Nowadays animal experiments are widely
used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some
people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally
wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of
their benefits to humanity.
Discuss both views and give your own
opinion.
It
is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals
before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that
animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of
animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On
the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation.
To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an
illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of
such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind
of trauma, 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, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always
be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that
a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if
human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel
differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that
had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I
agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel
that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are
concerned.
In
conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for
vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been
developed.
No comments:
Post a Comment