A Discussion on Animal Treatment, Animal Rights and Animal Testing

Animals cannot express their feelings, so it is up to humans to take on this responsibility. The thoughts about the animal rights come up with a big issue regarding the different opinions about their treatment and level of abuse. Those who are against it think that this status of property is devastating to actual protection against cruelty and abuse. But a different view is that animals do not have any important mental ability and are made for humans as a property. There are many laws against the use of animals that should prevent acts of animal cruelty, even though there are still people who concern about the effectiveness of these laws (Sunstein and Nussbaum 7). Some of these laws are also avoiding some practices that cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue. The animals are used, for instance, for biomedical research, hunting, entertainment, clothing, commercial sale, and testing in labs. For each one of these, there are benefits to the human. But sometimes it can be hard to choose whether it is worth it to do it or not. Whenever a scientist decides to use an animal for an experiment, they must weigh the benefits with the cost of making the animal suffer. This creates a problem regarding all the people who are in favor or against animal testing. Meanwhile, there are varying opinions about animal testing, including their use, abuse and benefits to humans.

Vivisection or animal testing is a very old and well-known procedure used by scientists since the beginning of scientific medicine, and most of the medical advancement in the last years has been directly or indirectly related to the use of animal testing. There are a few other alternatives to reach the same results as animal testing. But some see these alternatives as an insufficient way to treat the illness that humans face, and some see them as advancements in medical science. In a lab, animals are subjected to many kinds of pain that seem endless, and too many kinds of experiments that seem endless for scientists. They have no choice about it, is always up to humans, either to be done, or to do even more. An experiment that uses animals would be justifiable if it is done in such a way that causes minimal pain to the animals involved and if all possible alternative methods have been explored. “When scientists take the lives of animals into their hands, they have a particular duty to avoid unnecessarily cruel treatment; not only during experiments but also in the way the animals are kept and handled” (Gannon 11). However, thousands of people are saved everyday from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. That would not be possible without animal testing (Huebsch 5). Despite these benefits the animal testing gives us, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of cruelty. There is where the opposite ideas are. Some people say that the animal testing in labs is essential for the achievement of all the resources that it can give us, and some people say that it is inhuman to do such a cruelty. In fact, all of this can make a lot of people discuss, and change ideas or opinions, and can also create divergences between people who is against or in favor.

It is impossible to know how many animals are used in experiences in laboratories, because the animal welfare law does not require the scientists to make a report of the most used animals, which are rats and mice. Moreover, it is hard to know whether an experiment will work or not. Experiments taken on animals instead of a human being can be misleading, which means that an animal’s response and reaction to something can differ from a human’s. So one could also say that there is no certainty that an experiment made on an animal would also work on a human. Furthermore, animals are used today to test the population’s shampoo and cosmetic products. No doubt, it needs to be tested, but there might be another way to test it besides animals. In this case, the Episkin, a sophisticated alternative which is an artificial human skin that has the same reactions to these products as a normal human body has. Not to mention all the animals that are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories, such as mice, rat, rabbits, primates, cats, and dogs. Most of these animals are caught by “Class B” dealers, who buy them, and take them to laboratories for use in harmful experiments, especially chemical, drug and food test, and medical experiments. Equally important, the animals are often used in biology lessons, dissections and cloning, which can be painful for them as well.

Sometimes animal testing provides the only alternative to human testing, giving us some benefits. Admittedly, animal tests provide a high level of results that reduces human experimentation and also safety and effectiveness of products. As animals have short life expectancy, researches can test clinical products at different stages of their lives in a short period of time. This also allow new drugs procedures to be approved faster, going into popular use quickly, and hence could save lives (Palmer 2). Therefore, some toxins and unexpected effects of a drug would be avoided for humans, and are easier to identify on animals. These drugs must go through clinics of testing before being approved by the government, which increases the quality of medicines given to the population. Nevertheless, not every animal could be tested. Animal testing requires the right animal to test each product, which may be a problem if ignored. To illustrate, some types of cats are allergic to forms of eye- and skin-irritation tests and cannot be subjected to this kind of test. Similarly to these cats, there are also several types of monkeys that are resistant to forms of HIV, and are poor choices for HIV drug testing.

Ultimately, the different opinions and uses of animals for testing in labs may be conflicting. Lots of people care about the animals, but sometimes it is not enough. Those who care about the animal rights must collate with those who are in favor of animal using in lab, and this often ends up with a big battle. It is not possible to determine who is right, and who is wrong. It means that there is no way to know whether anyone will stand out. This issue may never be solved, and the animals may never have their rights approved of all the people.

Cite this page