Animal Testing Unethical

Using animals as an alternative to human testing has been a highly controversial topic over the past few decades. With harsh conditions and unethical treatments, the understanding of animal testing is very important. From over-the-counter medications to experiments on cures of chronic illnesses, animals were used in one way or another. Unfortunately, not all experiments given to animals involved a tasty snack or a simple treat. Many experiments involved several incidents of agony and pain without relief. Not knowing the effects that certain experiments have on animals is not only causing pain and suffering of the animals, but also slowing the evolution of these products, wasting money on the production of unethical decisions. Understanding
When treating the animals with an experiment or even the living conditions that these animals are put into, experimenters aren’t taking into consideration how much pain or turmoil that the animals are experiencing. In an article written by ProCon, the author states “According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation.” (ProCon, 2016). Experimenters are more focused on the results and the reactions from the testing products rather than the well-being of these animals. Ethics and morality take a huge role in animal testing and research. Many moralists wants to give several reasons on why animal testing is wrong, but they all share one common piece of information. This type of experimentation is immoral. One of the most outstanding parts of this research is the lack of laws that protect animals from experiencing cruelty during experimentation. In an article by the Atlantic, it is stated “scientific men to animals should be under any laws or restrictions save those general ones which regulate the behavior of all men so as to protect animals from cruelty.”. (Dewey, 1926). Experimenters are allowed to conduct experiments with as much pain infliction as desired, under one condition. Pain is allowed to be inflicted on the test subject if it meant not inflicting pain on human beings. Again,
Two really strong points arise from people who feel animal testing is beneficial. The first point that comes up is “There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.” (ProCon, 2016). Because the living systems of both humans and animals are extremely complex, studying animals and humans in a petri dish doesn’t provide the opportunity in studying the entire system of a human or animal. Determining how a medication affects a human, it requires for it to run through the organs to get the full effect. In this way, animals and humans are very similar. However, the point against it is there are now alternative testing that can completely replace animal testing. The use of petri dishes, involving animal and human cells can provide more productive results since it provides the opportunity in using both human and animal cells. Researchers are able to provide microdoses of medications to human beings in which if any poor results were to happen, the dose wouldn’t be large enough for something severally significant to happen. From there, blood can be used in which would allow researchers to make an observation on how a medication can alter a human beings body. Additionally, scientists are able to make artificial organs from tissues and human cells by using a microchip to recreate the functions of human organs. All