Animal Testing: A Reasonable Stance
Animals can give us love and happiness when we are caring for them as pets, but what else can animals give us? Over the past century animals have also given us vaccines, drugs, and more that have kept our society healthy and safe from deadly infections, all due to animal testing. But are the welfare of animals something that should be risked to make our lives better? The issue of animal testing has caused an ongoing battle in our society that deals with both science and animal rights. There are those who favor it because it is allows for scientific progress, and there are those who oppose it because it is the ethically right thing to do. Both sides have ...view middle of the document...
The main argument for animal testing is that without it, medicine, as we know it today would not exist. Animal research has enabled the findings of treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines for prevention of some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities. According to Foundation for Biomedical Research:
“Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals” (Foundation for Biomedical Research).
This shows how important animal testing has been, not only in medical progression, but also for human and animal health and well-being. A world without animal testing would mean more people and animals dieing from cancer and even common illnesses like the flu. People don’t always realize what animal research has done for them. Frankie Trull, founder and president of the Washington-based Foundation for Biomedical Research says, “If you're healthy, then you say, ‘Let's not use any animals’” (Clemmitt). But what if you aren’t healthy? Wouldn’t you want research to be done that could make you healthy again? Not only for humans, but animals too. The pro side of animal testing does not intentionally want to harm animals, but it wants to continue animal research because it benefits all living species and allows them to live longer, healthier, happier lives.
In contrast, the primary argument against animal testing is that it is inhumane. Those against animal testing believe it is unnecessary for animals to go through pain and suffer for the benefit of the human race. The advocacy for no pain and suffering is centered on animal rights. Because those for animal rights argue that sentient animals have a right to their own life; they are not ours to do with as we please. Mark Bernstein, a professor of philosophy and ethics at Purdue University explains animal right this way:
“To my mind, we shouldn't be thinking of monkeys as commodities, disposable resources” that can be the object of distressing experimentation. Just by virtue of their sentience, their capacity to suffer, they should have the minimal right to not suffer. We don't treat compromised human beings — such as people with severe cognitive disabilities — “that way”” (Bernstein).
This shows that because of animal’s ability to feel, the right to not suffering should be given. Evidence of the emotional and physical stresses of research animals is all over the Internet. These images are disturbing and hard to look at, and often bring out a sympathetic side that can sometimes sway our opinions. Those...