Should Animals be used in Medical Research - Term Paper Example

Should Animals be used in Medical Research? Should Animals be used in Medical Research? Introduction While it has always been the practice, using animals for medical research has ensued numerous debates with ethics philosophers as well as animal activists rising to oppose the act vehemently. The battlefield has already been demarcated but what remains to be figured out is if indeed this was is worthy. An infinite number of questions remains to be asked if (from moral/ethical, religious and philosophical point-views) sacrificing animals and subjecting them to death and pain is the only way humans can sustain their lives (Poling, 2013). Can other alternatives not be found such that animals, just like the human species can live in peace free from ‘surgery’ threats? What makes animals the preferred candidates for these experiments? What are the legal, religious and ethical implications of engaging animals in medical research? The series of questions one may ask are countless. This paper seeks to explore two contrasting perspectives that present diverse ideas and justification if animals should or should not be used for medical research. There is enough evidence to support the argument that animals are suitable for medical research. In the light of this puzzling issue, many perspectives have come up to take sides on whether animals deserve to suffer so humans can live. Critically looking at this issue, it can be seen the problem cuts across some social fabrics ranging from religion, science to philosophy and independent thinking. In the past, various protests have been mounted to oppose the practice of using animals in researches especially medical studies. Organizations and individuals championing for animals’ right have not taken it lightly the fact that they (animals) are the preferred choice for studies when painful cuts have to be made. Evidentially, rats have always found themselves on the wrong side of life whenever medical scientists require bodies where they can test their drugs or even investigate certain reactions, thanks to the close resemblance of the human body with that of a rat. In equal measure, those opposed to this idea have maintained that subjecting an animal to pain or even death (for whatever reason) is morally, religiously and philosophically wrong. This debate has escalated to an extent that it has built quite a well-constructed perspective with one side claiming that taking animals from the laboratory would hamper efforts to understand the human body and develop medicines for diseases that attack humans. On the other hand, it is strongly held that using animals for research is a serious violation of the written and unwritten moral codes that govern the society (Hile, 2009) When Using Animals for Research is an Ethical ‘Crime’ As already briefed, the two conflicting sides are on the extreme ends with each bringing strong defense as to why they hold the claim they express. The first perspective holds that forcefully (‘forcefully’ because animals cannot consent) using animals for human benefit is a violation of the moral standards that should be treated with the contempt it deserves. In this view, including animals in research for whatever reason is unjustifiable and should not be excused rather a contempt that needs to be stopped. As conceptualized by Hile (2009), a number of reasons exist to prove that research with animals is a callous and brutal act that should not be tolerated. First, animals feel pain and fear the same way humans do. Medical researches would require these animals (subjects) to be threatened, cut, and in most cases be killed. No one enjoys these kinds of treatments; neither do animals. The activists in this perspective maintain that animals should be allowed to live free from these mistreatments so they (just like humans) may enjoy and live up to their potentials. According to Poling (2013), in 12 months, over four million procedures are carried on animals for the purpose of medical research in the United Kingdom. These shocking statistics show large a population of animals suffers every year in order to benefit humans. The argument that animals have rights just like humans has dominated most of the justifications individuals and organizations subscribing to this perspective have forwarded. The bottom line is that animals have rights and these rights cannot and should never be violated at all costs. The claim by governments and medical research institutions that the pain should be minimized has been challenged by the fact that a right should never be denied under any circumstance. Hile (2009) maintains that animals’ rights should not be compromised. If it is maintained that if animals have rights then trading their lives and well-being for the benefit of humans becomes irrelevant. In fact, animals experience certain harm unlike humans whose pain is potential. According to Hile (2009), this perspective constructs and derives it arguments from the principles of equity, natural justice, and fairness. The ethical/moral standings forwarded are meant to ensure the society becomes a place where both humans and other animals can live and compete with utmost fairness. Both are categorized as living things with bodies wired in a way pain becomes imminent if an external material is charged to cause injuries. Poling (2013) also reports that the major reason animals are used in research is to benefit human beings yet that benefit cannot be proven. It, therefore, makes no senses to cause pain to animals and even reduce their quality of life when the benefit that is claimed to be sourced is not evident. It is recommended, from this perspective, that other ways (those that do not involve animals) be used. Pro-Animal Research