A New Approach to Medicine - Research Paper Example

English A New Approach to Medicine Medicine is one of the areas that are experiencing a wave of change from traditional methods to more efficient modern methods. Technology and new discoveries are driving changes in this sector. Animal testing is one of the areas of medicine that has become controversial, igniting a tough debate among many scholars. For a long time now, scientists have used animals to conduct medical tests such as treatment of serious diseases such as cancer. Researchers have used animals such as rats and monkeys extensively in testing medicine and cosmetics that they later recommend for human use. While these methods have become the foundation of the development in medicine, it is clear that these methods are not entirely efficient in providing medical solutions. In addition, animal right activists have expressed that these methods are against animal rights and that researchers should find out new approaches for testing medicine. This article provides that it would be more reasonable that death row inmates volunteer for human trials and experimental tests. This method would be efficient in terms of accuracy, saving time and resources and in providing animals with their rights to live normal lives. Animal experimentation is a scientific procedure that has grown slowly but consistently since the evolution of scientific research. The underlying fact is that physiologists in the 17th century saw animal research as a new platform to advance the biological and medical knowledge. This scientific procedure emerged when the scientists identified unique similarity between the toxicology effects of drugs in both humans and animals. Rowan (3) points out that although the degree of the effects varied in the two species, scientists found that these differences were minimal and could not hinder the adoption of this procedure. Their concern was to find a testing method that would provide empirical and statistical evidence without subjecting human beings to any harm. The argument was that the human species have the highest priority when it comes to medical research (Ferdowsian, 472-478). In these days, animal protection laws were not common and researchers did not have any opposition while conducting tests on animals like the situation is today. It is indisputable that scientific research has alleviated many medical complications through the animal experimentation process. Diseases such as polio and diabetes have become curable and the threat that they possessed in the olden days have been completely neutralized. Animals such as rabbits and donkeys that have a similar reaction to drugs as human beings have become important experimentation tools to test various drugs before introducing them for community use. According to Abbot (123), a professor of UCSD, the ability of science to protect human beings not only from diseases but also from toxic drugs has been achieved through this procedure. In addition, harmless cosmetics have been developed and used across the whole world using the same procedures. Consequently, the achievements of this scientific process have made it a worthy practice. The supporters of animal experimentation have outlined various advantages that come along with this research framework. First, they have pointed out method is cheap and easy, and the results of this procedure are quite factual and can stand the test of time. The argument of these physiologists makes sense to some extent since the species that they use are naturally available and the process only involves the development of drugs and testing. The replication of the symptoms obtained from tests with animals in human beings has proved that these methods provide factual results. Rowan (12) points out that researcher manage to reduce cruelty to animals during the testing process and hence they have pruned the procedures to achieve animal friendly techniques of testing. The proponents of this medical process have argued that it would be crueler if they employed the procedures on human beings as many would have died or received permanent disabilities in the process. Currently, statistics have shown that millions of animals are put under isolation every year for scientific study purposes and the tallies continue to increase each year. Animals that suffer from this practice include rabbits, mice, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats and dogs, which are believed to have a medical reaction that is similar to that of human beings. The increase in the number of animals that are encaged for animal testing has raised an alarm to ecologists who have foreseen signs of species extinction if this kind of medical practice persists (Swami, Furnham and Andrew 269). In reaction, these ecologists have asserted that there is an urgent need for establishment of alternative test procedures if there are any chances of survival for the target species. Animal experimentation has become a public issue that has attracted a lot of attention from many Scientists. Criticism of animal experimentation as a resource bank for medical research rose a little after scientists launched this procedure commercially in the medical field. Animal testing became a common practice when the US Congress imposed a law that demanded that drug-selling companies conduct safety tests using animals before releasing their drugs for human use (Klein 251). On the same century, movements such as American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals (ASPCA) and the American Antivivisection society were started to defend animal rights. The critics of this practice argued that the action was cruel and violated the animal rights, which was against the concepts of civilization that the American Congress was hammering during that time. From this point of view, animal testing has been a popular cultural topic, with majority of the people supporting its abolishment. Although philosophical approaches to animal testing have indicated mixed reactions, it is clear that most scholars have supported abolishment of this procedure. For instance, Abbot (144) pointed out various weaknesses that the medical practice has continued to ignore over time now while using animals species in research. Like many other philosophers, Abbot believes that better scientific research is achievable if only the current trend of animal research is completely put to a halt. To him, these procedures are no longer a guarantee to the safety of the people who use cosmetics and even medicine that has been animal-tested. The validation process of the medical tests is corrupted and inconsistent results cannot be a ground for effective treatment. For instance, a medical research proved that cortisone affects all other animals apart from human beings during their pregnancy period. This means that the test of such a chemical on animals is likely to provide incorrect results and the consequences may be felt in the vast population. These inconsistencies of human and animal reactions to drugs provide a new face of animal examination as an effort of