ammunition to the enemy’”. They ‘sacrifice’ animals rather than kill them, and they may note animal ‘distress‘, but they rarely acknowledge pain or other suffering (Mur). Humans are using animals in experiments without noticing that animals can feel and suffer just like humans do. Humans are heartless, wicked and merciless towards non-human animals; humans have no thought for the feelings and suffering which they inconsiderately cause on animals. Peter Singer, a professor of philosophy who has written extensively on animal rights issues, has suggested that sentience is a better criterion than species: Sentient creatures are conscious of sensations (such as pain) and respond to them. A difference of species is not a good distinction because acting purely on the basis of species is no different than acting solely on the basis of sex or race. The word animal rights supporters have created to describe such thinking are speciesism, or discrimination against other species. Sentience is a more relevant guideline because it distinguishes animals that can feel pain. (Day 55-56) If a human tortures and/or kills a non-human animal, they should be penalized to the same extent as they would be for abusing another human. Yet, no one seems to care that everyday billions upon billions of innocent animals are being sickeningly, nauseatingly, hideously, vilely, anesthetically murdered for meat. In the bible, it says; “Then God said let us make man in our image … and let him have dominion over fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and over the cattle … and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth . . . ” – Genesis 1:28 (God’s Word 239). So many people mix this statement up, they’re like why should animals have rights, god doesn’t say they should! Well in the bible, it doesn’t say that we have the right to work the hell out of them, run them into the ground, brutally murder them, bash them, and maim them! It’s just like the way parents have domain over their children, they hold no right to use their children as tools, and they have no right to abuse them. It means they have the responsibility to care for them. Opposing to what many people believe, testing drugs on animals often give faulty results. “More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most undergo the most archaic and unreliable testing methods still in use: animal studies” quoted from PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world (Animal Experimentation). Although animals may seem like the perfect species for testing new drugs, the experiments are unreliable and can cause unidentified side effects. Animals are deemed necessary to develop new products for human to use. Scientists have developed many drugs by animal experimentation. Dr. Ray Greek, MD a medical doctor and author of several books attacking the efficacy of animal experiments, dismiss the idea of physiological resemblance and Dr. Jean Swingle Greek, DVM said: "We (human and non-human animals) differ on a cellular and molecular level, and, importantly, that is where disease occurs." "We were finding, through scientific research, that extrapolating data from animals to humans is misleading, unnecessary, dangerous, or all three." (Animal Experimentation/Vivisection) Animals are similar but not identical to humans and can develop some of the same health problems. When these problems are inside an animal it can have the same reactions as a human could. Animal experiments do not solve medical problems or help us to improve in medical field. Opposite to a majority of the human population belief, animals are not perfect species to find treatments for diseases. An animal can experience different physical and psychological effects compare to a human experiences. It is also impossible to re-create a naturally occurring disease, therefore many side-effects an animal may experiences could not occur because of the change in the disease. The belief is held that animal experimentation is necessary in order for vaccines, cures and treatments for human illnesses to be effective. But, the fact of the matter is animals react differently than humans to various vaccines. Since humans and animals do not contract the same diseases, these diseases have to be induced onto the animals. In addition, experimental treatments that have been proven effective on animals will not necessarily work on people. Experimenting drugs on animals can keep safe drugs off the market and keep dangerous drugs available for humans. Animal testing is unreliable, and humans should begin to not trust the information given about a drug according to an animal test. Also, humans are as almost alike as animals; we are closely related to them. It is unfair to put them through excruciating experiments just to know if humans can wear a new oil sun block. Humans are better test subjects than animals are because it is impossible to re-create naturally occurring human diseases that arise from within, in a healthy animal or even in a healthy human. This is simply because once it is re-created it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease. By re-creating a disease it is impossible to tell how the side effects have changed through reconstruction and the differences in the progression of the disease. When we re-create a disease, it is inevitable that vital information is lost to recreation alone, not even considering what is lost by the animal being injected with the human disease rather than another human (BAVA 3). There are many other ways to get the same results as humans receive from animal experiments. These methods are viewed as more moral, practical, effective, and less expensive, why wouldn’t we use these methods? Computers can often predict the toxicity of chemicals, including their potential to cause cancer or birth defects, based on their molecular structure. Computer simulations can also predict the metabolism and distribution of chemicals in human tissues. Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. By using these methods, scientists were able to invent aspirin and certain types of insulin (Argument Against . . .). Although animals may seem like the ideal specimen for experimenting with, these experiments are untrustworthy and can cause unknown side effects. Although animals have helped form useful medicines for humans like anesthesia, they have also helped put dangerous drugs on the market Protocol, a drug for heart disorders, that passed animal test was pulled off the shelves when the drug caused blindness in people. Also, arsenic, which is toxic and causes cancer in humans, has not caused cancer in any animals (AMPEF). “According to the General Accounting Office, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused serious side effects that later caused the drugs to be either relabeled or removed from the market. Drugs approved for children were twice as likely to have serious post-approval risks as other medications” (Animal Experimentation). Furthermore, animal experimentation can keep effective drugs off of the market. It’s very possible that many drugs that have been tested on animals were found to be deadly or involved serious side effects but if tested on humans could have been found to successfully cure or treat a specific disease. Even though animals sometimes have the same reactions to a disease or drug as humans do, usually the animals experience much different effects. There is also no way for experimenters to notice psychological effects on the animals; and the animals can’t tell experimenters how they feel and what they are experiencing. Animals cannot communicate through words so their frightened voices go unheard. Many important medical advances have been delayed because of misdirecting derived from animal. The animal model resulted in a misunderstanding of the infection. Studies on monkeys falsely indicated that the polio virus was transmitted via a respiratory, rather than a digestive route. This erroneous assumption resulted in misdirected preventive measures and delayed the development of tissue culture methodologies critical to the discovery of a vaccine (Day 97-99).Physical side effects can be different because humans and lab animals are different species. Animal testing fails to forecast the majority of human adverse drug reactions, which in turn causes almost 5% of all hospital admissions and occur in 10-20% of hospital in-patients (PETA 3). These inaccuracies in animal experimentation can be blamed for many deaths. For example, milrinone, a drug that raises cardiac output, increased survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure. But humans taking this drug who had severe chronic heart failure had a 30% increase in death (PETA1). A rat is different than a pig, which is different than a human. Since every species has their own differences, it is hard to predict any side effects that will occur in all the animals. The arguments for and against animal experimentation are going to continue for some time, both between the general public and those directly involved. Those who oppose animal testing believe that all testing associated with the use of laboratory animals should be banned immediately. However, one could argue by saying that a total ban on the use of animals will prevent a great deal of basic medical research, and the possible production of certain vaccines. No new medicines would develop and the safety of workers, the general public and patients would be at stake. On the other hand, the supporters of animal testing say that humans have always benefited from the health care developments that depended upon the activities of animal research and would continue to benefits from animal testing. There is a lot of pain that these animals have to undergo for testing; hence animal testing cannot be supported. At the same time animal testing cannot be banned immediately because it is our only successful channel to develop medicines and cures (Alternatives to Animal . . .). While there has been promise to find alternatives to animal testing, the best researchers can do is try to reduce the animals being used. They can resort to new scanning technologies, which can assist doctors to learn the diseases from human without the actual necessity of animals. Computers can be used to replace the animals as it would reduce the necessity of live animal experiments (Day 45). The development of substitute to animal experimentation will persistently gain impetus as people become more aware about the problem. Though it is difficult to eliminate animal testing completely, humans can prevent the animal testing by stop certain products that don’t necessary need animal testing. All humans can do now is try to reduce the animals being harmed in experiments to aim for benefiting society. Works Cited “Alternatives to Animal Testing.” FAQs. Johns Hopkins University. 2006. 13 November 2006. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm#2 “Animal Experimentation”. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). 2001. 09 November 2006. “Argument against Animal Testing. “ Christ Loves Creatures, Too! 16-November 1998. 11 November 2006. http://www.all-creatures.org/clct/art-antest.html Besant, Annie. Animal Writes© sm. The official animal rights online newsletter 1998. Issue # 10/14/01. http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/1395/aro011114.html “Does Animal Testing Help Human Medicine? 33 Facts to Consider…” February 1993. http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html. 11 November 2006. AMPEF. “Point Counterpoint”. Americans for Medical Progress Education Foundation. 1998. 4 May 2002. Day, Nancy. Animal Experimentation: Cruelty or Science? Revised. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2000. Freeman, Edward. "Rabbit's Favourite Vegetarian, Animal Rights & Freedom Quotes." Vivisection (Animal Testing) 10 October 2006. http://members.iinet.com.au/~rabbit/arquotes.htm . God's Word to the Nations. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1995. Mur, Cindy. Drug Testing. 2006. Animal Experimentation / Vivisection. “Animal Awareness”. http://www.animalawareness.org/pages/types_experimentation.html PCRM. Research Without Animals. “Animal Experimentation Issues” http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/without_animals.html This essay is only for research purposes. If used, be sure to cite it properly! |
|
All images, coding, essays, and pages cannot be used without the prior
written consent of this web site. Copyright © 1996-2008. The Essay Depot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. |