Why Is Animal Testing Wrong

Improved Essays
Many examples in the history of medicine not performing the way it is planned is due to the barrier between animals and humans. In the 1950’s an epidemic had hit the United States after an animal tested product was being distributed in stores. These sleeping pills carried a drug that if not moderated can affect the lives of unborn babies. These tests were done on pregnant animals such as rats, guinea pigs, and even cats. With no effects occurring it was pushed to the human trials. Consequently, it was shown that around ten-thousand babies were born with birth defects. This is a clear indication that these tests cannot always be trusted. Another example of unsafety that happened was the drug Vioxx, a drug to help with arthritis an inflammation in the joints. After the animal testing phase twenty-seven thousand heart attacks and many deaths occurred caused by cardiac arrest were caused. These are just two of the many examples brought up when talking about animal …show more content…
Thus, avoiding the truth that animals can feel just as much pain as humans. Animals used in these experiments do not have the cognitive ability to state how they feel, and give verbal consent for the experiment. This causes the suffering of animals and can put their lives in extreme danger. Many on the opposite side of the fight, use the point it is better to use an animal than a human, but what if the roles were switched? This is where the test of morality is really touched upon. Later in her article, Jennifer Klein says, The harm of animals caused by cosmetic and other companies brings us to the adoption of other methods ending the live-animal test and changing the situation to the more safe and morally correct standing (Klein 2012). Therefore, we should be starting a change for the future and limiting animal testing. With less animal testing and more alternatives, the world can focus more on what is right, then what is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Some doctors and scientists believe animal testing is not the best method for medical advances for many reasons and examples. In multiple cases, certain drugs have proven effective on animals but are not effective on humans. This occurs most often when testing drugs for stroke. Others include the following examples: a therapeutic dose of aspirin in a human is poisonous, but it has no negative effects to different animals; benzene causes leukemia in humans but not in mice; insulin produces birth defects in humans but not in animals; morphine calms people but excites some animals; chloramphenicol produces aplastic anemia in some humans but saves animals; fenclozic acid causes liver toxicity in people but not in some animals; penicillin is highly poisonous to a few animals but helps humans (Gorman 49).…

    • 1858 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On average, about 26 million animals are taken and used as little test subjects for big corporations to test their possibly harmful, and occasionally lethal, products before they release them to the public's use. This testing on animals began in 500 B.C and many corporations that participate in it see no harm, and have absolutely no intentions of stopping it anytime soon. There are many people that think testing these possibly dangerous products on innocent animals is not a big deal, but this paper will inform the public with some statistics and also give you the writer's perspective on why animal testing is wrong. One thing that is very arguable when talking about whether testing on these creatures should be approved, and continue or…

    • 1123 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Animal testing is an inhumane, ineffective method of research. One reason is that these tests do not transition successfully into human trials. There is a low percentile of human diseases that are seen in animals. Over 98% of these illnesses never affect animals. Smoking was originally thought to be non-carcinogenic; this was because the cancer which was caused by smoking was difficult to reproduce in laboratory animals.…

    • 260 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In fact, in the 1960 's the drug Thalidomide was put on the market before having been tested on animals. One function of this drug was to cure women from pregnant morning sickness and was known as the "wonder drug. " On the contrary, the drug ended up causing 10,000 newborns to have malformations and missing limbs(Animal Testing and Medicine). This could have possibly been avoided if there were studies on animals taking this drug before it was let out into the public. Biomedical research is rooted into animal testing.…

    • 1025 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Overall the testing on animals is cruel and unfair it causes them fear, stress, and pain that is forced upon them without consent. It's useless because animal anatomy is different from human anatomy. Most likely the results will not end in a good way in order to help humans with their problems. There are different ways to find the solution to the experiments that scientist are doing and it would lead them to a better outcome. Animals would be able to live safe normal lives if these alternatives were taken into consideration.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1. Issue Summery The issue I identified is about inhumane animal research which is wrong because human treat animals as less important than mankind. In the paper, Dylan start paper with questioning about human right verses animal right. Animal research has been done for human’s benefits. Human treat animals as second species, which looks animal lower than human kind.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Testing Is Wrong

