Whether or not we should use animals in medical research - Essay Example

Whether Or Not to Use Animals in Medical Research One pertinent question that faces the modern world is the use of animals for scientific experimentation. Most ideas that have to do with nature especially animals have been formed in the midst of the controversy. Every side of the argument has posed questions concerning man’s place with respect to these animals and the natural world. Most people arguing against the use of animals for medical research have based their arguments on the relationship between humans and nature philosophies as put forward by Peter Singer that humans do not exist totally above nature, with the focus basically on animals. Singer refers to most attitudes that humans possess towards animals as speciesism that is a concept, which has existed throughout history (Owen 33). Before him, Aristotle was of the view that nature consists of a hierarchy where animals with less ability to reason existed for those who had less ability to reason. Therefore, plants are in existence for the sake of animals, with animals existing for the sake of humans. He used this concept to further his belief in slavery with humans with less reasoning ability existing to serve those with higher ability (Owen 34). While this view has been rejected by society, it is applied towards animals and other non-humans. Speciesism has been practiced by Christians and Jews based on the superiority they extract from the book of Genesis and God’s word (Owen 36). To them, man was given dominion over the animals on earth. Scientists also practice this concept by locking chimpanzees in centers for medical experimentation research. They, however, would not consider doing this to humans, even for those with low levels of intelligence comparable or below that possessed by the chimpanzee. The reason for this lies in the fact that the animal is, no matter how intelligent, is not a human being while the man, no matter how dumb, is a human being. Singer considers speciesism as indefensible as racism. He bases his argument, in part, on Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy who contended that the question that needed to be asked was not whether they could reason or talk but, rather, whether they could suffer (Owen 36). Every animal feels; pain, pleasure, fear, and anger like all humans and their equality is derived from this; their ability to experience pain. The lobby for animal liberation does not contend that every animal has equal worth, however. It contends that where the animal and man possess similar interests, these interests need to be equated to each other, for instance, the avoidance of physical pain (Owen 37). There should be no automatic discount because one is human and the other evidently is not. Singer’s rejection of speciesism is clearly illustrated by his clarification; he does not mean to imply that all living beings have equal worth via his consideration of how man makes choices within his own species. If man had to make a choice between saving a normal human being’s life and that of an intellectually deficient human, he would most probably plump for the normal one. However, were the choice between the prevention of suffering in a normal human and in the intellectually deprived, making the assumption that both had painful injuries and that there were only pain-killers for one, then the choice becomes murkier. The choice probably would be on the basis of the one who had more suffering (Owen 38). Because most experiments concerning animals are painful to the animal, the movement for animal rights commits itself to the complete abolition of animal use in medical research. Those that support the utilization of animals for medical research argue that while animals do suffer in a morally significant way, this is not sufficient ground, by itself, to afford them equal status morally with humans (Owen 50). Therefore, if the animals do not have the same moral status in comparison to humans, humans are not morally obligated to restrain themselves from using them for medical research. Because it is not morally wrong, then it is permissible, morally, to use utilize these animals for medical research. Most supporters of animals use in medical research are not of the view that humans are free to abuse or harm animals at will or that there are no grounds for man to have moral concerns regarding the suffering of these animals, especially if caused by humans. However, if either the animal or the human is to undergo suffering, then it should be animals to feel the suffering because the suffering of humans is of more concern compared to that of the animal (Owen 50). Humans are susceptible to more forms of suffering, for instance, if the deformation of a toe were necessary for medical research, then deforming an animal’s toe would be better since it will not suffer humiliation from deformation. Those that support medical research that uses animals tend to lean towards the speciesism argument rather than with Singer’s. M.A Fox raises a question regarding plants by asking whether we would be obliged to assert the moral equality of plants if we discovered they could suffer (Owen 52). He contends that the capacity to suffer is not, by itself, an establishment of moral equality. Fox also brings up Singer’s statement that if humans had to starve or inflict pain, then we would have to elect the less costly evil. He continues to state that, presumably, the fact that plants are liable to less suffering than animals would hold true and; therefore, it would still prove that feeding on plants is better than feeding on animals (Owen 52). This indicates that human rights of survival are of more importance than those inherent in other species. The use of animals for medical research does not upset the balance inherent in nature in the manner that pleasure hunting does (Owen 55). A whole species of animals can be wiped out via uncontrolled hunting while the majority of animals used for medical research are lab raised and not removed from their habitats, which could affect the ecosystem. However, it can also be argued that putting an animal in a lab for all its life is a cruel act since it is deprived of its natural habitat. Drawing the line in this case becomes even more difficult, especially as domesticating an animal also equates to depriving it of its natural habitat just so the person can find pleasure in owning a pet (Owen 55). However, nature’s balance can be destroyed with the use of endangered species for medical research. Therefore, this should only be done under stringent conditions and for the promotion of their chances for survival. The right to utilize nature does not refer to the right of destruction. While the use of innocent animals for research is a shame until another way can be found, there is no way to cure diseases afflicting both animals and humans. This necessity should not be a qualifying factor; rather, we should strive for better methods. Works Cited Owen, Marna. Animal Rights : Noble Cause Or Needless Effort? Minneapolis : Twenty-First Century Books, 2010. Print. Read More