The use of species of animals for research purposes and cruel experiments presents an ethical dilemma as it involves subjecting living creatures to pain, suffering, or death for the benefit of humankind, irrespective of their inability to give consent. The rights of animals are safeguarded by Animal Welfare Acts, which implement regulations that seek to make sure that animals are cared for without being treated unkindly. The people who oppose the use of animals in experiments validate their stand through affirming that most of the tests are painful and the conditions that they are subjected to may result in them having psychological problems. Contrary to the opponents, the supporters of experimenting on animals assert that when carried out responsibly, it has nothing erroneous and saves the lives of human beings.
The fundamental rationale for the use of animals for research purposes is to establish some confirmation prior to the application of a new compound on the human race. Such tests include efficacy, safety, whether the compound being tested is safe for ingestion by humans, and the probability of the product working for its anticipated purpose (Metzger 11-12). Since the use of animals in experiments seeks to protect human life, which is more important than that of animals, it is a vital step before introducing products to people. To uphold the rights of animals, experiments are continually ensuring that everything is undertaken to ensure that the animals being used are as comfortable as possible, encompassing the administration of pain alleviation medications before being made to undergo excruciating tests.
Experimenting on animals might appear appalling for some people though it is crucial. Finding the best medication for diseases presents a great need for human beings, and such tests assist in making this a reality. Finding the cure for some diseases is intricate and difficult to come by, yet the moment it is obtained must first be employed on animals before being used by humans (Raveendran 179). Though it might appear cruel, experimenting on animals saves human lives when the cure for a fatal disease is found. It is better to put animals in danger than lose people’s lives in the process of trying to treat their diseases with untested products or testing a possible cure. Using animals in experiments, therefore, determines whether a given compound is suitable for humans after observing its effects or reactions on them. In this regard, experimenting on animals has played a major role in nearly all medical breakthroughs over centuries. Moreover, it has resulted in saving hundreds of millions of human lives across the globe.
Devoid of any doubt, animals are beneficial to human beings, and their treatment by people has become a critical concern in society in the recent decades. They have been persistently mistreated by human beings severely with the protection of their rights becoming a vital topic while gaining much wakefulness in the modern society to a position where human beings have resorted to treating them as pets. Imagining the pain, suffering, and affliction that animals suffer both psychologically and physically in the course of experiments by human beings, there is a need to look for other alternatives (Wang and Chan 159-160). Experimenting on animals is a harsh activity, which negatively affects them in different ways in the process of developing medical treatments and should be prohibited internationally.
Human beings protect their rights on many concerns such as self-respect, happiness, medical care, employment, voting, and communication. Such rights are strictly safeguarded to avoid taking away non-fundamental interests, for instance, quality of life, comfortableness, or losing interests that reduce the quality of life. People have thus sort to create systems in which they have to select the choices that they warrant or the manner in which they should not be treated as a way of satisfying their desires. This is why humans resort to experimenting on animals for their benefit irrespective of the animal’s suffering. On the grounds of legitimacy, morality, and need, it is cruel and unethical to intentionally subject animals to pain and suffering for any reason (Wong 149). Just like human beings, animals are living organisms, feel pain, and ought to have their rights safeguarded from such actions as inhuman tests.
Experimenting on animals has been carried out since time immemorial. One example is where Louis Pasteur employed hens in the development of smallpox vaccine that saved the lives of countless human beings. However, with the changing times and technological advancements, there is no need to keep on using species of animals for research purposes and cruel experiments. Studies have established that millions of animals are killed each year in the testing of new products. Experimenting on animals is unnecessary since the use of scientific advancements could lead to many replacement approaches, for example, making use of synthetic skin, a method referred to as Corrositex. A different alternative is computer application; mainly to assist scientists to have sufficient information on a given test compound before its use on humans, hence requiring no harming of animals (Chakraborty 34-35). Other refinement practices entail voluntary human testing, first-rate magnetic resonance imaging, and experimenting on manufactured human cells. Moreover, studies by renowned researchers have repeatedly found that due to the essential biological differences amid species, some experiments on animals do not dependably envisage outcomes in humankind.
A wide pool of studies has established that an overwhelming majority of experiments on animals fail to result in medical practices that improve the wellbeing of people and, in effect, are at times dangerously disingenuous. On this note, it can be concluded that the most favorable approach to obtain proper outcomes for medical products is well-researched experiments on human beings themselves or other ways that do not harm animals. Experimenting on animals has turned out to be an obsolete means that may skew outcomes for application on humans and can have negative consequences on people’s health (Chakraborty 37-39). Acceptance of this reality will result in scientists developing, justifying, and using other techniques for studying diseases and restoring the health of patients while saving the lives of animals. Biotechnology companies are currently developing in vitro human liver that may be employed in studying the breakdown of chemicals in a person’s body. Such technology could be exploited to successfully imitate human organs and effectively test medical products and cosmetics.
The use of animals in experiments involves subjecting them to pain, suffering, and death. Since there are many modern methods that may be used to test products before their use by humans, experimenting on animals should be outlawed, and alternative techniques developed. It should be forbidden to use species of animals for research purposes and cruel experiments as their drawbacks outweigh the gains.
Works Cited
Chakraborty, Sreetama. “Animal Ethics: Beyond Neutrality, Universality, and Consistency.” Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, vol. 7, no. 3, 2017, pp. 34-45.
Metzger, Mitchell. “Exposure to Animal Welfare Regulations Does Not Influence Attitudes Toward Animal Research Procedures.” Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, vol. 13, no. 2, 2017, pp. 11-15.
Raveendran, Ramasamy. “Animal Experimentation in Postgraduate Training.” Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, vol. 5, no. 3, 2014, pp 179-184.
Wang, Yuanfang, and Peng Chan. “Animal Mistreatment in Business: Ethical Challenges and Solutions.” International Business Research, vol. 10, no. 5, 2017, pp. 159-165.
Wong, Yi, and Aziz Nather. “Ethics for Research.” Planning Your Research and How to Write It, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, pp. 149-179.
