Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - Dissertation Example

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was established in 1886 as a non-profit organization tasked with curbing cruelty towards animals in the entire United States. The definition of a right is very fundamental in the debate of issues pertaining to animal rights. Cohen (1997) purports that a right should be comprehended as a claim or likely claim that a being may put into effect or apply against another. The party against whom a right is applied may be a single individual, a collection of individuals or even the entire human race. In addition to this, the requirements for rights are perceived as being divergent depending on the issues being discussed such as domestic affairs, workplace related issues, socio-cultural, religious or political issues. Rights are therefore perceived as emanating and existing amongst beings that possess the required moral capacity to apply them against each other. Cohen (1997) further claims that in the elucidation of rights it is mandatory to clarify a particular right, the being that holds the specific right and those against whom the being can apply the right. Another important issue when discussing rights is their origin; some rights are based upon the legally accepted constitutions of different nations while other rights are simply referred to as ‘moral rights’; this implies that they are not legally stipulated but ethically founded by members of the society. The idea of animal right can be traced back to 18th century, even though it has only captured the attention serious and well- placed intellectuals including moral and political philosopher in the recent years. Several attempts to protect the rights of animals have been made by several people. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) advocate for the legislation in line for the animal right protection in collaboration with other lobby groups in the federal and regional levels. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) followed up on the animal friendly legislations with the legislators by giving out proposals on animal welfare to them during their sessions. Tom Regan, in his important book The Case for Animal Rights, argues that the idea of natural right is congenital and extended the idea to cover the right of animal. The basis of argument is closely related to Locker`s paradox with the only difference being that Regan does not agree that human are distinctive enough to warrant restriction of rights (Machan, n.d). The idea of animal liberation is likely to sound like a parody to other liberation movement instead of it appearing as an important objective. In order to bring out clearly the case on animal equity a brief look at women right. Animal may differ from human beings but this difference can be exploited in the way their rights are modulated, if they differ in certain degree then their rights don’t have to be the same as those for humans being but they should not be fundamentally neglected and exposed to cruel treatment. Just like the case of women they is a common opinion by women movement for abortion right, men do not have to chant for the same right since it does not concern them .In the same way dogs lack the ability to vote therefore according them the voting right is unnecessary but this does not mean they are void of any right (Singer, 1989). Other animal welfare organizations like the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) have advocated for the banning of live animal exports for humane reasons. But one wonders what will the cost of all these to countries that rely on animal husbandry for survival? It complicates matters to learn that such countries cannot sell their meat products to Muslims and Jews because their abattoirs are not allowed to slaughter animals that have not been stunned, yet Muslims and Jews do not consume stunned-animals meat. What is inevitable to such countries is economic shutdown. Live export of animals should therefore never be banned (Hoffman & Rumsey, 2008). Andereg et al (2006) assert that for a very long time in the history of mankind, human data has been derived and analyzed through the scientific data collected from laboratory animal testing; in this light, it would seem that animal testing is indispensable due to the momentous role it plays in the advancement of medical and scientific knowledge which in turn plays the very important role of enhancing human life and health. Many of the current treatments and medications for fatal illnesses have their genesis in animal testing. According to Thomassen et al (n.d) it is estimated that the practice of animal testing goes back to the ancient Greek documentations with Aristotle (384-322 BC) being the pioneer in utilization of live animals in research. Dr. Galen (129-200 AD) invested so much on live pigs that he came to be referred to as ‘the father of vivisection’. Nevertheless, in the modern day there has emerged a group of medical scholars, animal rights activists and animal sympathizers who have risen against the practice of animal testing. However much that people may want to believe that all human being are equal, the naked truth is that not all people are equal. Human comes in different shapes, sizes, they come with different moral capacity and intellectual abilities, unequal benevolent feeling and sensitivity to needs among other thing. If we were to look at how different creature are in order to accord