Animal Testing for Products Animal

Animal Testing for Products Animal Testing - the Cons The use of animal testing increased in the United States in the late 19th century and as a reaction to it, groups that spoke for the rights of animals were formed. If one asks the people conducting experiments on animals as to why they do such a thing, their initial response would be that animals are like humans.

When asked why they consider it to be morally okay to experiment on animals but not humans, they would say that animals are not like us (Anonymous). Animal testing is not a requirement by law either and hence there is no reason why one should continue with these unethical practices. Each year, millions of animals are tested upon in the United States and such experiments include the isolation of baby monkeys from their mothers.

This is inhuman and as no human would put a baby away from his mother, similarly no human should put a baby animal away from its mother. Every child needs its mother and it is barbaric of the human race to separate them from each other, whether it is the child of man or the child of an animal. "The main disadvantages to animal tests, according to John Frazier and Alan Goldberg, of CAAT, are: 'Animal discomfort and death, species-extrapolation problems, and excessive time and expense'" (Karen Lee Stevens).

Moreover, vivisection does not guarantee the accuracy of the treatment as human diseases differ from animal diseases and the result can be very misleading at times. Further the therapy of the drug differs depending on the species that it is used upon. Therefore a drug might have beneficial effects on a monkey but it could have adverse effects on a human. Belladonna is harmless to rabbits but can kill a human.

More examples like these are seen throughout history and one was seen in England where Opren, an anti-rheumatic drug, caused the death of over 70 people and put over 3000 people into critical conditions. Opren was tested on animals for 7 whole years and was announced to be safe and effective. However that was certainly not the case. Eraldin, a drug once prescribed to people for heart disease is now banned due to its adverse effects on humans.

This drug was also heavily tested on animals but the effect it had on them differed greatly to the effect it had on humans. Protease inhibitor drugs today are proven to be very effective in HIV infected people who can live normal lives despite being infected. We should thank our scientists for developing such a drug but also we should ask them about the delay in producing this.

The answer will be that when tested on animals, this drug proved to be lethal and hence it was discontinued (Peter Tatchell, p.18). When we have examples which establish that animal testing serves no purpose to develop drugs and therapies for the humans, why do we still need to torture the animals and put them through pain? Man has certainly become a barbarian.

It is also known that when an animal became diseased, it was cheaper for the animal testing industries to purchase another one than to use the help of veterinarians to cure them (Andrew N. Rowan, p.19). Animal health care is none of their concern and as long as the animal is in a good condition, they will take care of it and if it gets ill then they would throw it away. This is a highly immoral practice.

"Ethically speaking, to deliberately exploit, torture and kill another sentient creature, be they human or nonhuman, is an intrinsically evil abuse of power" (Anonymous). Animal Testing - The Pros Animal tests are conducted for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals for the betterment of man. The intrinsic value of a human life is much more than an animal life and it is much more appropriate to test new drugs on animals rather than humans. Animal testing has proved to be beneficial for people especially with the advent of anesthetics.

Before the use of anesthetics operations, amputations and caesareans were an awful sight to witness or undergo (Anonymous). Animal testing made use of such techniques where pain is not felt. "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" (Thomas Dixon). Animal testing is not only for the benefit of the humans but is also beneficial to the animals themselves.

"The research of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences benefits animals because NIEHS research contributes to protecting the environment for all the life that shares the earth - companion animals, farm animals, wildlife, marine life - and plant life as well" (Anonymous). Much more animals are consumed as a food source by humans and only a small percentage are used for animal testing. Some of these animals are also the ones that are abandoned and are kept in pounds or shelters (Kate Kristoff).

Animal testing has been proved to be beneficial regarding a lot of diseases and this cannot be denied by anyone. Scientists do not love to put animals to testing for no reason whatever. There are legislations that prevent any cruelty and thus animals are kept under humane conditions. It is no wonder that recently "500 top UK scientists and doctors today signed a declaration defending the use of animals in medical research and scientific testing" (Finfacts Team).

Many do express their concern that animals are put through pain when they are killed but this is only a misconception. Animals are killed in such a way that they do not feel any pain. They die before they can even suffer. It is important for animal testing to continue for the benefit of humans as well as animals.

Some of the benefits which animal testing has brought about are the vaccines of rabies, mumps, polio, TB and it has also made it possible to perform open-heart operations as well as organ transplantation. CONCLUSION People might talk about the benefits of animal testing but it is established that animal testing can delay the production of drugs which would be beneficial to the humans because they expressed adverse reactions in the animals.

Such was seen in the case of Protease inhibitor drugs and their delay causing the deaths of numerous people who were suffering from HIV infection. There are other alternatives which include test tube experimentations of human tissue cultures. These should be opted for and used rather than the inhumane treatment of animals which no legislation can prevent.

The scientists might say that no pain is caused but is there any way to measure whether any pain is caused or not? What about the stress that the animal is put through in isolation? We cannot measure these and it is immoral and unethical to use animals and put them through torture and.