In any aspect of life, the well being of oneself comes before any other considerations. With in mind, medicine has a very similar view. The health and prosperity of the human race comes before any other considerations. This brings about the grounds for
the practice of nonhuman animal testing. With this, professional and ethical issues are raised and must be explored in order for a conclusive answer to be given.
The statement that “animals have rights” is one that very few people will disagree with. There are those, however, who see animal cruelty as a form of entertainment. The ethical question then arises asks whether the “cruelty” against an animal can be benefited for humans or should humans benefit from themselves.
It is evident that the human race is at the pinnacle of creation as they have achieved progressive heights that cannot be matched by any other species. Unfortunately, animal research has been a fundamental part of their continued progress. Since Aristotle, animals have been used utilized for the benefit of humans. The question of why this has occurred for some time is because they had no other alternative than direct human testing. Man has come a long way and must find seek other testing techniques that are advanced in order to eliminate this harmful practice. One possibility is from Professor Joordens in which he indicates that humans should test on humans who have the desired disease. This would bring about greater thought as experiments would encompass a greater meaning to them.
Medical research done on humans is a delicate process. There are many skeptics who believe that human testing should be prohibited as human life is considered more valuable than the life of animals. From a biological standpoint, it is said that all life is stemmed from a common ancestor. What then is the difference between the experiments of a human and an animal as treating animals differently would make them subhuman – no rights, feeling of pleasure and pain. (You may want to rephrase this sentence) This subhuman difference causes negative effects as some drugs that are safe on animals may potentially not be safe on humans and vice versa. Thus, it is apparent that testing on animals is erratic which is why promotion of human testing should be carried out.
Furthermore, animals have rights! Every day, laboratory animals are exploited and are enduring suffer for the benefit of testing and research. How is it that a person can be charged for neglecting and not feeding their pet while companies can torture and kill millions of animals every year and no consequence is donned upon them? Thus, animals are deprived of their dignity. When a human imposes its life on an animal, they have taken over that life have become its jury, judge and executioner. Animals have no say which is why human testing should be implemented.
Humans voluntarily submit to an experiment with the acknowledgment that something potentially can go wrong. According to Professor Joordens’, his opinion piece says that human based exponents are much more accurate even though progress may slow down. It occurs as scientists will spend more time planning the experiment through as they are dealing with a human. The speed of progress is only relative as it is compared to the past. Over time, man will become accustomed to it and will find the true benefit of human rather than animal testing.
Consequently, animal research is an immoral practice that must be reduced and abolished whenever possible. The cruelty performed among animals may be beneficial but it is certainly not ethical. The development to the extensive application of substitutes to animal experimentation will persistently gain momentum as people become more aware about the problem. However, for now, all one can do is try to reduce the number of animals harmed.