rights, therefore there would be no equity and in considering basic similarities we are able to prove equal right for all human (Singer, 1989). Jeremy Bentham argument that each one to count for one and none for more than one, provide the right start for protection of animal. The interest of every being affected by an action should be taken into account and be given the same weight just like other being. Animal have the ability to feel pain, the action taken on them should be given the same weight and if need be there should only be a slight difference in degree of weight pegged as compared to human case. Concern and readiness for other being is not suppose to be base on their appearance or capability, instead our consideration and concern should vary depending to the character of those affect by what we do. For instance, concern for the well-being of American children require that they are provide with education while concern for pig only require us to leave them with other pigs in a spacious room with a adequate food supply. There is variation in degree of concern but by extension of principle of equity irrespective of what interest that might be available they ought to have been extended to all beings black or white, masculine of feminine human or non human (Singer, 1989). The ideas of species that was depicted in racism and sexism relate to intellectual ability that some species of organism seem to have. Even though man is a very intellectual being he must not use other specie too meet his own end. The principle of equal consideration of interest as a basic moral principle is not only limited to human species. When slaves were freed and accorded the same right as those that were enjoyed by their bosses, then what make it so difficult for animal’s interest to be considered? The question should not be centered on can they reason? Or can they talk? But consideration should be given the ability to suffer. The capacity of suffering or enjoyment does not overshadow other interest but it must be satisfied for other interest to be meaningful. This does not only makes capacity to suffering and enjoyment necessary but sufficient for one to say that a being has interest (Singer, 1989) Just like any other being, animal do suffer and therefore there is no moral justice in refusing to take their suffering into consideration. No matter the nature the principle of equity require that every suffering be consider equal with the like suffering in any other being. Animals can feel pain and there is no moral ground of justifying how less important their feeling are, except that they vary in degree from that felt by human due to difference in mental power. Moral rights of human beings gives right to conception of basic right and liberties, and even animal liberator admit to this therefore on this ground animals do not qualify for any right. Since they do not behave morally, stand up for themselves or any capable of being tried in a court of law. Animal do not demonstrate any significant contribution of pleasure or happiness on earth like to be sacrificed for the sake of human purpose and definitely they are not equal to human being and no rights can be common between them(Machan, n.d). The most sensible and influential doctrine for human right is that man is ranked of the highest ranched specie having moral life to aspire and require their community to uphold principle for success of their aspiration clearly animas fall out of this category and therefore there is no rational for rights. As much as other argue that there is no border line between man and animals, there is clear species distinction and human are different with virtue of crucial threshold in continuum of degree(Machan, n.d). There have been many thinkers and academicians who have emerged and forwarded diverse, and often conflicting, views on the issue of human rights. One such thinker is Carl Cohen who is convinced that animals have no claim to any rights whatsoever. According to Cohen (1997) the fact that humans are obliged not to mistreat animals cannot be any case be translated to imply that animals have rights; Cohen argues that despite the fact that, more often than not, rights involve responsibilities, it is fallacious for the proponents of human rights to assume that the responsibility of one being emanates from the right of another. On the contrary, obligations may crop up from many other arenas; firstly, such responsibilities may be assumed from pledges that individuals commit to voluntarily. A feasible example is the fact that, despite workers in a certain public institutions voluntarily committing themselves to being friendly and courteous to the members of the public, this is not established as a consequence of rights possessed by members of the public. Cohen (1997) further states that there are some particular associations between beings that necessitate obligations; a host, for example may feel obliged to be warm and pleasant to their visitors but the visitor cannot claim to have a right of being treated warmly. The virtues of kindness and compassion may also compel individuals to be obliged to others; a passerby may decide to help a person involved in a car accident but under no circumstances can the injured person claim to have a right to be helped by the passerby. According to Cohen (1997) the fact that humans should not subject animals to unnecessary pain and suffering does not mean that animals have rights; as a matter of fact, Cohen argues that animals cannot