There is no doubt that medicines and other products are usually tested on animals before they are permitted to use by human. While I believe that animal testing is morally wrong, this essay would have to support the necessity of animal experimentation for the development purposes.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To illustrate this, laboratory mice is given an illness to investigate a new drug’s effects which can be measured. Opponents of this view discuss that, humans do not have any right to abuse animals to this kind of researches, 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, the reliable alternatives should be considered instead of animal experimentation. Advocates of using animals in medical development argue that a certain number of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They illustrate that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed using animal experimentation. Generally, I believe that banning of animal testing for non-medical products is necessary, but I think that it may be vital where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.
There is no doubt that medicines and other products are
usually
tested
on
animals
before
they
are permitted
to
use
by
human
. While I believe that
animal
testing is
morally
wrong
, this essay would
have to
support the necessity of
animal
experimentation
for the development purposes.
On the one hand, there are
clear
ethical arguments against
animal
experimentation
. To illustrate this, laboratory mice is
given
an illness to investigate a new drug’s effects which can
be measured
. Opponents of this view discuss that,
humans
do not have any right to abuse
animals
to this kind of researches, 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
, the reliable alternatives should
be considered
instead
of
animal
experimentation
. Advocates of using
animals
in
medical
development argue that a certain number of suffering on the part of mice or rats can
be justified
if
human
lives
are saved
. They illustrate that opponents of such research might feel
differently
if a member of their
own
families needed a
medical
treatment that had
been developed
using
animal
experimentation
.
Generally
, I believe that banning of
animal
testing for non-medical products is necessary,
but
I
think
that it may be vital where new drugs and
medical
procedures
are concerned
.
In conclusion
, it seems that it would be
wrong
to ban testing on
animals
for vital
medical
research until
equally
effective alternatives have
been developed
.