Buy essay on Should animals be used in medical experimentation and research?

This work is totally dedicated to the specific topic called “Should animals be used in medical experimentation and research?” It consists from summarizing and analyzing the information and thoughts, given in different works about this theme. The essay sheds light on the main argument of the definition and determining of different points of view and terms. Detailed overview can allow getting the main ideas, advantages and disadvantages of a big amount of thoughts and arguments. Thus, I am going to show and illustrate all sides of this topic through this paper. Here will be discussed all benefits of my position and the opposite one, supporting details of my point of view and other facts and information.

Should animals be used in medical experimentation and research?

First, it is appropriately to mention that this topic is widespread and well known through all over the world. Therefore, it is useful to give the information and different points of view (with its arguments and facts) in order to make the right decision when talking about lives of animals. In the beginning of my writing, I want to notice three main benefits of my opposite position. Next, three supporting details of my points of view against previous benefits will be mentioned. In conclusion, the inference let us summarize and sum up all the information we are going to discuss. The thesis and main mission of my paper is to prove that animals should not be used in medical experimentation and research.

First benefit of my opposite position

Prater has mentioned that medical research requires the use of animals to verify whether a new medicine or compound is fatal to use in humans. We would not have any new treatments or drugs if animals were not available. We would be testing in humans and killing unnecessarily. Psychology also has a history of using animals to test cognitive development, language, and information processing. The need for animals in research, particularly medical research, is because of the need to determine the toxicity and dangers of new drugs (2002-2010, pg 1). Any medical research and any medical experimentation are needed to be tested, especially the effect of the chemicals. It is obvious that animals are very useful in the area of testing chemicals or drugs. In order to avoid human’s death and illnesses researches and scientists use animals when checking the effect of the chemical on the organism. In the beginning, researches did this work on cell lines, then complex alive beings (for example, rodent), at last, they started to use mammals (dogs, monkeys).
First supporting detail of my point of view

Taking in account all the facts that were given above, it must be said that it has the fail in its structure. As Prater noticed, recently, the system has been short cutted, and there have been many problems with clinical trials resulting in death or drugs being released before appropriate testing has been done on them. The effect of chemicals in animals does not always directly translate into what the effect will be in people, but it can give an indication of what dangers may be present (2002-2010, pg 2). The point is that animal’s organism is not the same but common to human’s one, it has its own specific factors and reactions on any chemical. Thus, it can be definitely said that testing on animals cannot give totally full and correct information that can be translated into what the human’s organism will affect. It is an undoubtedly fact that animals can give people new discoveries in the sphere of medicine. Animals can bring many benefits to human’s life, especially the vaccines and antibiotics, which are extremely important. However, the disadvantage is that animal’s organism can receive another effect of the chemical, than human’s can.

Second benefit of my opposite position

Animals are perfect tools for learning for researches and scientists. They can help with solving the problems with health care system in the world. Some of persistent illnesses and health problems in the world are tobacco (it is the most predictable and preventable reason of cancer), alcohol (alcohol can lead to almost 60 different types of other diseases and even injuries). In addition, there are blood pressure (raised level of it often leads to stroke and even heart disease) and cholesterol (high rates can make the risk of coronary heart injuries higher). Recently, some kind of health problem appeared. Visual impairment, it means that such illnesses lead to preventable blindness; physical inactivity, which causes 2 million deaths a year. Rich and poor countries have different problems with health sphere. Nevertheless, all they use the experiments and researches on the animals. It is mentioned that for basic research (in order to find out what does the disease represent) dogs are used because they are perfect mimic of the cardiovascular system of human. It is obvious that surgeon doctor can practice first on dog’s heart before human’s one. However, diabetic dogs are seemed to be a good example of objects to learn enzyme or genetic deviations, which usually result in the human’s body breakdown as people age. Monkeys traditionally are used in researches about AIDS and HIV possible treatments. It is obvious that without animals’ help in the sphere of medicine humanity will be in loss.

buy essay
Second supporting detail of my point of view

It is said that researches and experiments on the animals are cruel and not ethical. Animals’ experiments must be stopped and outlawed because of hurtfulness and unnecessary harm to them. The pain is extremely huge to the animals that are used in testing. According to Algoe, it is said that an estimated 50,000 animals die due to the testing on them that Proctor and Gamble performs on them every year. There are laws in place for the safety of animals that are on our streets or that live with us as companions, but there are no laws that say it is wrong for businesses to slice a dog open while it is still alive with no anesthesia just to take tests of its kidney (2010, pg 2). Animals are usually killed when the testing ends. Animals certainly feel discomfort; get problems with species-extrapolation; they also die. Therefore, is animals testing needed in our times? This question must be answered as soon as it is possible. Any cosmetic and medical item can kill animal (during the testing). In recent years, many ways of testing have appeared, and they do not require animals. Another way of testing chemicals must be found out in order to stop killing innocent animals.

 
Third benefit of my opposite position

In spite of animals’ deaths and discomfort, the testing on them brings lot of useful innovations, discoveries and conclusions. People who say that animals’ testing is not ethical do not think about the benefits it brings and influence it have on the area of medicine. Each of us, including our friends, families, relatives and just simply strangers, are affect with testing on animals, to be more correct, with its results. According to Algoe, tests that are performed on animals range from them being forced to ingest different household cleaning products and then monitored to see the results and new cosmetics placed on their skin to find out if there are any side effects that would be harmful to a human. There are even some practices where animals are forced to ingest a medicine before it is put on the market to make sure that there are no life- threatening illnesses that will be caused to a human from taking the product (2010, pg 3). Further still, it is obvious that chemicals and medical item must be tested in order not to harm people’s life. Someone should do it: a human or an animal. The great significance of the testing on animals is undoubtedly and obvious fact. Otherwise, how people can prevent illnesses and diseases; how can the humanity struggle with them; how can we fight for our life when do not know anything about chemicals’ effect on our bodies?
Third supporting detail of my point of view

The last argument and fact that support my point of view is that there are alternatives in nowadays world that can be used instead of cruel testing on animals. There are non-animals alternative tests in the sphere of cosmetics and household objects. However, companies continue to test on animals in the cruel way. The reason is the fear: one of good liability suits and another for people safety. The alternatives that are used nowadays are computer software, in-vitro testing and, at last, people “clinical testing”. In addition, there are also such alternative ways as the using of animal’s cells and organs, even tissue cultures. Moreover, animals’ lives are seemed to be certainly sacrificed for the using of its organs and parts. As Algoe noticed, founded in 1981 was Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), a place that is dedicated to helping find new methods to replace the laboratory animals that is being tested on. The CAAT vision states: “To be a leading force in the development and use of reduction, refinement, and replacement alternatives in research, testing, and education to protect and enhance the health of the public” (2010, pg 4). The use of animals’ testing is not needed any longer in the contemporary world. Animals must not die because of our tests.
Conclusion

In conclusion, I must mention that the necessity of testing on animals is nowadays proved to be superfluous. The main arguments that supported my position are: first, animal’s organism is not the same but common to human’s one, it has its own specific factors and reactions on every chemical. Thus, testing on animals cannot give totally full and correct information that can be translated into what the human’s organism will affect. Second, Animals’ experiments must be stopped and outlawed because of hurtfulness and unnecessary harm to them (they feel discomfort; get problems with species-extrapolation; they also die). At last, there are alternatives in nowadays world that can be used instead of cruel testing on animals (that lead to their death). In addition, testing on animals can be replaced with another alternative (more ethics).

 
References
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, N.Y., Random House, 1975, 1990,
Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals. New York, N.Y., Basil Blackwell Inc, 1985.