have ‘rights’ due to the fact that ‘a right’ is perceived as being a human concept established upon the accepted ethical considerations applied in human societies (Cohen, 1997). The fact that animals have no sense of morality automatically disqualifies them from any claim of having ‘rights’. Singer (2006) describes utilitarianism as a moral school of thought which requires beings to act in a manner which will enhance the expected and desired outcomes for worldly benefits; utilitarianism applies to all despite their gender, nationality, religious affiliation, education levels and et cetera. Cohen (1986) argues that, the thinkers who incline towards the utilitarian philosophy in the issue of animal rights and support the propositions of Jeremy Bentham, are erroneous in that rather that elucidate the concept of ‘rights’ they tend to deliberate upon ‘suffering’. Cohen asserts that in his arguments, Jeremy Bentham does not at nay point claim that animals have rights; on the contrary, his deliberations are based on the perspective that it is immoral to mistreat animals and cause them unnecessary suffering. Cohen (1986) further claims that the thinkers who put up the argument that utilization of animals in bio-medical research is immoral and should consequently be prohibited committed certain errors in formulating their conclusions. One such error is that they erroneously presupposed that ‘all sentient beings have equal moral standing’. Rachels (1999) purports that a being can only be said to possess ‘moral standing’ if they can voice certain ethical allegations on why they should or should not be treated in a certain manner. In her deliberations of whether or not animals have moral standing Rachel (1999) analyses the Personhood Approach. According to this approach, personhood is an element of human beings and therefore non-humans cannot be persons. Rachael (199) that there ate two main principles that are applied in the elucidation of moral standing; firstly, moral standing is a characteristic of rational and self-directed beings and secondly, that as long as any being is sentient is possess moral standing. A human being, unlike an animal, has rights due to the fact that they can think and direct their behaviors with the intention of attaining certain results; animals on the other had are neither autonomous nor can they think logically (Rachels, 1999). The main feature used to define ‘personhood’, as described by Walters (1997), is the possession of perception and consciousness. Walters claims that self consciousness refers to the ability of a being to be perceptive of it as being independent in its existence and interactions with other similar beings; this would imply that non humans are conscious. Nevertheless, Cohen (1997, p. 96) revels that animals lack morality and have no sense of wrong or right; the act of utilizing animals in biomedical research can therefore not be said to infringe upon the rights of animals because in the real sense, they nave no rights whatsoever. Biomedical researchers can only be requested to be humane to the animals when conducting their investigative studies. Cohen disputes the utilitarian argument by disputing their tendency to compare the issue of animals rights to the matters of racism and sexuality; Cohen argues, and rightly so, that the issue of species is much more significant than the divergences as a result of race and sex. In addition to this, Cohen seems to question the morality of anti-speciesists if they cannot appreciate the benefits and good that biomedical research by use of animals has done the human race. In fact Cohen (1986) refers to the opponents of biomedical testing as ‘hypocrites’; if they were really committed to their cause for animals, they would be completely strict in their vegetarian activities and avoid any animal related kind of food, clothing, recreation activity, commercial activity and shelter! Animal testing refers to the series of experiments, tests and other activities conducted under the umbrella of scholastic research which tend to have very detrimental and injurious effects on the animals used as samples. Also referred to as vivisection, this process involves conduction experiments on live animals. Many contemporary governments, especially in the western part of the world describe animal testing as a process or procedure in which animals are caused much harm, injury, pain and immeasurable agony which often time leads to the animal’s death. A very large number of the animals used in such tests are genetically modified. Genetically modified animals are those that are have particular genes extradited into their biological systems or some of the naturally present ones removed or transformed for purposes of imitating diseases that occur in humans. There are a variety of techniques and instruments that are commonly used to administer the investigations on the hapless animals. More often than time, the unfortunate animals are mutilated, shot at and opened up to lethal elements such as viruses, chemicals, toxins and bacteria. As shown in appendix A and B, the type and number of animals used for investigations vary; for some reason, the most preferred animals for such investigations include mice, rats, pigs, monkeys, rabbits, dogs and cats. There exists a lot of statistical data on animal testing that portray the process as having had very fatal medical effects on humans and their health in past days. A commonly cited instance occurred in the year 1963. After