The Rights of Animals Used in Lab Tests

Is Such Testing Ethical?
Nowadays, animal testing is used in various fields such as the manufacturing of cosmetic products. Rabbits are commonly used in such tests. Sadly, the rabbits undergo torture and their survival it always at stake. I believe that such testing should end because it is unethical to treat animals are research objects or experimentation tools (Bilchitz, 2010). From this perspective, animals must be given equal rights to human beings to live a full life, free of suffering and pain. However, opponents of this point of view contend that though it is unethical to abuse these rabbits unnecessarily for the production of cosmetics, the testing must continue due to the enormous scientific resource that the rabbits offer. The advocates of this theory further assert that some advancement in the laboratories should strive to improve the rabbits’ living conditions.
Arguments Why Animal Testing is Ethical or Unethical
The center of the debate regarding animal rights centers on the issue of the ethical position of animals. I feel that using animal testing for cosmetic products is unethical because animals have some moral status as humans (Bilchitz, 2010). For this reason, it is wrong to abuse or hurt rabbits or any other animals. My argument reflects a shift from a previous perspective where animals had no moral status in the society. The main issue relates to whether animals have any moral status and rights associated with their existence. In my view, animals do have the same moral status as human beings and are entitled to humane treatment. By advocating for this ethicist position, I do not imply that the rabbits or other animals must be treated exactly like a human being; it would be absurd for an animal to hold an office or even vote. My argument is that animals or the rabbits deserve a similar degree of humane treatment as human beings (Watson, 2009). In other words, it is wrong to kill them, force them to do something or treat them as a means of furthering a goal. My argument derives from the claim that a moral status emanates from the capacity to enjoy life or suffer. Hence, many animals including rabbits do not differ from human beings. They can experience pleasure and feel pain. Therefore, they are entitled to the same moral status and equal treatment.
My reasoning for opposing animal testing relates to the inability of animals to consent to these tests. Human beings can make informed decisions while the rabbits have the tests forced upon them because they have no option. The ethical problem is, the testing involves pain, discomfort and suffering under given circumstances (Watson, 2009). For instance, in this case, chemical substances are injected into the eyes of the rabbits. We are told that these substances are painful and irritable. The main aim of this test is to check the level of irritability contained in the substances. Therefore, the companies using this test do not apply any measures to prevent the pain or irritation from occurring. Although they can use pain relievers such as anesthetic, using such may interfere with the product being tested (Watson, 2009). Therefore, the rabbits must experience the adverse effects of the products even if it involves pain and suffering.
Giving the rabbits or any other animal a lesser moral status than human beings is a form of prejudice known as speciesism (Allen & Waters, 2014). As humans, we tend to look at the human species as highly morally relevant just because we belong to this group. Sadly, we tend to consider past cases of such behavior as morally wrong. Just because we are of a particular gender or race does not grant us the basis to declare outsiders as of lower moral status. The bottom line is that animal testing is unethical and should be avoided as much as possible in favor of alternative testing methods.

References
Allen, D., & Waters, M. D. (2014). Reducing, refining and replacing the use of animals in toxicity testing. Royal Society of Chemistry
Bilchitz, D. (January 01, 2010). Does transformative constitutionalism require the recognition of animal rights? Sa Publiekreg = Sa Public Law, 25, 2, 267-300.
Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics. New York: Rosen Pub.