Ethical Issues Involved in Animal Testing - Essay Example

?Ethical Issues Involved in Animal Testing Introduction There are a number of controversial issues that still pervade contemporary times. The controversiality of argument depends on the disparities of perspectives, not only of the opposing parties; but more so, on its overall effect to society or humanity. As it is, it could be an argumentative point to assert that if the value of the argument is ultimately premised on the benefit or wellbeing of humans, what about decisions that affect other living things, natural resources, or anything seen to affect human lives? It is this conceptual framework that leads to the argument: Is it unethical to test on animals, even if the testing helps save human lives? One is convinced that the rationale for ethically justifying testing on animals should not solely be based on saving human lives, but also in considering the selection, procedures, conditions, and purpose or intent, within which animals are tested to serve the paramount purpose of saving lives. The current discourse would therefore be presented by initially presenting the arguments which state that animal testing is unethical, even if the testing helps save human lives. The next section would discuss contentions that view animal testing as ethical. Finally, an analysis and recommendation portion would assert that a balanced argument would justify testing on animals with proposed courses of action. Animal Testing is Unethical The arguments that support the unethical view of animal testing include Tom Regan’s assertions in his written discourse entitled The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press, 1983) which affirmed that “animals cannot be experimented on, because they are not merely means to an end” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). It was revealed by some philosophers, like Regan that animals have rights, to wit: “Regan believes that all humans and most animals have inherent rights, which he describes as invisible “no trespassing” signs hung around their necks. They state that our bodies may not be transgressed, no matter how much good might thereby result” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). This argument was corroborated by other animal supporters who contend that “animals too have these sort of rights, and that they should never be sacrificed under the auspices of the greater good, either as food or as the subjects of medical experimentation” (Branham, 2005, par. 3). Another argument that contests animal testing is the moral status animals. It was noted that animals’ capacity to feel pleasure or pain equate them to humans in terms of moral status. The arguments on the moral status of animals were discussed extensively in Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. One argument was contended by Kant in his Lectures on Ethics, highlighed as follows: “we have indirect duties to animals, duties that are not toward them, but in regard to them insofar as our treatment of them can affect our duties to persons” (Kant, 1997, p. 240). Animal Testing is Ethical It has been revealed that the argument for or against animal testing actually stemmed from the views of philosophers (Mukerjee, 1997). As disclosed, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and a writer of Animal Liberation, allegedly supported the utilitarian theory which espoused that “in all decisions the total amount of good that results—human and animal—should be weighed against the suffering—human and animal—caused in the process. Not that to him the interests of humans and animals have equal weight: life is of far greater value to a human than, for example, to a creature with no self-awareness” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). Apparently, the philosophy of utilitarianism was identified with John Stuart Mill, who espoused that “in any given situation the right action would be the action that tended to minimize the suffering and pain, and maximize the pleasure and happiness, of all interested parties. He further thought that the suffering, pain, pleasure and happiness of animals should be included in this calculus” (Branham, 2005, par. 2). To refute Regan’s assertions that animals have rights, philosophers and researchers, such as Carl Cohen, from the University of Michigan, who support animal testing aver that “rights are not inherent: they arise from implicit contracts among members of society, and they imply duties. Because animals cannot reciprocate such duties, they cannot have right” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). Thus, it was illumined in several discourses that there are strict conditions, situations, and medical thrusts that morally and ethically justify the use of animals for testing. “All research that involves invasive procedures, constant confinement, and ultimate death can be said to violate the animal's crucial interests. Thus any experiments that are designed to enhance the important, replaceable, or trivial interests of humans or other animals would be prohibited” (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Moral Significance of Animals' Moral Claims, 2010, par. 12). This assertion was likewise supported by Festing and Wilkinson that “the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified. The benefits of animal research have been enormous and it would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were abandoned” (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007, p. 1). Analysis and Recommendation The philosophers’ differing arguments regarding deciding whether it is ethical or unethical to subject animals to testing are ethical components such as rights, moral status, and direct ethical duties to animals. There were supporters of animal rights who emphasized that the ends do not justify the means. However, as philosophers and scientists have acknowledged that there were evident benefits accorded from using animals in various medical researches, the consensus of clearly setting strict regulations and conditions for animal testing could ethically and morally justify the use. There were explicit disclosure of the 3Rs from Russell and Burch’s The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique that apparently set goal such as: “replacement of animals by in vitro, or test-tube, methods; reduction of their numbers by means of statistical techniques; and re?nement of the experiment so as to cause less suffering” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 89). Likewise, different laws and regulations ensure that the appropriate conditions, selection procedures, and human techniques are being adhered to and effectively monitored to prevent animal experimentation that does not comply with the approved principles. Thus, one is convinced that it is ethical to test on animals, provided that the 3Rs are compiled; and especially when the testing ultimately aims and helps to save human lives. Reference List Branham, A., 2005. Quick Summary of Philosophy and Animals. [Online] Available at: http://www.animallaw.info/topics/tabbed%20topic%20page/spusphilosophy_animals.htm [Accessed 4 April 2013]. Festing, S. & Wilkinson, R., 2007. The ethics of animal research. [Online] Available at: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n6/full/7400993.html [Accessed 5 April 2013]. Kant, I., 1997. Lectures on Ethics. In: P. Heath & J. Schneewind, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mukerjee, M., 1997. Trends in Animal Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~acoustic/s685/Rowan-1997.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2013]. Russell, W. & Burch, R., 2013. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. s.l.:John Hopkins University. Singer, P., 1990. Animal Liberation. New York: New York Review. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010. The Moral Status of Animals. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/ [Accessed 5 April 2013]. Read More