The Use of Animals for Medical Experimentation - Essay Example

Dialogue on to use Nonhuman animals for Medical Experimentation Name Institution Tutor Date (James approaches his friend Frank who is cognitive scientist and finds him busy experimenting on a Baboon) James: (In an excited tone) Hey buddy! What are you working on? Frank: Hi! This is my new project and I am so enthusiastic about it because I know, I will definitely find the answer to what I am looking for James: (Curious) so what are you looking for? Frank: I begun this project last month. I want to come up with a new medication that can be used in the treatment of anxiety and depression James: (Smiling) That’s nice, depression and anxiety is currently one of the main challenges facing our society today Frank: Yes indeed, many people have been affected by these conditions for a long period of time and I am determined to find a solution James: Interestingly, I think there is need to resolve the problem of depression. I remember the recent Germanwings crash in March 2015. Reports from the media indicate that the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had a history of depression. This may have influenced his suicidal actions and therefore leading him to cause the crash. Frank: Yah! It is such serious incidences that have motivated me to find medication for depression. That’s why this research is very important James: Why use the Baboon for your research? Frank: The Baboon can actually display similar brain attributes as those that exist in the human brain. The existing cerebral attributes are able to control emotions and can therefore be valuable in testing psychological disorders that exist in human beings.1 James: I just wonder my friend! Is it really morally permissible to use nonhuman animals for your own human objectives such as in medical experiments like you’re doing right now? As far as I am concerned, I believe that is not ethical to do what you’re doing right now. Frank : ( Looking at James surprisingly ) Why do you say that ? James; You see, there has been a misconception concerning how nonhumans animals should be perceived and treated. Frank: What misconceptions? James: One of the misconception is that we humans think that nonhuman animals do not have rights based on the fact that they are not entirely humans Frank: As far as I am concerned there is no nonhuman animal that has been acknowledged as a legal ‘’individual’’, this implies that none of them has legal rights except humans, as a result what I am doing is justified and not illegal James: (Asserting his point) What your doing is not moral. Although various debates have existed leading to a controversy of whether the use of nonhuman in medical experiments is ethical, I believe that it is not moral to use nonhuman animals for human benefits such as experiments. All you are doing is to harm nature leading to a state of injustice 2 Frank: The implications of our actions on nonhuman animals can be taken into account using the analogy that the consequences of our actions on nonhumans bring about morally significant implications for humans3 James: My perspective is that the welfare and life of nonhumans has intrinsic importance which must be equated as a moral calculations. Although moral standing is social choice there is need to make a correct choice4 Frank: Every person is entitled to their opinion so you can keep yours James: Oh! I see!, I want you to know that although we can get benefits out of experiments conducted on nonhumans it is basically not ethical Frank: Why do you say that, I am just dealing with a species that can be beneficial in solving the medical challenges that human beings face. I don’t see anything morally wrong with my actions James: You see! That’s the misconception that many scientists have, For instance; when environmentalists are worried concerning the future of blue whales, they usually think of the blue whales as species as opposed to an individual blue whales. This has therefore resulted to a situation whereby when we threaten the existence of one nonhuman we threaten the existence of the entire species.5 Frank: What your saying can seemingly be true James: The fact remains that conducting an experiment on that baboon remains to be a moral issue that should have been stopped by now Frank: I don’t support your perspective, I believe that we humans can do what they want with nonhuman animals whether moral or not6 James: My brother! you are really losing your sense of judgment Frank: Then give me valid reasons that can support your viewpoint James: One fact is that although we may deny it, nonhuman animals have similar capabilities just like we humans, as a result they have rights and should be treated morally, For instance; nonhuman animals are able to use tools in a very creative manner 7 Frank: Yeeh Yeeh! I have heard of those issues concerning nonhuman animal rights for a long time now James: Those rights exist because nonhumans have similar capabilities just like we humans Frank: Yes! Indeed nonhumans have some capabilities just like we have. In fact that is why I am actually using them in this experiment. Nevertheless, they do not possess one of the most essential which is they are not as rational as we are 8 James: Although we perceive nonhumans to have less rational capabilities, I candidly want to tell you than nonhumans have far more unique capabilities that make them to have rights just like we do. As a result, they should be treated morally Frank: (Showing signs of being offended) What unique capabilities are those that rank nonhumans so highly? I am actually not convinced James: Nonhumans have a sense of self 9 Frank: Yes, as scientist I have noted that. So what if they have a sense of self yet they do not have mental capabilities like those of human beings James: I agree that the rational capabilities of nonhuman animals are not similar to ours but that does not mean that we should treat them with cruelty Frank: (Showing signs of anger) Cruelty is a relative word, I think that the baboon can handle the pain. The whole experience does not get into its head like it does for us humans James: But I can see just how terrified the creature looks and I know every time you give the animal a dose of your many medications, it is affected Frank: Yes! It is actually affected by the medication but I believe that the life of a human