|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Is animal experimentation ever morally justifiable? ...
Dr Henry Bigelow, Professor of Surgery, Medical School, Harvard University
When dealing with the moral issue as to whether it is wrong or not to use animals for experimentation, we often find that the issue is clouded by the supposed costs and benefits of such experiments. ...
For the purposes of this article, I will use the words ‘experimentation’ and ‘vivisection’ as interchangeable, since vivisection means the "cutting of life", and experimentation with dead animals does not raise the same issues of suffering. ... Neither values not moral principles follow logically from facts…Regan 1989:p25
Singer suggests that when we are making judgements about what is right or wrong in our treatment of others, human or animal, it is the consequences of our actions for the interests of that individual that we should take into account. ... He sees Singers utilitarian approach as possible justification for practices like vivisection because if it could be proved to be of more benefit to a greater number than it causes harm, it would be morally okay. ...
Is animal suffering justified in terms of human interests?
If one accepts Singer’s and Regan’s argument that animals are morally considerable, then the question remains: is animal suffering justifiable in terms of human interests? ... However we might want to deny that animals are like ourselves, and so set ourselves above them we are caught in a paradox: If results based on animal experimentation are to be considered valid for humans, we have to claim that animals are like humans. ... If it could be shown that human suffering has been decreased by the use of animals in experiments, then by this world-view, animal experimentation would be justified. If it could be shown that the same vital interests of humans could be met without the use of animal experiments, would the denying of the vital interests of animals to achieve that same ends then be immoral? ... Moore, Vice-President of Doctors of Britain Against Animal Experiments, says "The pressure on young doctors to publish and the availability of laboratory animals have made professional advancement the main reason for doing animal experiments. ... "
In making a judgement about the moral validity of experimental use of animal it is useful to differentiate the purposes of experimentation. ... This form of experimentation most approaches ‘pure science’. Although this form of experimentation is often increasing the amount of knowledge available to human beings, it is not meeting vital needs and indeed may not ever lead to the alleviation of any human suffering. ... Although this category ostensibly serves to protect vital human interests, its ‘hit or miss’ nature means that a lot of experimentation that involves animal suffering leads to no human benefit and thus those animal lives are wasted. ... This category is the most obvious superfluous destruction of animal life. ... Although one cannot expect to learn everything about an animal without observing it, this need not involve killing. ...
Where pure science involves the use of animals to discover things about genetics, cell functioning etc, this information is not necessarily even applicable where it relates only to the animal on which the research is being conducted. Many doctors and researchers now question research done on animals being valid even for these purposes because of the artificial nature of experimentation. ... Even amongst the closely related (and frequently used ‘animal models’) rats and mice, there is only a 70% correlation in the effect of toxins. ...
Professor Pietro Croce, MD, speaker at the 1995 review of the Animal Research Act:
An experimental model of the human being does not exist. ... No experimentation carried out on one species can be extrapolated to any other, including man. ... Clearly the development of a new consumer products is a trivial desire when compared to the vital interests of an animal not to suffer. ... "I saw a lot of pain, I saw a lot of suffering…It’s a horrible thing to watch an animal die form radiation poisoning, to just waste away with bloody diahorrea and vomiting. ... Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings - the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. ... Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, Italian Congressman quoted in Ruesch 1989
Are human interests really being met by the use of animal models?
Approximate Word count = 3733
Approximate Pages = 14.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|