Magel said? Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. Animals are living creatures that have feelings just like a human being.
Through research, outreach, education, legislation, and policy change, NEAVS advocates for replacing animals with modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely, and scientifically superior. This article was written to inform and persuade those who are using animals as test subjects that there are many alternatives available, which are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. The article mentions several different alternative methods that can be used as opposed to animal testing. It mentions that in-vitro testing isn’t the only form of non-animal alternative testing that exists, as most commonly thought. It also gives multiple cases where animal testing was strictly unreliable and caused great mishaps among many communities relying on this treacherousness.
They don’t deserve to be treated so terribly just to try to test medical products that weren’t even intended for use on them. If scientists want animals so badly for tests, why not the animals that these tests were designed for? If the products are intended for human use, than other animals shouldn’t suffer for being innocent. Clearly, animal experimentation is immoral, unnecessary, and animals have rights too, so they shouldn’t be tested on and they most definitely shouldn't have to go through agonizing inhumane procedures that will scar them for
Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests.
“The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?’”(Jeremy Bentham, 1832) .Whether we should use animals for testing or not. Some would say it’s beneficial for the human race while others look at it as a form of cruelty. A high number of people, according to polls, state that they would rather like to see an alternative to testing.
Why don’t we use them? Do scientist not care about the beautiful environment? It is now a law that scientists must use any alternative than animal testing. The Animal Welfare Regulations explains that researchers or scientist have considered, and will use any replacement. Now that this issue has come more into tact, scientist and researchers are now taking action.
However, it must be done in a controlled environment where students can think about the moral and ethical issues surrounding the practice. The biggest reason of those who are against dissection is animal rights. Behavioral studies of diverse animals shown that some animals, including dogs, magpies, and elephants, while not as advanced as humans, animals do have a sense of self-awareness. If some
Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’” (5).
Countries like: European Union, Israel, Norway, and India. While some countries are still considering it, they have not been approved. Other alternatives have been making a huge difference in the cosmetic world. Propaganda and other forms of media are always being released to fight against cosmetic testing allowing another genre of audience seeing these inhumane acts on these animals. Major companies use well known alternatives such as “In Vitro and In Vivo” are a few of the biggest testing alternatives known in banned animal testing countries.
Animal testing is a highly controversial subject, disputed among many. It is evidently not pleasant to animals, but it is extremely beneficial for scientific findings. Some say it is a necessary evil, and some say it is animal cruelty. Others cannot simply make up their minds about this subject. Although many people are against animal testing, it must continue due to medicine development, advantages of testing animals over other subjects, and the regulated experiments for the animals’ safety.