Emphasizing on Avoidance of Animal Testing - Essay Example

Animal Testing For many years now the world of science and the general public have been torn between the pros and the cons in relation to testing animals for research purposes. Both arguments for and against it are not fully acceptable to all and no clear line has been drawn yet as to whether this type of research is beneficial or not. Governments world over have had these debates with the various stakeholders including scientists and the animal rights activists and at many times there are no concrete deliberations that are realised (Hayhurst 2000). Laws and regulations governing the way these researches are conducted have also been formulated in a bit to have the area under some form of scrutiny. Protests have also been held against this research more so in the developed world that aim at sensitizing the government, the general public and the scientists of the plight of animals undergoing the ordeals. This paper aims at emphasising on avoidance of animal testing. Animal testing in general results in killing of many animals after they undergo the tests by means of euthanasia. Although this is a painless death to them, it is not right as they were not meant to die as per a human beings will to do so. This is an immoral act just as killing a fellow human being. Animals are animals just as humans are, at least on the scientific grounds which form the basis for the proponents of these researchers’ arguments. Killing them at the end of a research ordeal does not in any way justify their painless death (Hayhurst 2000). During research these animals are subjected to a great deal of suffering and horror whereby their lives are often interfered with by the researchers. They are tied or locked up in confined spaces making it hard for them to be free as they would have been if they were in their natural habitat. This act is in other terms quite selfish for humans to engage in as they do it to animals that which they wish not to do unto themselves. This is not only reckless but immoral and laws should be formulated not to regulate these research procedures but to curtail them altogether. There is hypocrisy in this practice in that all that humans regard to be inhumane is what is done to these animals. It is important at this point to appreciate the fact that humans are not the creators of these animals and as such have no inherent right to subject them to any suffering on deliberate terms. The argument put across to cover this hypocrisy is that humans are superior beings and that they have the control over the planet. It is not a wrong statement but with freedom and authority comes responsibility therefore we are obliged to treat all creatures and that which is on this earth with respect they deserve. One of the major areas that have come to undermine the rights of animals and their mortality is that of cosmetics. Many animals under this line have been used to look into the effects that certain chemicals may have on humans (Hayhurst 2000). Although this is a practice that is being abandoned the world over, it has been inflicting a great deal of pain and suffering to animals undergoing the tests. All this suffering to these poor animals was for us humans to live happily and be beautiful; an irony beyond measure. There is a misconception worldwide that is spread by the proponents of animal testing that these tests will correspondingly give similar results in the human body. This with time and through the same experiments has come to be refuted with facts like the cases of Clioquinol and Thalidomide. These are drugs that at the animal testing level showed no harm for a number of years but on prescribing them to humans they both caused disastrous consequences to the population that used them (Hayhurst 2000). These two cases and many others are good examples of why these animals’ bodies should not be taken to be similar to humans’ as there are inherent characteristics that humans manifest that are not in animals and vice versa. It is therefore not conclusive enough for an animal scientist to experiment on animals for example rats and draw conclusions in relation to humans. This is not only absurd but fallacious in the highest degree possible. To further refute this claim and assertion is the case to do with the discovery and development of anaesthesia for use in surgical procedures. It is after critical observation of human behavior and tendencies that resulted in Williamson finding that when people are under ether’s influence they are less susceptible to feeling pain. This discovery only goes further to prove that critical observation of humans will lead to more discoveries in the medical field than even the use of animal testing. The other area that research on animals is rampant is that of cancer related ailments. A lot of money as well as many animals have been killed in the fight against cancer for over thirty years. These figures go on to show that animal testing is not as successful for medical research as it is accredited for. The basic reason for the increasing frustrations with cancer experiments on animals is the same issue of having animals as the specimens while it is humans that are the main focus (Hayhurst 2000). The reason for the world losing this battle over and over again can be attributed to the failure of researchers across the globe to appreciate the importance of using humans or other alternative means of research to come up with concrete findings. The earlier they do this the earlier they shall find breakthroughs to cancer treatment as well as those of many other human ailments. Through research it has also been seen that animals respond differently to same research designs which is another fact that is causing countries and institutions to lose a great deal in terms of finances in funding such research endeavours. The argument that is also put forth by the animal researchers is that if these kinds of researches are stopped then many human lives will be lost and many ailments will not have credible cures in future. This is another fallacy that is easily refutable when one looks at the cancer case as an example. Cancer is taken to be one of the leading killer diseases on the planet yet there is nothing to show for the intensive and time taking animal tests (Hayhurst 2000). In fact on a rather sad note these researches are have aided in setting aside funds to unforthcoming researches rather than having been diverted to more worthy causes like preventive measures. Looking into the above arguments that have been raised for and against it has been found that they are leading to one thing; animal testing is not important in medical research as facts can prove it. Government and institutions should come up with measures that aim at diverting funding from animal researches to the alternative methods available. Some of these methods include use of humans themselves where there is lawful consent of the one under research, use of fewer animals, totally do away with animal methods and use methods that do not cause suffering or pain to the animals under study. This way there will be more medical research breakthroughs than we have today and funding will have gone into better use while many will have been healed. Work cited Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Read More