a myriad of studies on lung cancer and the smoking of cigarettes, retrospective and prospective investigations ascertained a suspected close link between the two. Nevertheless, after several futile attempts by animal testers to initiate lung cancer in animals, one of the most reputable cancer experts at the time, Clarence Little, made a public announcement that the many failures in inducing cancer in animals in a period lasting more than half a century made any alleged associations between lung cancer and smoking difficult to authenticate. What followed was the death of many people as a result of postponements in health cautions; other cases in which human lives have been lost and health affected include the outcome of studies on the relationship between asbestos and cancer, exposure to nuclear and X-rays and cancer as well as the associations between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis. According to Andereg et al (2006), animals in the contemporary undertakings of medical animal testing are used for a variety of purposes. For investigations being conducted on diseases such as cancer, the medical researchers utilize animals for the objective of coming up with effective techniques, which will enable medical practitioners to efficiently, detect and manage the different forms of cancer. With the technological, agricultural and environmental advancements that the human civilization has been able to achieve as a result of industrialization and globalization, there have occurred other factors that have caused an increase in the number of health issues and complications that both humans and animals are faced with. Animal models of testing are therefore very instrumental when it comes to the analysis and investigation of these myriad of diseases; animal models are also utilized in the analysis of fresh surgical innovations and discoveries. The practice of animal testing has also gained much popularity when it comes to the detection of pathological illnesses; this is done through a process of immunization in which samples collected from individuals affected by certain medical conditions are injected into sample animal models to aid the process of investigation of medical conditions. In addition to animal models being very invaluable in the development of antibodies used in studies about diseases affecting humans, any fresh medication or immunizations have to be tried on animal samples before they can be allowed on humans. It is also not uncommon for animal organs such as sheep eyes to be used on humans; this practice is referred to as Xeno-transplantation and has been in application since the 20th century. According to McNeal (n.d) there are a myriad of reasons why many people are against the practice of animal testing. Firstly, as stated by Greek and Greek (2004), a number of medical practitioners and historians have been quoted as claiming that the discoveries and advancements made in medical conditions such as anesthesia, cancer, immunology, psychiatry and diseases of the heart were as a result of close surveillance of patients, rigorous clinical investigations and human autopsy rather that animal testing. It should be noted that despite a few similarities between humans and animals such as the primates, there actually exists very important cellular, hereditary, immunologic and molecular discrepancies between these two species. Placing too much emphasis in the conduction of research by utilizing animal models may therefore act as an impediment to the conduction of rigorous investigations on humans and therefore pose frontiers to the achievement of medical research progress. Greek and Greek (2004) assert that there are several alternatives to animal testing. The first most obvious alternative would be the classical process of observation and monitoring human beings who are affected by the illnesses under study so as to identify the symptoms, possible causes and reactions to diverse forms of medication. In addition to this, a most suitable scientific study is that which involves in vitro investigations. This refers to the process in which scientists and any other scholarly researchers retrieve the necessary human tissues or cells from the human body and analyze them from a test tube; this allows for the medical investigators to investigate whatever illness that interest them and at the same time develop necessary vaccines or test the effectiveness of manufactured drugs in mitigating the illnesses under study. Technology in the contemporary day has also confirmed that there are certain models of computers that can effectively be utilized to monitor drugs being manufactured for curative or preventive purposes from the very initial phases of their development. Richmond (2000) asserts that apart from epidemiology, which refers to studying a group of individuals affected by the same condition so as to try and determine the causes and possible cure of illnesses, postmortem analyses, which refer to the analysis of dead human bodies is also a very effective alternative to animal testing; as a matter of fact, the result emanating from postmortem investigations have a higher propensity than animal testing to give a more accurate depiction of the human issue under investigation. In addition to this, it would be a big step in the medical sector if instead of the extensive animal testing that is conducted every year to aid in the manufacture of drugs and medicines more effort could be channeled towards educating the