Is Animal Experimentation Necessary And Moral?
1 xxxxx Mr. Haupt
English 10
March 5, 2014 Is Animal Experimentation Necessary and Moral?
Background
Knowing the effectiveness of medical treatments, the toxicity of pharmaceuticals, and the safety of products for human use are possible because many products are first tested on animals. Animal experimentation has passionate supporters and detractors. Animal testing has been around since 500 B.C., when famous physicians such as Aristotle and Herophilus were experimenting on animals to discover the functions of living organisms. Aristotle’s belief was that animals lacked intelligence, so injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher and student of Aristotle, believed the opposite. He felt that animals can experience …show more content…
Vivisection (dissection of a living organism) was originally practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria. The increase in the owning of pets started an interest in an anti-vivisection movement, mainly in England. The Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection was formed in 1875, which was followed by the formation of a number of similar groups. Today, animal testing is widespread. “Millions of animals are used in laboratories around the world. Scientists may use 2 animals to test toxic chemicals or to develop new surgery techniques. They may cause cancers and infections in animals to study them and develop cures. They may kill the animals to collect tissues and study their cells” (“animal experimentation”). Both proponents and opponents of animal experimentation have their arguments as to why animal testing should or should not be allowed.
Side One: Animal Experimentation Is Ethical and …show more content…
A third reason why some people believe animal testing should be terminated is that test results are not always one hundred percent accurate. Sometimes products that are safe for animals prove to be unsafe for humans. In the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill, thalidomide, which had been successfully tested on animals. This pill had a defect, though, and resulted in the deformities of 10,000 newborn babies. In addition to this, procon.org reports that, “animal tests on the arthritis drug, Vioxx, showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.”
Even though a certain drug may appear to be highly effective on animals, it does not 100% guarantee the same effect on humans. There is always the occasional medicine defect that does not come to light when tested on animals, and these defects can result in the loss or damaging of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
Conclusion
The crux of the issue of animal experimentation is whether or not we think it is absolutely necessary and moral to experiment on animals in the hope for benefits to
English 10
March 5, 2014 Is Animal Experimentation Necessary and Moral?
Background
Knowing the effectiveness of medical treatments, the toxicity of pharmaceuticals, and the safety of products for human use are possible because many products are first tested on animals. Animal experimentation has passionate supporters and detractors. Animal testing has been around since 500 B.C., when famous physicians such as Aristotle and Herophilus were experimenting on animals to discover the functions of living organisms. Aristotle’s belief was that animals lacked intelligence, so injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher and student of Aristotle, believed the opposite. He felt that animals can experience …show more content…
Vivisection (dissection of a living organism) was originally practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria. The increase in the owning of pets started an interest in an anti-vivisection movement, mainly in England. The Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection was formed in 1875, which was followed by the formation of a number of similar groups. Today, animal testing is widespread. “Millions of animals are used in laboratories around the world. Scientists may use 2 animals to test toxic chemicals or to develop new surgery techniques. They may cause cancers and infections in animals to study them and develop cures. They may kill the animals to collect tissues and study their cells” (“animal experimentation”). Both proponents and opponents of animal experimentation have their arguments as to why animal testing should or should not be allowed.
Side One: Animal Experimentation Is Ethical and …show more content…
A third reason why some people believe animal testing should be terminated is that test results are not always one hundred percent accurate. Sometimes products that are safe for animals prove to be unsafe for humans. In the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill, thalidomide, which had been successfully tested on animals. This pill had a defect, though, and resulted in the deformities of 10,000 newborn babies. In addition to this, procon.org reports that, “animal tests on the arthritis drug, Vioxx, showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.”
Even though a certain drug may appear to be highly effective on animals, it does not 100% guarantee the same effect on humans. There is always the occasional medicine defect that does not come to light when tested on animals, and these defects can result in the loss or damaging of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
Conclusion
The crux of the issue of animal experimentation is whether or not we think it is absolutely necessary and moral to experiment on animals in the hope for benefits to