Animal Testing Controversy
When shopping at a store, no one ever thinks when he or she buys makeup, cleaning products, deodorant or lotion, that it has potentially hurt an innocent animal. In fact, millions of animals die every year due to a chemical drug. Those animals harmed never got a chance to live a normal, animal life; instead, they were put into cages and locked up for years at a time. While animal testing can be used to ensure the safety of certain drugs for humans, potentially killing or harming the animal being tested deems this practice wrong because it is immoral to kill or injure an innocent animal.
An animal being subjected to testing is not fair; that animal did nothing wrong to deserve to be treated as an experiment. Like humans, animals are creatures living and breathing on this world too. How is it acceptable that creatures almost equal to us humans are treated like scum? Stated in the article “Controversy of Animal Testing” by Ian Murnaghan, “One key argument against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the tests. Humans... can make an informed decision to consent while animals have tests forced upon them, with no choice.” As Murnaghan said, animals do not have the choice to decide whether they’ll be tested on or not, for they are obviously unable to speak. However, given the opportunity for an animal to have a voice, the likelihood that they’d reject the proposal of a test is highly likely. During an animal test, it may involve pain, suffering and discomfort. Although researchers try their best to minimize the pain, they aren't able to completely prevent any from happening. For the reason that an innocent animal is suffering against their free will, animal testing should be eliminated for the testing of drugs and other substances.
All beings respond differently to various kinds of drugs and chemicals applied on them for testing. Since they react in so many different ways, it is very hard to conclude any results from the data they receive. As Murnaghan says in the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons,” “the reaction of a drug in an animal's body is quite different from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is unreliable.” Like Murnaghan stated, it is almost pointless to even test animals on certain drugs and chemicals because they all have different responses to everything. For instance, morphine, which is a commonly used drug for pain relief, calms humans, whereas for cats, it excites them. Varied reactions from a drug emphasizes that humans and animals are different creatures, therefore, why test on animals expecting results related to how humans will react? That simply does not make sense. While researchers may search for drug and chemical questions through the testing of animals, the results are figured to be invalid due to the fact that our bodies are composed differently, thus deeming animal testing as unnecessary and wrong.
Not only are animals harmed and potentially killed while being tested on, but their living conditions are inhumane and unfair. Arrays of cages are what researchers keep animals in. Small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are typically kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox but more than one animal lives in a box. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Should these animals be kept in these circumstances their entire lives? Heartbreakingly, most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments. What kind of life is that? On one hand, strict laws insure that the cages are warm, clean, and big enough. However, they are still kept in cages; a cage can never be as interesting, stimulating, or open as a natural habitat. On the PETA website, a startling image is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document