Animal Testing Argumentative Essay
When it comes to the topic of animal testing, most of us will readily agree that it is a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether it helps researchers to find new drugs and treatments suitable for humans. Whereas some are convinced that it does help researchers find new drugs and treatments, others maintain that some drugs tested on animals may never actually be useful or even safe for human consumption. In my own view the results of animals testing are unreliable because animals and humans are not genetically or anatomically alike to one another. Although there has been many advances in drugs and treatments for certain diseases and conditions due to animal testing, not all of them have been
…show more content…
There has been many others, such as oraflex causing liver failure, flenac causing liver failure as well, butazolidin liver disease as well as bone marrow disease, cylert causing liver failure in children and even death, rezulin caused liver failure, propulsid caused over 300 deaths in children due to unnatural heart rhythms, inocor caused heart failure, and baycol caused fatal muscle wasting. All at a point where proven to be safe when they were tested on animals, but ended up being harmful to humans. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of drugs tested and were shown to be safe and effective on animals failed in human trials due to them being unsafe or ineffective . John J. Pippin, M.D., and Kristie Stoick, M.P.H., state, “According to some estimates, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 2.2 million hospitalizations and 106,000 deaths annually.” In making this comment, Pippin and Stoick argue that animal testing isn’t always reliable with the results they get from animals and how the animal reacts to a drug so when a human uses the new drug which is made to seem to be harmless humans end up with horrible side effects sometimes even leading to death. In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of animal testing can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that animal testing is the only way
There has been many others, such as oraflex causing liver failure, flenac causing liver failure as well, butazolidin liver disease as well as bone marrow disease, cylert causing liver failure in children and even death, rezulin caused liver failure, propulsid caused over 300 deaths in children due to unnatural heart rhythms, inocor caused heart failure, and baycol caused fatal muscle wasting. All at a point where proven to be safe when they were tested on animals, but ended up being harmful to humans. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of drugs tested and were shown to be safe and effective on animals failed in human trials due to them being unsafe or ineffective . John J. Pippin, M.D., and Kristie Stoick, M.P.H., state, “According to some estimates, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 2.2 million hospitalizations and 106,000 deaths annually.” In making this comment, Pippin and Stoick argue that animal testing isn’t always reliable with the results they get from animals and how the animal reacts to a drug so when a human uses the new drug which is made to seem to be harmless humans end up with horrible side effects sometimes even leading to death. In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of animal testing can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that animal testing is the only way