being is more worthy as opposed to that of the baboon. As a result, the idea that the nonhumans have certain similar capabilities just like us does not mean that I cannot use them to benefit the human society. As far as I am concerned nonhuman animals are excused from being happy, therefore they can stand the pain 10 James: (With confidence) I want to introduce you to the fact that, if we humans realized that nonhuman animals share common features of suffering that are similar to those of human beings then we would not subject them to such torture. This view point would serve as the basis of us being compassionate towards the lives of both humans and nonhumans animals11 Frank: It’s not that I am not aware concerning the pain that animas go through, however, it essential to take note of the fact that the prevailing view is that man is free to deal with nature in the manner that he pleases .12 This explains the reason why if you get flies in your house you would want to eliminate them. As a result, I am also free to deal with the nonhuman animals as I please James: Okay, I do not deny the fact that scientists often feel that they have the prerogative to conduct their research as they desire however there is need to uphold ethics , essentially when it comes to the rights of animals Frank: I believe that what I am doing with the baboon is for the benefit of human beings as a result is justified and moral, indeed statutes exist that propagate the protection of nonhuman animals from torture, however, what is evident is that they actually do not have rights James: Really! What you are saying is just a fallacy. How can you say that nonhuman animals do not have rights yet they are supposed to be protected from torture, morality does not condone what you’re doing because it is not ethical Frank: Okay, on that fact you seem to be right, however, it all depends with what you perceive to be ethical James: So what do you perceive to be ethical? Frank: I believe that what is ethical or ethical actions should result to consequences that result to the greatest happiness. Actions are basically ethical if they promote happiness while wrong actions tend to result to a reversal of happiness.13 James: So as long as happiness is attained for human beings at the expense of hurting other species then you argue that it’s okay Frank: Indeed my brother! My experiments will definitely yield a state of health against depression and anxiety, as a result, the consequences of my actions are happiness for human I do not see anything wrong with that James :( Getting angry) You are actually getting on my nerves! Since when did subjecting animals to torture become a justification for happiness Frank: (Smiling) I thought you came to visit as a friend and not as a detective James: I am not conducting any investigation I am actually just trying to put sense into your mind. You want to tell me no other methods exist that can assist you in conducting your experiments Frank: Other methods do exit, however in order to effectively test my samples and also get the validity of my results the use of nonhuman animals is basically more effective James: Have you ever considered the fact that saving nature actually results to the sustainability in the environment. If the global population continues to increase and there is no stability in the environment, then humans are bound to suffer. It is better to have a small population in the world living in a sustainable habitat, than having a huge healthy population in a non-sustainable environment 14 Frank: I see your point my friend but am also honest I just want to provide a solutions to anxiety and depression as it’s basically for the moral good of humans James: To be honest it looks like it’s hard to really get you to understand that nonhumans have rights and this rights have to be protected , in addition we do not have to treat them as just samples species for research which to me is basically cruel . I see it’s really hard to convince you Frank: You have actually not changed my mind on any issue James: Okay! I finally denounce your actions on purely religious ground Frank: Which religious view is that? James: God created all animal including nonhuman animals for us to protect them as opposed to mistreat them in lab experiments just like you are doing now Frank: I know that but he is the same God who allowed humans to eat animals as food, is that not cruelty when we kill animals for food James : The killing of animals for food was not the intention of God , Man was initially to feed on vegetation however due to environmental destructions man was allowed to feed on animals 15 Frank: I am not very religious, therefore I would not argue much on the religious view that opposes my experimentation with nonhuman animals, apart from the religious perspective what other view do you have, I am not yet convinced James: I can see it in your face your face, you are not convinced at all. I basically don’t have another perspective except what I have told you Frank: Okay! Then let me continue with my work James : I guess I will just leave you to continue with your experiment , I know that one day you will come to the realization that what I was actually saying is true . However, I think it is time for humans to stop pretending that we are not aware that nonhuman animals do not have feelings16 References Attfiled, R, 1998, Saving Nature, Feed People and Ethics, Environmental Values, 7(1998): 291-304. Behavioral Brain Research, “Determining Anxiety and Fear in the Marmoset Brennan, A, The moral standing of Natural Objects, Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6 Bekoff, M, 2013, Who lives, who dies, and why? How speciesism undermines compassionate conservation and social justice, Cambridge University Press. Ferre, F, 1996, Persons in Nature towards an Applicable and Unified Environmental Ethics, Ethics In the Environment, 1(1): 15-25. Hamilton, J, 2011, Myth busting: The truth about animals and tools, NPR. Singer, P, Not for Humans Only: The place of Non humans in Environmental issues Sylvan, R, 1973, Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental Ethic?, Proceedings of the X11 World Congress of Philosophy, No. 1. Varna, Bulgaria, pp. 205-210. Riddle, D, 2014, Evolving Notions of Nonhuman Personhood: Is Moral Standing Sufficient?, Journal of Evolution and Technology . 24 (3), p4-19. Read More