Perspective According to Festing (2010), it is point-on to argue that animals have been the reason most humans exist. It is through the dissections that have been made through their bodies that the human species have managed to fight numerous drugs them have been attacking them for decades now. Breakthroughs in the medical faculty even with the most elusive diseases have been made possible by conducting researches on animals. While the argument against using animals for research has rented the space for a long time, individuals, organizations and agencies passionate about human health have brought a strong defense to justify why it is necessary the conduct continues. Although animal models do not represent the exact nature of the human body, medical researchers and scientist have been able to advance their understanding of the human health and diseases through studying these models. What seemed complicated has now been simplified, and procedures such as organ transplant can be easily done now, all thanks to the wide research was done on animals (Festing, 2010). Insulin, antibiotics and vaccines have since emerged that have massively improved and transformed human health. Scientists have developed new drugs and treatment methods bringing hope to patients whose lives were threatened by illnesses that were incomprehensible until a series of researches (using animals) were conducted. The convenience that comes with engaging animals as a model for grasping the human body is great. In a similar fashion, those from this perspective argue that animals and humans are very similar as we share very many organs. For example, we share about 95% of our entire gene with the mouse. It should also be noted that animals suffer from the same illnesses as humans. Cancer, flu, asthma are just a few of those diseases shared within the animal kingdom (kingdom animalia). Festing (2010) reports that although non-animal methods are significant, they may not entirely replace animals as they contribute very little to health research. Non-animal methods can only be used to complement data that has already been collected from animals. As a matter of fact, the highest level of sophistication medical knowledge has heightened to have been a result achieved by animals’ engagement in research studies. Practically, cancer survival rates have been on the increase since mice were ‘invited’ to the laboratory. Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART) that saves billions of people around the world has been developed through animals testing. HIV/AIDS is no more a death sentence as it was several years ago (Festing, 2010). In this perspective, it is argued that animals especially primates best suit medical research because the advantages largely outweigh the negatives. Is it worth sitting back watching the world get puzzled on how to go about the issues of HIV/AIDS, cancer, heart failure among others when animals can provide answers? Is it morally/ethically right for doctors to watch humans lose their lives when they can find a solution in animals? The response to these questions as per this perspective is obviously ‘NO’. A decision to trade the life (if it has to) of an animal for a human being to live might seem challenging but the ultimate verdict favors humans (Festing, 2010). In their strong defense proponents of this perspective argue that various measures are in place to ensure animals used in research are handled in the most humane way possible. First, animals should only be used under the condition that the solution can only be found through them, and no other method or way can be applied in such studies to give accurate information. Secondly, to help reduce the harm, three principles are applied. The first one is replacement where researchers should endeavor to find alternatives before they settle on animals as the subjects. In this regard, human volunteers, as well as computer techniques, can be used in place of animals to minimize any likely harm they may be exposed to (Festing, 2010). The next principle involves reducing the number of probable casualties that may be involved so that only a low number are subjected to such unnatural treatments. This also involves sharing widely the information collected from the same research so not many other studies are done to risk the wellbeing of similar animals. Lastly, refining principle requires that researchers indemnify (the highest possible) to their original states the animals used in research. Medical care/veterinary treatment should be given to the animals used after the procedure so the stress involved can be minimized (Festing, 2010). Conclusion The question of whether animals should be used in medical research has been clearly answered by the two arguments discussed. As seen, the debate is deeper than it can be imagined. However, what comes out precisely is the theme of morality vs. science. While the first perspective insists that it violates animal rights for the benefit of humanity, the second perspective counter neutralizes this by asking if it is moral to watch humans suffer yet animals can save them. Judging from the justifications presented by the latter, it is proper to draw a conclusion that animals should be used for medical researches especially when the three highlighted principles are observed. This way, the human species will stay healthy to protect the animals. References Festing, M. (2010). Statistics and animals in biomedical research. Significance, 7(4), 176-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00459.x Hile, K. (2009). Animal rights. Philadelphia: Chelsea House. Poling, J. (2013). Tried and True: Classroom Zoo: Practicing Ethical Research on Animals. Science Scope, 037(03). http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/ss13_037_03_72 Read More