Animal rights and ethical considerations

Animal Rights

Ethical standards of behavior have evolved along with human understanding of the value of life. Indeed, this fact is evident in the historical evolution of the human right to life, liberty, and dignity, which was followed by the belief that life in all its myriad forms should be valued. In fact, it is the latter worldview, which now forms the basis of the controversy over the use of animals in medical research and experiments. Currently, this controversy revolves around whether animals have as much right to life as human beings. Depending on the standpoint taken on this basic issue, arguments range on a continuum between animal welfare and animal rights. Animal welfare theories hold that while animals have interests, those interests can be sacrificed if there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice (BBC, 2004). As against this, animal rights activists believe that animals have the same rights as human beings, which include the right to life, freedom from ownership and confinement, and from use as a food source or subject of medical research without consent (AMP, 2004). It is the objective of this paper to research the arguments of both animal welfare and animal rights theories before attempting to draw any conclusion on the subject.

Interestingly, the perspective of animal welfare groups can be said to match with that of the scientific community. For one, both these groups hold the view that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not possible since medical research is still needed to find cures and treatments for diseases that currently threaten the quality of both human and animal life. In addition, these groups advocate that new consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be tested to identify risks to both human and animal health as well as hazards to the environment (FRAME).

A point worth noting in the preceding argument is that there is a clear respect for the value of animal life. Indeed, this fact is evident in the view that using animals in medical research benefits both humans as well as animals. But perhaps, more important, both these groups believe that the care and use of experimental animals must be in compliance with all relevant animal welfare laws and guidelines, and that, as far as possible alternative procedures such as mathematical models, computer simulation and in vitro biological systems should be used (FRAME). In other words, the 'Three Rs' of Replacement (alternative methods such as testing on cell cultures), Reduction (statistics to reduce the number of animals), and Refinement (improve the experiment to reduce animal suffering) are the principles that must be followed to ensure a humane experimental approach (BBC, 2004).

Thus, it is evident that the scientific community and animal welfare theories respect the value of animal life. However, they nevertheless support the use of animal experiments where necessary because of historical precedence. In effect, they point out the many beneficial medical breakthroughs that have emerged from experimenting with animals such as kidney transplants, cardiac surgery, and drugs for diseases ranging from hypertension and manic depression to polio, small pox and other dreaded infectious diseases (Goodwin & Morrison, 2000). Based on these facts, the scientific community and animal welfare groups support animal experiments in medical research where it is found to be absolutely necessary.

To counter the main argument in favor of animal experiments, animal rights groups contend that all sentient creatures are capable of feeling pain and, therefore, conducting experiments on animals is the moral equivalent to using brain damaged humans or infants before the age of reasoning (Goodwin & Morrison, 2000). In addition, they argue that animal experiments can be misleading since the organs of animals react differently to that of humans. As proof, animal rights activists point to examples such as the failure to find anything similar to the cholera process in animals or the fact that all tests on animals failed completely in the case of the drug Thalidomide (Mather, 2003). To further strengthen the case against the use of animals in medical research, other arguments that are commonly used are: the existence of alternatives such as test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics, and computer models; the fact that the stress endured by animals in laboratories can affect experiments, making the exercise meaningless; and the use of animals to test items like cleaning products simply cannot be justified on the grounds of benefiting humankind (BBC, 2004).