Animal Testing Should Not Be Aloud free essay sample

Have you ever looked at a product and wondered how it was made or how it got approved? Before people got involved in animal rights, most of the products being used by humans were tested on animals first. But neither did people thought that our products were killing millions of animals because they were being used on first. Animal testing should not be allowed because it’s unethical to them, it’s bad science, it is very old fashion, animals rights are being violated, and lastly, there are other ways we can test without animals. First, its unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear. These animals haven’t done anything to us so why torture them? The pain and suffering that experimental animals are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. The American Veterinary Medical Association defines animal pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage (Orlans 129). We will write a custom essay sample on Animal Testing Should Not Be Aloud or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page When animals are used for product testing or lab research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. According to LoneStar Research, â€Å"Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test, both of which are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals. † In the Draize test, the product being tested is placed in the eyes of an animal, and then the animal is monitored for damage to the cornea and other tissues in and near the eye. This test is very painful for the animal, blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. â€Å"The Draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life. The LD50 test is used to test the dosage of a substance that is necessary to cause death in fifty percent of the animal subjects within a certain amount of time† (LoneStar). Orlans says the animals suffer from vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsion, and internal bleeding. Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia (154). Second, its bad science. We already test new drugs on people and no matter how many animal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. Reading an article from PETA, according to them, â€Å"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of the small percentages that are approved for human use, half are relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests. † Fortunately, there are modern in vitro (test tube) and safe human-based methods available to accurately test the safety and effectiveness of a drug on the human body. In addition, its archaic. â€Å"Scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based micro-dosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and sophisticated computer modeling, which are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests† (PETA). One of the greatest trends in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that the results of animal tests are rarely relevant to humans. As well, â€Å"studies in esteemed publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal have repeatedly concluded that because of the fundamental biological differences among species, animal tests do not reliably predict outcomes in humans† (PETA). These same studies have also concluded that the overwhelming majority of animal experiments fail to lead to medical advances that improve the health of humans and, in fact, are often dangerously misleading. â€Å"Non-animal methods usually take less time to complete than the crude, archaic animal tests that they replace. They cost only a fraction of what animal experiments cost and are not affected by species differences that make applying test results to humans difficult or impossible† (PETA). They are effective, affordable, and humane research methods include as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients. â€Å"Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U. S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience† (PETA). Next, animals rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. . . .This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment (Orlans 26). Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. Yet animals rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment. Regan further says, for example, that animal experimentation is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animals basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them (Orlans 26). Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. When humans decide the fate of animals in research environments, the animals rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals. Lastly, there are other ways we can test without animals. Vivisection is experimentation on a live animal. Vivisection is understood to include any type of experimentation on any type of animal, regardless of whether the animal is literally cut. Ending vivisection would not end medical progress because non-animal research would continue. There are so many medical issues that go unexplored because the lack of resources. If we took all the resources that go into animal research and redirected them towards non-animal research; we would continue to make medical progress. â€Å"The cause and cure for scurvy were discovered without using animals, with studies done on human subjects who already had scurvy. The first vaccine was invented in the 18th century without animal experimentation, when people were inoculated with cowpox in order to build up their resistance to smallpox. Penicillin was also discovered without animal research. More recently, the Heimlich maneuver was developed without vivisection and has saved countless lives† (Animalrights). In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it’s unethical to them, it’s bad science, it is very old fashion, animals rights are being violated, and lastly, there are other ways we can test without animals. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves by randomly torturing thousands of animals per year to perform lab experiments or to test products. Animals should be treated with respect and dignity, and this right to decent treatment is not upheld when animals are exploited for selfish human gain.