No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I'm not a scientist or an expert on the subject, but the argument that NO medical research done to animals is every justified just doesn't make any sense. While it's probably true that we need to be more compassionate with animals, we still need to continue testing and research on animals. Most everything I have read -- assuming from credible sources without a pro-animal agenda -- points to the fact that testing on animals does save human lives.
- marloma July 16, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I also have a lay perspective of this issue, yet through the eyes and words of well-informed acquaintances, I have learned to follow the money and “cures that are banned” by our Allopathic medical establishment.
With our technological advancements in the last few decades, using animals vs. basic medical algorithms, as just one of many noninvasive, profoundly more accurate, research methods, is medieval.
If you think you will ever see cures for cancers, or anything else that is backed by massive dollar movement through charities and grants, then all I can say is please, do not donate your money.
I hope this was in no way impolite.
- alfawav August 29, 2008 5:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Having been exposed to this profitable and unethical world of medical research through the eyes of a “former” vivisectionist, all I can say is this is about human egocentric methodologies and money. This has nothing to do with “healing”, and you sir know that better than most.
- alfawav August 29, 2008 4:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It's good to know that I'm not the only one that feels that medical research on animals cannot be justified.
- lisathevegan
September 17, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Animal Testing is both morally reprehensible and scientifically irresponsible.
Humans save human lives, animal torture does not.
- Citizen D July 28, 2008 1:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mother Earth does not belong to humans only, but also many millions and billions of other organisms.
We protect human rights, so what? Do humans care about other organisms? Very soon, this world will be filled with humans who do not feel for other organisms on this Earth. There must be another way to conduct researches than conducting them on animals. As an expert, I think you will be able to find out an alternative method for research.
If a human cares about human rights, it shows that the human respects life, therefore, he must respect animals' lives too.
- Rainie August 21, 2008 1:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The irony here is a bit overwhelming to say the least. SARS was caused and spread by humans using animals in the first place. By describing how researchers used animals to locate the cause of the SARS virus but leaving out the fact that humans caused the virus by exploiting and using non humans in the first place is a kin to blaming someone for killing someone while breaking and entering their home. INSANE!
LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE!
- Phat P August 6, 2008 11:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If animals are used to grow human parts that opens up a whole new can of worms because it blurs the line between human and nonhuman.
But more importantly, animals do not exist in order to serve our bizarre whims. They are not ours to use or abuse.
- ElaineVigneault
September 1, 2008 9:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Do we have the moral right to violate the interests of any being merely to satisfy our own interests?
In the case of humans, we of course say "no." In the case of other animals, for some reason we say "yes." However, I have not yet heard one non-arbitrary reason why this is so.
All sentient animals have a moral right to life and to not be caused pain, much less to live their lives without being used against their will in other ways. To grant legal protection for humans and not for non-humans is speciesist hypocrisy. Species membership simply is not a morally valid justification for ignoring the interests of sentient beings, any more than age, sex, race, and so on.
- Eric Prescott August 27, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Can Medical Research on Animals be Justified?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'd rather see a rat die than a person
The first argument that PETA uses to argue against animal testing is that many of the drugs tested on animals and moved into human trials end up being harmful to humans. What they don't mention is how many drugs are tested on animals that don't move onto human trials because they're determined to be dangerous.
Here's an overly simplified example. Bleach certainly kills the AIDS virus. Test tube trials would show this is absolutely true. We clearly don't want to inject bleach into somebody to see if it kills them too. We test it on animals first because we'd rather see a dozen dead rats than a dozen dead people.
Computer models and lab tests can certainly help eliminate many dangerous chemicals but in the end there are many that seem fine in the computer but just don't work. I'd rather see a rat die than a person.
- State of Reason
August 6, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not so simple
I don't believe this issue is cut and dry. Generally we should not test on animals, but I don't think this should be an absolute rule.
On a side note, many of the vegans around here will rightly point out that we do not need to eat animal products to be healthy and that a good vegetarian diet is healthier than one with animal products. The irony is that we know this in large part because of animal testing!
- jayd
September 26, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.