It's standard that animal experiments are widely use to develop new medicine for the safety of other products many people argue that these should be banned simply because it's morally wrong to cause animal to suffer, while other are in a favor of them as they move benefits to humanity. In my opinion, the traditional practice should be upheld for the following reasons.
Firstly, it's much more expensive than alternative and less effective than those safe, harmless other methods that don't harm living creatures. In other words, animal experimentation is about 92% ineffective overall, even the animal experiments that are approved have little chance of succeeding when tested on these innocent creatures that haven't done anything to us. Moreover there are numerous pros and construction of animal testing, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them. For instance, the emotion maybe the ultimate determing factor in whether a person believe the benefits of animal testing outweigh the problem associated with the practice such as animal and human are never exactly the same.
Another reason for the current practice to be upheld, is that it gives room for researchers to find drug and treatment to various kind of diseases and also gives room to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatment have been made possible by animal testing including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. It help to ensure the safety of the drugs and many other substances human use or are exposed to regularly, drugs in particular can carry significant dangers with their use but animal testing allows researchers to initially gauge the safety thereby reduce human harm and human lives are saved.
To sum up, in recent times, animal testing are predominantly being used in creating new drug and ascertaining the safety of other products. Many people have argued that it's unethical and should be prohibited, because it subject the test subject to pain. Other with a contrary opinion to this, say that the benefits to humanity can't be quantified and stated.
It's
standard that
animal
experiments are
widely
use to
develop new medicine for the
safety
of
other
products
many
people
argue that these should
be banned
simply
because
it's
morally
wrong
to cause
animal
to suffer, while
other
are in a favor of them as they
move
benefits to humanity. In my opinion, the traditional practice should
be upheld
for the following reasons.
Firstly
,
it's
much more expensive than alternative and less effective than those safe, harmless
other
methods that don't harm living creatures. In
other
words,
animal
experimentation is about 92% ineffective
overall
, even the
animal
experiments that
are approved
have
little
chance of succeeding when
tested
on these innocent creatures that haven't done anything to us.
Moreover
there are numerous pros and construction of
animal
testing
, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them.
For instance
, the emotion maybe the ultimate
determing
factor in whether a person
believe
the benefits of
animal
testing
outweigh the problem associated with the practice such as
animal
and
human
are never exactly the same.
Another reason for the
current
practice to
be upheld
, is that it gives room for researchers to find
drug
and treatment to various kind of diseases and
also
gives room to
improve
health and medicine.
Many
medical treatment have
been made
possible by
animal
testing
including cancer and HIV
drugs
, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and
many
more. It
help
to ensure the
safety
of the
drugs
and
many
other
substances
human
use
or
are exposed
to
regularly
,
drugs
in particular
can carry significant
dangers
with their
use
but
animal
testing
allows
researchers to
initially
gauge the
safety
thereby
reduce
human
harm and
human
lives
are saved
.
To sum up, in recent times,
animal
testing
are
predominantly
being
used
in creating new
drug
and ascertaining the
safety
of
other
products.
Many
people
have argued that
it's
unethical and should
be prohibited
,
because
it
subject
the
test
subject to pain.
Other
with a contrary opinion to this, say that the benefits to humanity can't
be quantified
and stated.