Opposing Views Animal Testing

The United Nations guarantees a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that asserts that everyone has got a right to liberty, life and also security. Despite that, the declaration protects human beings from cruel treatment, slavery and eventually torture. These rights are considered to be inherent according to the law of land.

Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Opposing Views Animal Testing" essay for you

Create order

There has been always a debate on whether animals have got moral rights that should be recognized as well as protected by the human society. In the actual sense, this has got practical consequences due to the fact that if animals are guaranteed life then they should not be killed, if have right to liberty they should not be held in captivity and if they have to enjoy their lives then their natural environment should not be interfered with (Lund et al,pg.436). This conceptual paper explores the opposing views on animal testing.

It is not acceptable to use animals for any human at all. In the Actual sense, animals have got moral rights to different privileges, liberty, and life that should protect the society. This is according to animal rights activists. Therefore, animals should have legal rights not to be used in experimentation at any costs. Despite that animals do breathe as human beings and thus their rights should be observed to the latter (Farnworth et al, pg.16).

Animal research is quite expensive. In the United States of America a lot of funds are used in experiments that are quite useful but in the real sense, much of the funds go to waste. Despite that, it has been quite evident that some of the experiments are a repetition of some which have been already done. This is a wastage of resources. On top of that, if you look at the conditions of life of the people a good number of the people are living in poor conditions and they are not in a position to better their lifestyles. It is ironical to spend a lot on experiments rather than to care for the human lives.

The usage of animals in biomedical research is quite controversial in nature. The use of prevalent methodological for instance vivisection has been greatly underused. Vivisection in most cases involves burning of the organisms, dissecting it, deep cuts to the animals among others. These in most cases human beings are helped in getting treatment to different diseases by the experimentation of the animals. The main issue with animal research is actually the validity of the results and the morality in it. The physiological differences between human beings and animals exist and thus in most cases, you find the results are incorrect. This could be as a result of the mental state of the animal when the animal is placed in captivity. They tend to give incorrect results thus it is not good to use animals in experimentation.

Animals are made use in product testing which in most cases involves the administration of Draize Test and LD-50. LD-50 in most of the cases is used to test a number of toxins that can kill a certain number of animals. This makes use of a sample of more than 200. After the experiment, the rest of the animals tends to die (Farnworth et al, pg.17).

Finally, it is good to address the issue to so with animal morality. The critical research is against the usage of non-human beings in any kind of scientific study on the basis that it is not good to cause pain to animals. When the animals are subjected to this pain they tend to have reduced brain activity. They eventually turn to be lobotomy patients (Lund et al pg.430).

In the actual sense, it is not morally good to subject animals into experimentation. Though this has helped in the past, alternative methods can be used in order to protect the rights of the animals. The only solution to this problem is to apply the new technologies in order to address the issue for instance computer simulation.

Finally, it is good to address the issue to so with animal morality. The critical research is against the usage of non-human beings in any kind of scientific study on the basis that it is not good to cause pain to animals. When the animals are subjected to this pain they tend to have reduced brain activity. They eventually turn to be lobotomy patients (Lund et al pg.430).

In the actual sense, it is not morally good to subject animals into experimentation. Though this has helped in the past, alternative methods can be used in order to protect the rights of the animals. The only solution to this problem is to apply the new technologies in order to address the issue for instance computer simulation.

Work cited

Farnworth, Mark J., Helen Watson, and Nigel J. Adams. “Understanding attitudes toward the control of nonnative wild and feral mammals: similarities and differences in the opinions of the general public, animal protectionists, and conservationists in New Zealand (Aotearoa).”

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science? 17.1 (2014): 1-17.Lund, Thomas B?ker, et al. “Painful dilemmas: A study of the way the public™s assessment of animal research balances costs to animals against human benefits.”Public Understanding of Science? 23.4 (2014): 428-444.`

Did you like this example?

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Get started
Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.
Thank you!

We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.

Get help with my paper
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. You can leave an email and we will send it to you.
Didn't find the paper that you were looking for?
We can create an original paper just for you!
What is your topic?
Number of pages
Deadline 0 days left
Get Your Price