Another argument for vivisection is that benefits such as reducing human suffering through such experimentation and medical breakthroughs ultimately outweigh the desire to prevent animal suffering. Testing drugs and vaccines on animals allow us determine if they are safe for humans to use as well as the effectiveness of newly developed drugs. Researchers claim that vivisection has played a vital role in the advancement of medical therapies and have led to further discoveries in the sectors of diseases such as cancer, AIDS, treatment in spinal cord injuries, and so on. For this reason, many support vivisection as such experiments are intended to aid people. According to Mill’s utilitarianism, vivisection would be considered right because the majority of people benefit and can achieve happiness as a result of the tests. Similarly, scientists push for the concept that it should always be permissible for human beings to protect themselves even at the expense of the suffering of other species and that human life and happiness ultimately takes precedence over that of animals. Therefore, justifying the act of experimenting on animals.
On the other hand, other parties against vivisection argue that animals do have rights and should not be subjected to the brutalities of the experiments as they are still living creatures. Additionally that animals have a right to freedom and, hence, harmfully confining them for use in experiments is unjustifiable. Many of them adopt the opinion that animals, like human beings, have the capacity to feel pain because they appear to react to physical hurt and have behavioral responses to emotional distress (wellcome.ac.uk). This would mean that test animals are conscious and experience the pain and trauma induced during experiments. Therefore, they believe that if it is unethical to intentionally harm a person, the same rule should apply to animals that can also suffer. Furthermore, Kant opposed such cruelty to animals, as it is not one’s moral duty to cause living things to suffer (Robinson 146). This is reiterated in Buddhist teachings where it is believed that all beings are afraid of injury and death, making it wrong to intentionally harm a living thing. Therefore, these people believe that vivisection should be disallowed as they feel too many animals are being killed and injured in the process and it is unfair to treat them like disposable tools for research.
There needs to be a balance between the pros and cons of vivisection to ensure that scientific and medical research can develop without excessively harming animals in the process. As such, ethical guidelines can be established to allow vivisection to continue to benefit mankind as long as the experiments are absolutely necessary and the suffering of animals is kept to a minimum.
The first ethical boundary can be to allow vivisection only when the experiment and its results are needed for medical and scientific progress which will be beneficial to mankind and that there are no alternative methods to conduct these experiments. This would ensure that animals are not harmed for unnecessary reasons such as tests for cosmetic products and procedures. Apart from aesthetic purposes, cosmetic products do not contribute greatly to humankind and are not vital enough to justify the suffering of animals. For example, Botox only treats relatively rare medical conditions and is more sought after for its cosmetic purposes like eliminating facial wrinkles. In the UK, mice are administered with botulinum toxin causing them to undergo paralysis, start gasping for breath and eventually suffocating to death (www.buav.org). These tests ensure quality control of the products and the reason seems trivial for the degree of suffering the mice are forced to endure. Thus, vivisection should not be allowed in cases where the experiment’s objective is superficial and the benefits that can come from it do not benefit the majority in the medical and scientific fields. Laboratories should replace the live animals with inanimate objects to avoid potential pain experiments might cause. For instance, using corneas from computer models instead of rabbits for the Draize Eye test, to accurately test the irritancy level. In fact, such computerized alternatives are more effective in indicating the effect of certain drugs and toxins on humans. Therefore, vivisection should be authorized only for medical or scientific experiments that benefit the majority of humankind and when no substitutes for the live animals are available.
Another possible ethical boundary should be that the proposed experiments and procedures have a relatively high success rate and are likely to produce results or provide vital information which are advantageous to people. Prior tests and trials should be initiated to ensure future experiments can be carried out smoothly before live animals are put into the picture. This would allow scientists and researchers to assess the potential risks that may occur and more re-evaluations of the experimental procedure can take place, hence, raising the level of success of the experiments. If the success rate of an experiment is higher, less wastage is likely to occur where animals are continuously injured and killed because of experiments that have repeatedly failed. Hence, refining the experimental procedures to lower the failure rate could reduce the number of animals which would have potentially been harmed. Thus, vivisection should not be carried out if the risk of animals dying because of their involvement in failed experiments is high.
The third ethical guideline is to allow vivisection only when animals are not intentionally harmed or killed and that the suffering should be humane and at a minimum. To recap, the majority of vertebrates possess the capacity to feel pain and, therefore, it is unethical to knowingly put animals through high degrees of suffering and pain. For instance, “experimenters force-feed chemicals to animals, conduct repeated surgeries on them, implant wires in their brains, crush their spines” (peta.org) and these acts are cruel and inhumane. In another example, psychologist Harlow conducted experiments where female monkeys suffered severe and persistent psychopathological behaviour after being put through a long period of chamber confinement (DeGrazia 100). Although Harlow may have discovered a great deal about mother-infant bonding, it has been questioned if it could have been done without putting the monkeys through such brutal conditions. Therefore, it is unjustified to deliberately leave animals dead or badly injured and deformed as they made to suffer both physically and psychologically. One suggestion to ensure that animals are out through a minimum amount of suffering would be for the government to implement a quota on the maximum number of animals which can be tested on for each test in order to reduce the number of animals which are harmed. Additionally, the number of tests can be reduced if as much information is extracted out of each experiment and shared internationally to avoid repeated tests where animals are harmed. Lastly, encouraging the use of pain-relieving drugs, size requirements for cages, etc, can reduce animal suffering in experiments.
In conclusion, there needs to be a compromise between human benefit and the suffering of animals. If such a line is not drawn, more and more animals will be intentionally harmed for the needs of humankind which is unethical. Thus, it is necessary that any experiment can produce critical results and the animals are treated as humanely as possible.
1580 Words
Bibliography
Books:
-
DeGrazia, David. Animal Rights. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
-
Robinson, Dave, Chris Garratt, and Richard Appignanesi. Introducing Ethics. Royston: Icon, 2004. Print.
-
Jenkins, Joe. Contemporary moral issues. 4, illustrated. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. 160-67. Print.
Non-Print Articles:
-
"Animals Used for Experimentation | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization | PETA.org. Web. 7 May 2011. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default2.aspx>.
-
"Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing - Advocacy For Animals." Advocacy For Animals. Britannica Advocacy of Animals, 17 Sept. 2007. Web. 7 May 2011. <http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2007/09/scientific-alternatives-to-animal-testing-a-progress-report/>.
-
Dixon, Thomas. "Animal Experimentation: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Churchill College, Cambridge, 28 June 2000. Web. 12 May 2011. <http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=7>.
- "Should Animal Experimentation be Continued?" 5 July 2001. 10 May 2011 <www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/allwrite3/seyler/.../animal.pdf>.
-
"Should animal testing continue?" BBC News - Home 30 Aug. 2005. 14 May 2011 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4176898.stm>.
-
"BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals." BBC. 2011. 2 June 2011 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml>.
-
BUAV. "The Ugly Truth About Botox." Undercover Investigations. 2 June 2011 <http://www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/theuglytruthaboutbotox/>.
-
Canadian Council on Animal Care. "CCAC Training Modules." CCAC - CCPA. 12 June 2011 <http://www.ccac.ca/en_/education/niaut/stream/cs-3rs>.
-
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Animal Testing and Ethics." Santa Clara University - Welcome. 12 June 2011 <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html>.