Although moral standing is social choice there is need to make a correct choice4 Frank: Every person is entitled to their opinion so you can keep yours James: Oh! I see!, I want you to know that although we can get benefits out of experiments conducted on nonhumans it is basically not ethical Frank: Why do you say that, I am just dealing with a species that can be beneficial in solving the medical challenges that human beings face. I don’t see anything morally wrong with my actions James: You see!

That’s the misconception that many scientists have, For instance; when environmentalists are worried concerning the future of blue whales, they usually think of the blue whales as species as opposed to an individual blue whales. This has therefore resulted to a situation whereby when we threaten the existence of one nonhuman we threaten the existence of the entire species.5 Frank: What your saying can seemingly be true James: The fact remains that conducting an experiment on that baboon remains to be a moral issue that should have been stopped by now Frank: I don’t support your perspective, I believe that we humans can do what they want with nonhuman animals whether moral or not6 James: My brother!

you are really losing your sense of judgment Frank: Then give me valid reasons that can support your viewpoint James: One fact is that although we may deny it, nonhuman animals have similar capabilities just like we humans, as a result they have rights and should be treated morally, For instance; nonhuman animals are able to use tools in a very creative manner 7 Frank: Yeeh Yeeh! I have heard of those issues concerning nonhuman animal rights for a long time now James: Those rights exist because nonhumans have similar capabilities just like we humans Frank: Yes!

Indeed nonhumans have some capabilities just like we have. In fact that is why I am actually using them in this experiment. Nevertheless, they do not possess one of the most essential which is they are not as rational as we are 8 James: Although we perceive nonhumans to have less rational capabilities, I candidly want to tell you than nonhumans have far more unique capabilities that make them to have rights just like we do. As a result, they should be treated morally Frank: (Showing signs of being offended) What unique capabilities are those that rank nonhumans so highly?

I am actually not convinced James: Nonhumans have a sense of self 9 Frank: Yes, as scientist I have noted that. So what if they have a sense of self yet they do not have mental capabilities like those of human beings James: I agree that the rational capabilities of nonhuman animals are not similar to ours but that does not mean that we should treat them with cruelty Frank: (Showing signs of anger) Cruelty is a relative word, I think that the baboon can handle the pain. The whole experience does not get into its head like it does for us humans James: But I can see just how terrified the creature looks and I know every time you give the animal a dose of your many medications, it is affected Frank: Yes!

It is actually affected by the medication but I believe that the life of a human being is more worthy as opposed to that of the baboon. As a result, the idea that the nonhumans have certain similar capabilities just like us does not mean that I cannot use them to benefit the human society. As far as I am concerned nonhuman animals are excused from being happy, therefore they can stand the pain 10 James: (With confidence) I want to introduce you to the fact that, if we humans realized that nonhuman animals share common features of suffering that are similar to those of human beings then we would not subject them to such torture.

This view point would serve as the basis of us being compassionate towards the lives of both humans and nonhumans animals11 Frank: It’s not that I am not aware concerning the pain that animas go through, however, it essential to take note of the fact that the prevailing view is that man is free to deal with nature in the manner that he pleases .

Read More