masses on healthy living and how to prevent illnesses in the first place. Conclusion For a very long time in the history of mankind the practice of animal testing has been conducted; animal testing refers to the series of experiments, tests and other activities conducted under the umbrella of medical or scholastic research in which animals are used as samples. Also referred to as vivisection, this process involves conduction experiments on live animals. Cosmetic testing on the other hand refers to the investigation of the effects of cosmetic substances and products using animals as samples or models of analysis. There are a variety of reasons why in the modern day the issue of animal testing has been clouded with controversy. While some people are convinced that animal testing is inevitable if the human race has to find cure for all the diseases that affect them, others feel that the practice infringes on animal rights, is unethical and causes excessive damage and suffering to the animal samples. According to Greek and Greek (2004), there are alternatives to animal testing. The first most obvious alternative would be the classical process of observation and monitoring human beings who are affected by the illnesses under study so as to identify the symptoms, possible causes and reactions to diverse forms of medication. In addition to this, a most suitable scientific study is that which involves in vitro investigations. This is the process where scientists retract human tissues or cells from the human body and analyze them from a test tube; this allows for the medical investigators to investigate whatever illness that interest them and at the same time develop necessary vaccines or test the usefulness of manufactured drugs in mitigating the illnesses under study. Despite the divergence views on animal testing, the only feasible solution would be what Thomassen et al (n.d) recommend, the 3R model. Government and freight agencies have noble role to ensure that the mistreatment of animals comes to an end. Governments for instance have to apt their monitoring and enforcement of animal rights policies by ensuring that all exporting agencies are compliant to animal safety and health requirements as well as reducing time taken to clear animal cargo at entry and exit points of their respective countries. To freight agencies, there is nothing they can do but to respect animal rights and uphold animal welfare requirements for all the animals they are transporting to foreign markets. Recommendation The utilization of live animals in research and cosmetology continues to raise controversies and a line needs to be drawn which will act as a guideline and put a stop to the arguments between the proponents and opponents of animal testing which go on and on without any consensus being arrived at. There should be an acknowledgement and appreciation of the fact that it is through animal testing that many fatal and highly mortal illnesses have been able to be managed and the lives of humans, which are more valuable than any animal’s, been safeguarded. Thomassen et al (n.d) recommends the utilization of the 3R model. This model is aimed at the elimination of cruelty from animal testing as well as the shift to alternatives of animal testing in the conduction of animal research. According to Richmond (2000) the first ‘R’ refers to replacement; this necessitates that utilization of computer models and tissue culture in medical investigations as opposed to the culture of using live animals. The second ‘R’ connotes reduction which implies that the quantity of animals needed fro medical experimentations should be kept at a minimum. The last ‘R’, refinement, dictates that the researchers should try as much as possible to treat the animals humanely so as to cause them as little suffering and distress as possible. References Andereg, C., Archibald, K., Bailey, J., Cohen, M. J., Kaufman, S. R. & Pippin, J. J. (2006). “A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation.” Medical research Modernization Committee Cohen, C. (1986). “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine 314, pp. 865-900 Cohen, C. (1997). “Do Animals Have Rights.” Journal of Ethics and Behavior, 7 (2), pp. 91-102 Greek J. S., Greek C. R. (2004). “What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment on Animals?” Medical Research for the Twenty-First Century Victoria, B.C.,Trafford. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from: http://www.victoriassecret.com/beauty Machan R.T. (n.d). The Right Thing To Do: Do animals have rights. McNeal, K. R. (n.d). Death: The Price Of Beauty: Animal Testing And The Cosmetics Industry. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from: http://apps.americanbar.org/environ/committees/lawstudents/pdf/mcneal.pdf Rachels, J. (1999). “Do Animals Have Moral Standing?” Lecture given at a conference in Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved November 26, 2014 from: http://www.jamesrachels.org/MoralStanding.pdf Richmond, J. (2000). “The 3Rs Past, Present and Future.Scan. J. Lab. Anim. Sci 2(27):84-92 Singer P., (1989). All Animals Are Equal. New Jersey. Singer, P. (2006). In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Blackwell Publishing. Thomassen, M., Trolid, E., Arondsen, T. & Gystol, M. (n.d). “Animal Testing in Medical Research: Past, Present and Future.” NTNU Walters, J. W. (1997). What is a Person? An Ethical Exploration. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Read More