"I oppose using animals for medical research”
Is this crucial…or cruelty?
This is the first question that occurred to me when I first knew about animal testing. As an animal lover myself, I often question whether animal experimentation is really essential in today’s world of advanced medical science. This topic has indeed sparked much debate among animal rights groups, scholars and scientists. As a supporter of animal rights myself, I would like to propose against the use of animals for medical research. The history of animal testing goes back to the 3rd centuries BC, with Aristotle among the first to perform experiments on living animals. Since then, various diseases like hepatitis B and polio have been treated owing to medications that were developed from animal tests. Results from medical research on animals have also led to improvement in medical procedures like blood measurement, lung and heart disease diagnosis. But…what has been neglected?
Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, force-fed chemicals, genetically altered, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science. And this is just United States alone. Animals go through severe pain during the tests. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006, about 7% of the animals were used in studies that would cause pain that was not relieved. In others, anesthesia is used. Even so, how can we truly know if animals are not feeling any pain? Just because animals can't speak, is it justifiable, or fair, for them to be subjected to such treatments? And it’s not just pain. In order to study medical effects, animals are imprisoned, subjected to various treatments and observed over periods of time. As a result, their health suffers, such as loss of eyesight, organ failure and many more dangerous consequences on animal health. On the other hand, scientists will argue that live animals are the...