Is animal testing ethical or not?

Question

I'm writting a paper on animal testing and need to know what you think about it.

Answer 1

I think it's very unethical. Some people argue that if it weren't for animal testing, we wouldn't have made the advances in medicine we have. That being said, though, there is also evidence that suggests that most animals suffer just as humans suffer. Some may think that animals are inferior to humans, simply either because they're less intelligent than we are or simply because they are not like us. This was the way the slaveholders and the Nazis thought. They actually believed that blacks and Jews were less intelligent than and inferior to whites and Gentiles, so in their view, slavery and concentration camps were morally acceptable.Of course, most people in this day and age would disagree with their assertions. Also, since some people like to point out the fact that animals are less intelligent than we are, it should be noted that there are some exceptions to this rule. After all, it has been said that the average pig has the intelligence of the average 3-year-old child. And not only that, but there are some people who are either so mentally retarded or brain damaged that they can't function beyond the level of a newborn infant. If intelligence is the yardstick by which to measure an organism's worth, then couldn't it be argued that it would be more ethical to do tests on a brain damaged or retarded person than on a pig? Of course, most people would say not, but what's the difference? Despite what many would like to believe, there are more similarities between us and other animals than differences. And one of those similarities is the ability to feel pain. And if you take that into consideration, then is it really ethical to cause suffering to ANY sentient being?

Answer 2

As the prior answers suggest, I think you might find there is not an easy answer or a universal answer for all cases. Certainly there are forms of animal testing that are unethical, but there are other types which are necessary and the only way to achieve an overall positive result.

In general, I think medicines, health care products, cosmetics and other items should be tested on willing human volunteers who have given informed consent, not animals. People can make a choice about whether they want to put their health on the line to test a product (and are paid for doing so). Animals do not choose to participate in testing, don't understand the consequences, and aren't compensated for their risk.

However, in cases where obtaining informed consent isn't possible - for instance pediatric medicines - animal testing might be the only feasible alternative. Some will argue that animal testing can't provide meaningful information for human medical response, but that is a techinical, scientific question, not an ethical one.

Lastly there are cases where animal testing is REQUIRED. If a cure for avian flu is found it will have to be tested on animals. The cure may have an incidental benefit for humans but in that case there would be no way to know if it works without animal testing.

So, all in all, I don't think universal generalizations are possible. You have to look at each proposed test on a case-by-case basis. It is also important to be able to separate the scientific questions (what is possible? what provides scientifically meaningful results?) from the ethical ones (what should we do?). The answers to the scientific questions can help us resolve the ethical ones, but they are different questions that need to be addressed separately.

Answer 3

I don't judge whether it's ethical or not, but I would rather the testing be done on animals than humans. Why shouldn't we be using animals to see what's safe for humans? Why should humans suffer when they don't have to? I think the way animals are treated is very often unfair and brutal. But if you're a human being and you think animals are more important than us, than you shouldn't be allowed to exist in your current form.

Answer 4

Ethical? No way.

Necessary? Unfortunately, animal testing is necessary to proof medicines (at the 1st stages) to ensure that they work the way that they were intended to.

Sadly, no one asked the animals.

The issues arise that although animal testing is probably required in some cases they aren't treated in a particularly humane method. Look at any of the stories surrounding Huntington or Johnson&Johnson and you'll see how horrible some of these test are.

So what is the answer to provide the most humane treatment of animals that are involved in medical testing? We need strict guideline set out and monitored by an independent agency and routine audits. Then companies that breach these guidelines and regulations are punished severely. Who determines what these guidelines are? I don't have that answer.

So, to sum it up again: Medical testing on any living thing isn't ethical but it is necessary.

Answer 5

NO WAY. I did a report on animal testing too and thats what caused me to become a vegetarian. It's SO wrong, all the animals tested on die or are killed and it's so stupid because there are so many cruelty-free ways! Be sure to do lots of research and support your topic.

Answer 6

It most certainly is NOT. Animals feel pain JUST like you and I do. You want to "improve the human condition" then you need to "experiment" on humans.

Most often the "knowledge" gained from these heinous, barbarous crimes is not even applicable towards humans.

And hey....here's a thought:

PERHAPS HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LIVE FOREVER.

Ever think of that?
Perhaps "conditions" and "diseases" are God's way of keeping the population balanced.


ANIMAL TORTURE IS CRUEL AND HIGHLY UNETHICAL. I dare you to see for yourself:

http://www.mclink.it/personal/MC3478/mostra/index_en.htm

http://caat.jhsph.edu/

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/

Answer 7

No, it isn't. The purpose of it, however, makes sense. Things are tried on animals before humans to avoid human suffering. However, performing unnecessary procedures on animals just to see a reaction is a different story.

Answer 8

The alternative would be testing on humans. So I guess it's an individual preference. Use rats or your grandma. Personally, I think rats and other animals are the best choice. Besides, if we didn't test on animals, then there wouldn't be any need for concern for diseases because we would never be able to cure them anyway.

Answer 9

Wow, this is an easy question... OF COURSE it's ethical if the goal is solving a human illness and there's no other way to do it. I would draw the line though, at animal testing for trivial crap like cosmetics.

Answer 10

Would you rather you be the first to try a drug or product? One of the higher ups in PETA. Uses insulin for her diabetes.Which was perfected through animal testing. PETA is against humans having pets. They regularly go to shelters ,adopt the animals and then kill them. Their people have been arrested for dumping dog and cat corpses in dumpsters after killing them. PETA HEADS CANNOT DENY IT.