The next claim is again from Polly Toynbee and ‘The Guardian’. The journalist makes her point that vivisection is morally justifiable by saying “Sorry, I think a dying people are more important than dumb animals”. This is a poor argument as it is purely based on opinion with no source of evidence to back up her argument. The ‘cats backache’ article quotes “many (cats) are dying this way in excruciating pain”. This is well backed up by a Mr Hamilton stating, “Most of these tests are unnecessary”. This also shows us that the tests are carried out with little, if any success. This also shows us that these tests are not morally justifiable, and are barbaric and cruel. A Mr Bill Dyer quotes ”the results have never been published”. This shows that the results must have been of no use.
The third argument is if there is an alternative to experiments on animals. The answer from the ‘Guardian’ article by Polly Toynbee is simple- NO. She states clearly “there is no other way”. The ‘Animal Aids’ answer is completely different. They explain, “There are numerous ways to explore the causes and cures for human illness without resorting to primitive and fruitless animal experiments “. They go on to say “They include laboratory tests using human tissues and genetic material …………”. This is far more effective as it not only states it’s argument clearly (that there is another way), they offer an explanation to what alternative methods could be used to make a difference.
This argument is a strong issue, which has mixed views. This issue is do animals receive adequate care when they are not undergoing animal experiments? The view from the ‘Who Protects the Animals?’ leaflet is yes they do. The leaflet informs us that they have a ‘curator’, who “makes sure the animals live in good conditions”. In most cases this is un-true, the animals are kept in torturous conditions that no one or any living creature should be kept in. The ‘Animal Aid’ leaflet informs us on how bad the conditions actually are. The leaflet says, “While awaiting their tests, the animals live in barren pens and cages – deprived of affectionate human contact”. This gives us a clear picture of the conditions these poor, harmless animals are forced to live in. The ‘Who Protects the Animals?’ leaflet tells us that they have a curator, but leave out what tasks they do. The leaflet does not show us any photographic evidence on what the conditions are like, unlike the ‘Animal Aid’ leaflet. They give us clear pictures showing the conditions the cats are kept in and give us a close up picture of a cats deformed eyes, full of fear. What the curators from the home office find acceptable, others may not.
The last debate is the most contentious issue, and the most discussed. Does animal experimentation really improve human health? The ‘Guardian’ article by Polly Toynbee argues emphatically that it does. She tells us that a cure for Friedreich’s ataxia, which causes muscle wasting “rests on genetic mouse research”.
Anti-vivisectionists such as The Friends of Animals Under Abuse (FAUNA), would argue that because animals and human beings have different genetic make-up experimenting on animals does not always present us with the answers to benefit the human species. For example the FAUNA leaflet tells us that aspirin, a common, household medicine will “kill cats and cause birth defects in rats”. Another really important fact that this leaflet highlights is that certain drugs, which have proved to be safe when tested on animals, for example Thalidomide, are not safe when given to human beings. Many thousands of babies were born with horrific defects such as non-development of all their limbs, when their mothers were treated in pregnancy for morning sickness with this drug.
Surely this does not improve human health.
After reading various leaflets and sources, and classroom discussions, my initial feelings towards animal experimentation have not really been altered. No leaflet has been able to re-assure me that vivisection is the only way of researching further medicines and procedures that will benefit mankind. I would ask people who are for animal testing- would you offer your family pet for vivisection?