assuring human safety. Abbot (145) also points out to the severity of the ethical issues that have come up since the time scientists introduced this practice in the medical research laboratories. First, too many animals lose their life during the process of experimentation, which is unethical in accordance with the animal rights protection policies. For instance, while testing for cancer effects in drugs, well over 400 rats are subjected to five-year test, and the results they obtain achieve 50% positive results and only 10% of these results are reliable in the prediction of potential for cancer. In black and white, it is clear that the procedures consume too much time and resources yet the results are invalid after the burdensome process. He points out that it is not right to violate animal rights only to obtain irreproducible results that they cannot regard as medical evidence in treatment. Moreover, this testing has provided a false treatment procedure since human beings still experience adverse effects such as cancer after use of the so tested drugs. From a neutral ground, it is true that experience has proved that the medical research process has not been perfect in spite of these procedures threatening to wipe out rare animal species. Recently, there has been a great concern to develop alternative procedures to replace the animal testing methods with more effective and reproducible procedure. In Europe, for instance, the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has launched a new campaign to reduce the number of animals that researcher use in the testing process in order to start the war against animal use in medical research. By introducing in vitro test, ECVAM has managed to reduce the number of animals for a test from 150 in 1974 to 8 in 2002. Use of cultured human cells for toxicity test has become a new strategy to terminate animal-based medical research, which is a new hope for the freedom of animals. The stand of this article is that animal testing should be abolished and replaced with more efficient and animal-friendly methods. The dark side of this practice seems to be not only a hindrance for scientific development but also an oppressive, and whose end- results can be achieved through alternative routes in medical practice (Abbot 12). The heightened tension between the critics and the proponents of animal testing seems to be growing each day and the unrelenting effort of the critics seems to be materializing, which would see animal experimentation end. A more reasonable alternative to medical testing would be to allow the death row in-mates volunteer in medical experiments. In the recent past, the numbers of death rows have increased in many countries and this forms a good foundation for starting human medical experiments. For instance, in the US, convicts of serious crimes such as murder are condemned for murder. Statistics show that there is sufficient number of death row inmates who can suffice scientific experiments. For instance, by January of 2013, there were over 3 thousand death row inmates awaiting execution in the US. In 2010, the number of death row inmates in California was 683, 390 in Florida, 330 in Texas and 218 in Pennsylvania (Blume 939). The death row inmates end up dying of execution while some of them die naturally within the prisons. From a critical point of view, this population would be useful in conducting medical experiments than undergoing execution (Goldberg and Alan 1773). As the government increases its commitment to protect people from criminals, it would also be vital to protect them from diseases by utilizing this group of prisoners in research. While killing the inmates may seem as a solution to crime, it is clear that this is a waste of human species that researcher can use to conduct more effective research experiments for the wellbeing of the world. Therefore, it would crucial for researchers to shift their focus from animal testing to this new approach of testing human beings. This approach has numerous advantages in medical research, which point out to the superiority of this method. First, this method would be accurate in the research, as the human DNA would respond more positively for such tests. Critics of animal testing have pointed out the reason why animal testing method is unreliable is that the human DNA is unique varies greatly from that of animals. Therefore, all the experiments conducted with animals may not necessarily be applicable for human beings. This points out that a test with human beings would produce results that are more accurate that those obtained from animal testing. Inaccurate results from animal tests have adverse effects in human beings, often resulting to secondary illness. For instance, cosmetics that seem to have no effects in animals can cause skin cancer in human beings (Mone 20-21). Secondly, surgery operations that succeed with animals may fail for human beings due to the anatomical variation of the human body from that of animals. Due to the similarity of the human DNA response and anatomical configuration, research with death row inmates would be more accurate and would help to avoid the negative consequences that result from inaccuracy associated with animal testing. Secondly, this approach would reduce wastage of time and resources in medical research. Animal testing is a procedure that consumes many resources and takes a long time before researchers release reliable results. A lot of medical resources and research centers that the government opens every year to take care of animal testing drain a good percentage of the medical budget. The US government has spent billions of money to open research centers and to give the medical experts an environment where they can conduct animal testing more efficiently (Brown 611-619). In addition, experimentation with animals consumes a lot of time, and the results the researchers come up with do not necessarily work. The iteration procedures of the animal testing consume more time and resources. If researchers use human beings for the tests, it would be sure to obtain reliable results within the first time. The extra resources saved in the process may be useful in providing the public with free healthcare. Saving time in research is an important aspect of medicine as this implies that less people die in the process. For instance, it would be able to reduce the deaths that result from cancer in time, hence protecting the lives of many people who would have died in case of animal testing. A counter argument that may arise in this procedure is that it would be against the human rights to conduct human experimentation. Since this procedure may subject the death row victims to slow death, it would be a more painful experience than immediate execution. In addition, few death row inmates would volunteer to suffer from severe tests whose consequences may be painful and unpleasant. However, the fact that the procedure would be a voluntary exercise where inmates would consent, it would be in accordance with the human rights acts that requires one to consent to such activities. In