• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Animal Testing

Extracts from this document...


In some views, animal testing is necessary, some animals may suffer for the benefit of humans but if others say we should stop animal testing, then we should stop eating meat from slaughtered animals. Scientists claim that if they stop testing an animals reaction to the treatment or experiment, then it would corrupt the search to find cures for diseases like, rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. All of these apparently depend on animal testing many of the medications and procedures that we currently use today would exist and the development of future treatments would be extremely limited. As humans it is assumed that we have a moral duty to prevent any animals of unnecessary suffering. However, as far as animal testing is concerned we are confronted with a choice between the welfare of humans and the welfare of animals. Critics of animal testing say that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments, but it would be even more inhumane to test on children or ...read more.


They feel that animal testing should not be used for products that are not essential such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced with more humane methods being used. We as humans need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new products are treated with little suffering. Although some animal testing cannot be avoided now, treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible will demonstrate our humanity. Many people argue that animal testing is cruel. In some cases this is true. However it would be much more cruel to let people die because there was not enough information about a new drug. Opponents of animal research also say that information from animals does not apply to humans. They point out drugs which have been withdrawn because of side-effects in humans. While it is true that animal systems differ from human systems, this can back up an argument against animal testing because when ...read more.


However, the unnecessary torture of animals through testing is non-essential for human survival. When it comes to the needless torture of animals that we claim to benefit, the animals lives need to be taken into consideration. I am glad that scientists are now taking this onboard as I am sure they are getting irritated by animal rights campaigners and anti-testing protesters and they must feel better about themselves that it is changing gradually, through using better methods to ease the pain and suffering inflicted on animals as it will now greatly decrease. Personally I don't think Animal Testing will last long because technology is now becoming more advance and good progress is being made by it. If it wasn't for animals we wouldn't exist, to me it has done more good than bad and countless lives have been saved due to it, in the future majority of animals will hopefully be replaced by technology, making it much more easier without any arguments, and the use of animals will be disapproved. BY LUKE POLLIN ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise essays

  1. Animal testing

    heavily contested by animal lovers as they feel that even with the legislation animals are still being mistreated, this instances are however rare but are felt very strong by pro animal rights protesters.

  2. Coursework B Animal Testing

    he also calls them violent which is a biased remark as he is in the organisation against them so he is not telling the full story to both views and all of the anti-vivisection are not all violent. Other bias comments is that he calls them names such as 'These

  1. Should animal testing be banned?

    the pain, they are given some form of anaesthesia, and as a result do not feel anything. This is a lie! Actual figures show that in America, in 2006 about 670,000 animals (not including rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates) were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress.

  2. Arguments for and against Animal testing. I disagree with K. Archibalds opinion of banning ...

    � 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements � 4,000 heart defects corrected � 2,500 corneal transplants � 2,000 kidney transplants � 400 heart/lung transplants The above information is from Huntingdon Life Sciences' website which can be found at www.huntingdon.com None of these operations or the techniques used during them would have been possible without previous animal research.

  1. Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing

    Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" (qtd.

  2. Is Animal testing necessary?

    Opinion polls show that most people think some animal use may be justified, but they usually set limits relating to the use of particular species, the level of suffering involved and the purpose of the experiments.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work