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Although it seems that if a drug does not work, then it does not go on the store shelf, which is not always the case. If a product hurts an animal it could still be sold to consumers on the store shelves (Peta). And vice-versa, if a product works and is beneficial to the animals it can go on the shelves but when consumers buy it, the drug can end up hurting the human even though it worked on the animal (ProCon). “It seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred” (AAT). The cellular, metabolic, and anatomic systems of animals are really different from humans…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The debate about animal testing being right or wrong has been going on for years now. Although animal testing has improved new medication over the years, as well as it has found the cure for many illnesses, this topic deal with sensitive issues; one of them being, is animal testing morally right? Thanks to animal testing, the wellness, and health of humans have improved significantly, on the other hand, however, by doing the “greater good” innocent animals are being tortured/killed every day. Just like with any other issue we have those in favor and those against animal testing. Those in favor generally follow the scientific findings and medical improvements, and also do not pay attention to the harm being done to these animals.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Today we are aware that major differences between animals and humans makes it difficult to tell if the drug response in humans will turn out 100% positive. As humans we need to ask ourselves this question “when you need medical treatment, wouldn’t you want a medication that works for you not what works in a completely different species” (navs.org). The drugs that are safe to use on animals might not be safe for humans. One perfect example of that is the thalidomide study. During the 1950s thalidomide was prescribed to pregnant women to help with morning sickness.…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Flaws Of Animal Testing

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages

    According to Humane Society International, the animals that are used in experiments are regularly subjected to force feeding and inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and/or other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and killed by carbon dioxide poisoning, decapitation, breaking their necks, or other forms of killing (Humane Society International). Animals can suffer like humans do, therefore it’s speciesism to experiment on them while we eschew experimenting on humans. All and any suffering is undesirable, whether it be directed towards humans or towards animals. Animals subjected during animal testing go through pain and suffering at the hands of researchers during testing. These animals are poked, burned, poisoned, and deprived of basic needs, infected with lethal diseases, addicted to drugs and brain damaged all in the name of scientific…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Testing Wrong

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Despite the claim that animal research has strengthened the world of medicine and technology, relying on inaccurate tests that prove to be questionable solutions for human products is dangerous and is considered flawed science. Some argue that there are benefits yielded from animal testing, such as the vaccine for smallpox, derived “from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner... that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox” (BENEFITS). Contrary to popular belief that animals prove to be accurate testing for medical products, the FDA notes that “92% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they [do not] work or are dangerous” (Animal Testing is Bad Science). Animal testing does not promise a guarantee of safety and accuracy because all species have different variations. Even…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In her research paper titled “Animal Testing and Medicine”, (Hajar 2011) explains that animals have been tested all the way through the history of biomedical research. Although in recent years the practice of animal testing for biomedical research is under severe condemnation by animal rights activists because they are fighting for it to be more humane. (Hajar 2011) As a result laws have been passed in several countries to make the practice more kind and humane. (Hajar 2011) Discussions on the morals of animal testing have been brought up since the seventeenth century.…

    • 505 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Experimentation: Unpleasant but Necessary Since 500 BC, animals have been used to develop life-saving medical treatments, analyze certain medications, ensure the safety of products intended for human use, and various other biomedical uses. Animal testing has allowed humans to extensively develop numerous treatments as well as medications, and is essential towards the advancement of modern medicine. Despite this, in recent years (that is, relative to the existence of animal testing), such research has received significant amounts of criticism, primarily being that animal testing is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. However, opponents of animal testing overlook several factors as to why animal testing occurs - if humanity truly found it unnecessary to use animal specimens in research, we simply would not. Humane Treatment of Specimens…

    • 614 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In discussions of animal testing, one controversial issue has been whether animals can feel emotions as humans do, and furthermore, if they can then is the use of animals in research morally wrong? On the one hand, scientists that use animals as test subjects, such as Helosia Sabin and her late husband, argue that it is crucial for any medical progress because much testing is required before releasing a new drug into the public. On the other hand, people like Peggy Carlson, a scientist herself, and Peter Singer, a philosopher and bioethicist, contend that animal testing is irrelevant since an animal’s genetic makeup differs greatly from a human’s and the practice is unjust since animals suffer. My own view is that Carlson and Singer are correct since animals do have feelings and are capable of suffering similar to the way humans do; therefore, animal testing is cruel as well as unnecessary considering all of the animals used are not biologically similar enough to humans to produce accurate results in research.…

    • 1745 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans, including death, that they were removed from the market, though animal experimentation had predicted them all to be safe. One of the few studies that examined the differences in species reactions found only a 5-25% connection between harmful effects in people and the results of animal experiments (MFAT). Also these animals are in an unnatural environment, where they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation.…

    • 2182 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays