It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed
It is true that medicines and other products are
routinely
tested
on
animals
before
they
are cleared
for
human
use
. While I tend towards the viewpoint that
animal
testing is
morally
wrong
, I would
have to
support a limited amount of
animal
experimentation
for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are
clear
ethical arguments against
animal
experimentation
. To
use
a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be
given
an illness
so
that the effectiveness of a new drug can
be measured
. Opponents of such
research
argue that
humans
have no right to subject
animals
to this kind of trauma, and that the
lives
of all creatures should
be respected
. They believe that the benefits to
humans
do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should
use
alternative methods of research.
On the other hand
, reliable alternatives to
animal
experimentation
may not always be available. Supporters of the
use
of
animals
in
medical
research
believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can
be justified
if
human
lives
are saved
. They argue that opponents of such
research
might feel
differently
if a member of their
own
families needed a
medical
treatment that had
been developed
through the
use
of
animal
experimentation
.
Personally
, I
agree
with the banning of
animal
testing for non-medical products,
but
I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and
medical
procedures
are concerned
.
In conclusion
, it seems to me that it would be
wrong
to ban testing on
animals
for vital
medical
research
until
equally
effective alternatives have
been developed