drug testing on animals
Testing drugs on animals improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made with the help of animals, including cancer and drugs like, insulin,antibiotics. On the other hand there are people who are against animal testing. They try to protect animals from sufferings and pain. Animals can't say anything, therefore people want to help them.
it saves millions human lives
Side Score: 4
|
 |
animals suffer, feel pain
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
This is a very simple issue in my opinion. When evaluating ethical issues that impact many people (thousands or millions), I find it most useful to construct and consult a simple pleasure calculus found in the ethical theory of Act Utilitarianism, a deontological ethical argument which proposes that, in specific situations, one should do that which results in the greatest amount of pleasure. So, regarding drug-testing on animals, the answer is quite simple. Say we get a unit of happiness for everyone ever positively effected by discovers in medicine that directly resulted from testing the medications on animals; these will include all the millions of people saved by cancer treatments, antidepressants, etc., and their nearest and dearest -- many millions. Then take the few thousand who are empathic towards the animals subjected to testing and subtract one unit of pleasure from the total. NET PLEASURE = MANY MILLIONS Verdict: continue animal testing at all costs! Side: it saves millions human lives
Of course it seems very simple to talk about this issue, but what's about animals' lives? Why don't people feel sorry for them. They are alive and have rights to live. When scientists make different experiments, animals feel pain, and even can't tell about it. Why not to find another way of testing drugs? Side: animals suffer, feel pain
1
point
1
point
It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans. Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals. And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines. Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals. Side: it saves millions human lives
|
Please, how can you see that animals are suffering!!! http://e-infopages.com/2012/behind-the-untold-scene-animal-testing-is-an-awful-and-horror-research/ http://lovelabrats.blogspot.com/2010/11/ Side: animals suffer, feel pain
ur sick people saying it saves humans, animals have rights and if u call me a hippy, i just like animals, Humans are dying evry day, in wars and poor countries so u think animal testing is ok if ur company wont get bad publicity. u can rot in hell for all i care Side: animals suffer, feel pain
1
point
While there are numerous pros and cons of animal testing, the ethical aspect overshadows both of them, which means that emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in whether a person believes the benefits of animal testing outweigh the problems associated with the practice. A major ethical issue with animal testing is that it involves pain, suffering and discomfort under some circumstances. Therefore, animal testing is a controversial subject and a practice that many people find immoral and cruel. Many animals do die as a result of the experiments performed on them. But unlike human subjects, these animals cannot choose to give or refuse consent to be experimented on. Some animals are subjected to painful medical procedures and conditions without anesthesia or other forms of pain relief. Although scientists claim that the percentage of animals that experience pain without relief is small, it can easily be argued that any undue suffering is too much. Side: animals suffer, feel pain
Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species. Side: animals suffer, feel pain
Animals are like vulnerable minorities that can't vote to end abuses. To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man. Side: animals suffer, feel pain
1
point
1
point
|