addition, this procedure may be a better alternative for inmates who are destined to die of execution. If they survive the experimentation process, they would have a better life than if they die of execution (Gardner 7-9). Since this lot is fated to die, it would be no crime if eventually they die after saving the life of fellow human beings. In another perspective, it would be a better alternative than subjecting animals to such tests, which they have no ability to consent. Thus, this procedure would satisfy the animal right activists who have fought against use of animals for medical experimentation. In this light, the use of death row inmates would be one way of making the lives of these victims useful rather than surrendering them to death. In conclusion, animal research has formed a platform for advanced medical research for a long time now and the benefits that have come along with it have become the basis for human comfort in the present world. However, researchers have criticized this practice on the ground that it is not only an ineffective practice, but also threat to ecological equilibrium. It has become a dilemma to determine whether the animal rights or the human rights, or both need to be protected. To realize the answer to this dilemma, it would be important to consider allowing the death row inmates to volunteer in medical experimentation. This procedure would be more efficient in that it would provide reliable results. Secondly, this will help in saving heavy budgets that are the government dedicates in constructing and equipping research centers. Finally, this would save time, which would mean saving human lives more promptly. On this ground, we recommend that death row inmates be used for medical tests instead of animals in medical research. Works Cited Abbot, Alison. Animal Research: More Than a Cosmetic Changed. Nature Publishing Group.438, 144-146. 2005. This article provides the various challenges that come along with implementation of the animal testing procedure. It quests for new approaches to medicines, and terms the animal testing procedure as inefficient. This article is useful in arguing against animal testing. Blume, John H. "Killing The Willing: "Volunteers," Suicide And Competency." Michigan Law Review 103.5 (2005): 939-1009. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. In this article, the right of a death row inmate to volunteer is evaluated. While criminals are put under strict jurisdiction, they have the right to say what happens to their bodies after their death. This article helps us to argue the idea that the inmates have a right to volunteer for medical experimentation before their execution. Brown, Abigail. "Understanding Pharmaceutical Research Manipulation In The Context Of Accounting Manipulation." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.3 (2013): 611-619. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. This article provides the medical costs that government incur in investing in medical research. It points out that the animal testing is an expensive practice and draws a lot of resources from the government. It provides a strong ground through which we can argue on injecting cost efficiency in medical research through use of human experimental testing. Ferdowsian, Hope. "Human And Animal Research Guidelines: Aligning Ethical Constructs With New Scientific Developments." Bioethics 25.8 (2011): 472-478. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014 This article provides the animals laws that have come up to argue against abuse of human rights within the medical sector. International laws conceptualize animal testing as abusive activity that results to abuse of human rights. This article supports the idea the use of death row inmates can salvage animals from abuse. Gardner, Molly. "Retribution, Deterrence, And Organ Donation." American Journal Of Bioethics 11.10 (2011): 7-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. This article refers to the controversy that exists about the use of death row inmates organs to save lives. There has been a controversy whether it is tight that these inmates donate their organs after their death to other patients. This idea supports the idea of using these criminals for medical testing. It is another way that these people can help to save life. Goldberg, Arthur J., and Alan M. Dershowitz. "Declaring The Death Penalty Unconstitutional." Harvard Law Review 83.8 (1970): 1773. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. This article focuses on the statistics of the people who have faced punishment by death row and those who have escaped this punishment. It is clear that the number of people condemned for death row b is high and adequate to meet the demand of medical research. On this note, the article provides statistical support for the fact that inmates can indeed be sufficient for modern laboratory experimentation. Klein, Jennifer. "EU Cosmetics Directive And The Ban On Animal Testing: Compliance, Challenges, And The GATT As A Potential Barrier To Animal Welfare." Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 21.(2012): 251. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. This work covers the use of animal testing in testing cosmetic products. This method seems to have failed in various occasion. Many challenges exist including lack exposure of human beings to serious diseases such as cancer. This forms a platform to declare animal testing as an effective procedure. Mone, Gregory. "New Models In Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing." Communications Of The ACM 57.4 (2014): 20-21. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. The article presents some of the alternative procedures that have worked better than animal testing in area of cosmetology. It presents the idea that animal experimentation is quite the worst procedure that only provides unreliable research. Thus, this article helps us to support the idea that it is the high time that new approaches to medical research should be identified. Rowan, Andrew. "Avoiding animal testing." The Scientist 2011: 29. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 Apr. 2014 Rowan brings the idea of cell culture that is slowly replacing animal experimentation in the laboratories. Culturing human cells helps to conduct medical tests more efficiently without interfering with animal rights. In the essay, this article helps to support the idea that human DNA can be used to provide more reliable results in the modern medical laboratories. Swami, Viren, Adrian Furnham, and Andrew N. Christopher. "Free The Animals? Investigating Attitudes Toward Animal Testing In Britain And The United States." Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology 49.3 (2008): 269-276. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. The article presents the attitude of public towards the idea of animal testing. While many feel it as a worthwhile idea, some criticize it and term is as an effective procedure. Hence, it helps to criticize the animal testing procedures within medical research. Read More