Medical Testing On Animals
“Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty” (Popova, par. 1). In most matters, including medicine, the welfare of the human race is a chief concern before any other consideration. This is the justification for the use of non-human animal testing in medicine. Of course, this argument brings concern into the minds of men that are both ethical and professional and need exploring before a precise answer can be given. The medicine must be tested before human use; however, animals have rights. Therefore, humans should not only have compassion for eachother, but for all creatures because testing on them is immoral and ineffective.
Animals need rights. Animal cruelty in itself is completely wrong. The real ethical question comes when humanity can benefit from cruelty committed against an animal. Mankind appears to be at the pinnacle of creation. Though humans have only been on Earth for less than the blink of an eye, they have achieved heights unparalleled by any species to inhabit the world. Due to this, humans have looked at the rest of existence as lesser than themselves. “Although we control the fate of the other animals on this planet, we still find it necessary to continually exert our self-professed superiority” (Grillo, par. 3). The view of superiority has begun to diminish only recently. The first reason for this elevated respect for non-human animals comes from the same source as the concern for fellow human beings: compassion. As a species, humans have developed the ability to empathize with other living beings. While this ability is strongest when dealing with other humans, it is also possible to do this with animals. This is of course followed by hard reasoning as to why non-humans animals do have rights.
One reason for animal testing is safety. New and advanced drugs or techniques must be experimented and proved to work to save the lives of other human beings. In which case it would be unethical to experiment on said humans because the drug or technique may not work. “When a new drug or surgical technique is developed, society deems it unethical to use that drug or technique first in human beings because of the possibility that it would cause harm rather than good. Instead, the drug or technique is tested in animals to make sure that it is safe and effective.” (Read, par. 2). It does not matter how smart someone such as a doctor or operator is or how simple the procedure is, many times, something is overlooked before being carried out. It is generally a good idea to apply Murphy’s Law and assume there are going many things that have the possibility of going wrong; therefore, it is wise to eliminate all of the unforeseen problems before patients begin to be treated. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states four reasons for requiring the use of animal testing. “To discover how much of the drug is absorbed into the bloodstream of the animal, how the body chemically breaks it down, the toxicity of the drug, its breakdown points, and how long it takes for the body to excrete the drug and its byproducts” ( U.S. par, 3). The FDA assures the public that drug companies use as few animals as necessary - a decision reinforced by the cost of testing, and that animals are treated humanely (U.S. par, 5). The experiments done on animals is only one step in a long process for receiving approval for the drug being tested.
First, the theory is picked over with a fine toothed comb, since the drawing board is the cheapest place to catch a mistake. Then, animals are selected for experimentation. The FDA requires an explanation for the appropriateness of the species of animal being used with regard to its relevance and safety. The detailed results of these experiments are to be turned into the FDA. Animal testing is not only immoral, but ineffective. SIAV gives the example of monkeys being strapped to chairs, or cats with electrodes on their heads (The Scientific, par. 1). Many people try to put images such as these out of their minds because the government tells people that treating animals this way is okay. “They insist that without these procedures there will never be cures for the world's diseases, and that those who oppose animal experiments are extremists holding back ‘“progress’” (The Scientific, par. 1).
The SIAV also talked about penicillin which has no effect on rabbits and is poisonous to guinea pigs and hamsters and thus may never have been released to the public (The Human Cost of Ethical Experiments, par. 2). In addition to these setbacks, many drugs that tested safe on animals turned out to be not safe for humans. Complaints center around the differences between the physiology of humans and other animals. Medicine may work on a rat, but that does not mean it will work on a human and vice versa. Organizations paint the picture of animal testing as meaningless cruelty supported by people too embarrassed and too worried about getting in trouble to admit they are wrong. Sites such as “the Research Defense Society” attempts to debunk many of these theories. The first issue they bring up against the claim that nothing good comes out of animal testing is the discovery of insulin in pigs and cows that helped diabetic dogs, and now is the lifesaver for diabetics. Even though the vaccine helped save thousands of lives, the animals involved endured “force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies” ( Animal Testing, par. 2.). Making animals suffer so much for the good of the human race is like saying that water and food are not equally important for survival. There are alternative supplements, but ultimately the need becomes too strong and death occurs. Animals are just as important as humans in the ecosystem. Many groups advocate for alternative testing methods. These methods include clinical study of human patients, in vitro tests (test tube tests on cells), and computer modeling. In vitro tests, “studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” (Animal Testing, par. 4).
The clinical tests are the most accurate, but require testing the effects on a cellular level; however it does not show what goes on in the system as a whole. Computer modeling is only as good as the program, and there are still many intricacies of the human body that humans do not know how to model or are unaware of their existence. Instead, many of these testing methods are used alongside animal testing to make up for places where it has its shortcomings and to reduce the number of animal tests required. Non-human animals should be treated as well as humans, the immorality in the treatment of animals that are tested is against the moral codes of any human being. Preferred testing is not on that of humans themselves due to the welfare of the person. An alternative must be implemented to save the lives of humans and that of animals. Perhaps this view of other species does portray a sense of superiority, but it seems hard to believe in the total immorality of animal testing. It has been ingrained in mankind by thousands of years of looking at lesser animals as prey. Even though animals are the prey of humans, they play a key role in the survival of humans and the ecosystem and must be protected.
