Animal Rights and Experimentation - Case Study Example

Animal rights and experimentation Introduction The discussion whether to carry out experiments on animals is among the most tricky to comprehend. Various medical research organizations employ non-human animals as subjects for testing. These subjects are critical for gaining knowledge concerning human disease or for identifying possible human treatments. Since mice and rats have common physiological and genetic characteristics with man, their testing can be critical for supporting medical science. Despite the usefulness of animal experimentation, there is a discussion about the ethics of its use. Some critics argue that animal experimentation must be stopped since it is not right to mistreat animals just to further knowledge. Critics say that animals need to have as much right as people to enjoy their lives until they die naturally (Santos, 2011). Advocates of animal experimentation explain that progress can be made to ensure that the conditions in laboratories are proper so that animals cannot suffer (Wise, 2014). The Case for Animal Experimentation Proponents of animal experimentation argue that non-human animals cannot be regarded morally the same as human beings. These proponents argue that the benefits to humans from the experimentation overshadow the harm done to animals (Cochrane, 2012). Given that most animals lack the cognitive capabilities and lack full autonomy as humans, they are deemed not to belong to the moral community. Since animals are not part of the moral community, humans appear to have limited responsibility towards them. Animals will, therefore, not granted ordinary human rights. If animals fail to enjoy the same rights as people, it is only acceptable to use them for experimentation (Cochrane, 2012). The ways in which research will affect animals are less morally significant than the advantages human beings will accrue. The Case against Animal Experimentation A critical part of the discussion over animal rights lies in the question of the moral status that animals do enjoy. Animals have some moral status that makes it wrong to mistreat them. Opponents of animal experimentations argue that non-human animals have the same moral status as human beings and must have equal treatment (Levy, 2012). They argue that animals must be given a respectful treatment just as human beings. Man should not enjoy the right to kill animals in order to develop his objectives. Opponents of animal experimentations say that the moral status emanates from the capacity of undergoing suffering or enjoying life. Since animals can feel and experience the pleasure, they need to have similar moral status and treatment just as humans. Pro-animal rights argue that denying animals moral status than humans enjoy amounts to the prejudice referred to as “speciesism” (Levy, 2012). Peter Singer believes that the interests of animals are the same as those of human beings. Singer argues that equality is a moral idea, not just an assertion of fact. The singer says that if a higher level does not warrant a person to use others for his benefit, it cannot warrant humans to manipulate animals. He describes "Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests" as giving equal weight in people’s moral deliberations to the interests of beings affected by people’s actions (Levy, 2012). Ethical issues in animal experimentation The three Rs There are several ethical, legal and economic motives for ensuring that animals are taken care of appropriately and used in least numbers. The principles that underpin the humane use of animals in experimentations are referred to as the three Rs. Researchers who are intending to use animals in their studies need to indicate there are no alternatives and that efforts will be made to minimize their suffering. The three Rs include (Rowlands, 2013): i. Replacement Replacement refers to the exchange of conscious living higher animals of lifeless material. Different alternative methods may be used to change the use of live animals in an experiment to a different material. Replacement may involve a situation where animals will provide cells or tissue. These methods are suitable for experiments at the tissue or cellular level. It can be a cost-effective and time-saving method. The experiments may offer knowledge that matches studies that involve a whole animal. ii. Reduction The aim of reduction is to decrease the numbers of animals that are used to acquire information pertaining to certain amount and accuracy. There are two critical cautions to be considered. The first one is that the principle of reduction of animals’ numbers should not be used without regard for the well-being of animals. The second one is that the number of animals to be used need to meet statistical requirements. If the reduction of the number makes it hard to arrive at a conclusion of the study, it fails to achieve the aim of the experiment. Proceeding with such an analysis will make it unethical. iii. Refinement Refinement refers to the reduction in the cruelty of inhumane practices applied to the animals that must be used. Refinement involves the assessment of the impact of procedures that concerns the well-being of the animal and strategies to eradicate the impact. Experimenters must refine the ways in which experiments are conducted to ensure that there is little suffering on the part of the animals. It includes better housing and enhancements to processes that will help reduce pain. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism refers to an ethical theory that argues that an action is morally right if it can benefit many beings. One determines what is right by finding out the level of pleasure or suffering that one’s action may cause. After doing the calculations, the right step will be the one that gives most satisfaction or smaller amount of suffering to the majority of the beings. An individual can also use utilitarianism to validate or criticize actions for animal rights. Many proponents of animals’ rights argue that experimentations cause a lot suffering to animals and must be condemned. Deontology Deontology holds the views that some actions are right or wrong, despite the consequences (Groenewege, 2013). John Stuart Mills views take deontology further by involving the significance of the consequences as they involve the highest benefit for the greatest number. An action may have intrinsic moral weight, but it is judged based on whether it causes pleasure or pain. Deontology may point out that it is inherently wrong to harm or kill animals. Most deontological philosophers establish the morality of actions based on their effect on humans (Groenewege, 2013). Furthermore, people such as Kant argue that an intention is in the same way as imperative in a moral theory. If an individual’s intention is to adhere to the moral law, any action may be deemed to be moral, irrespective of the consequences. Consequentialism Consequentialism is a moral theory that argues that the morality of an action depends only on its consequences (Groenewege, 2013). Consequentialism supports the idea that the consequence of an individual’s action is the most important, not how it is achieved. One needs to be virtuous as long as the outcome of the action is morally right (Groenewege, 2013). Consequentialism may go against the rights of animals. The results of an action, regardless of its importance, cannot justify doing an incorrect thing to achieve it. For example, protecting cattle is laudable, but killing all the badgers that infested cattle with a disease is morally wrong. The best way to do it is to develop a vaccine that will protect the animals rather than killing the badgers. Consequentialism concentrates on good results and ignores the motivation for one’s actions. However, what one does can be said to be moral if it is done with good intentions. References Cochrane, A. (2012). Animal rights without liberation: applied ethics and human obligations. Columbia University Press. Groenewege, P. J. L. (2013). The Sustainability of Animal Ethics: A Synthesis of Utilitarianism and Deontology Levy, N. (2012). The use of animal as models: ethical considerations. International Journal of Stroke, 7(5), 440-442. Rowlands, M. (2013). Animal rights.Canada: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Santos, R. (2011). Ethical Responsibilities to Animals and the Environment. Status Published. Wise, S. (2014). Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Da Capo Press. Read More