Animals Should Be Used to Test the Safety of Products - Term Paper Example

Animals should be used to test the safety of products Each year, a considerably large number of animals undergo tests aimed at evaluating the toxicity of various products along with their ingredients on humans. These animals primarily include rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats where they are made to ingest or inhale substantial quantities of test substances or go through the pain of a chemical eating away at their sensitive eyes and skins. The problem with this testing is that more often than not the animal tests are undependable or not applicable to humans making the entire process pointless and plainly cruel on the animals. This is what has made animal experimentation controversial where animals have been used not only for product testing but also education and biomedical research dating back to the late nineteenth century. Even though, the level of hostility to animal experimentation has experienced a rise and fall throughout the twentieth century. On the other hand, there is the simple fact that animal testing and experimentation has made it possible for us to enjoy a variety of cosmetic products and more so medical advances. In addition, industries related with these have brought about significant opportunities and economic contribution. The benefits of product testing on animals far outweigh the dangers so long as there is a parameter governing these tests and experiments since it furthers medical advances and human protection from harm where such products are misused or accidentally consumed, and as such, animals should indeed be used to test for products. Animal testing faces great opposition primarily because the miraculous potential attached to drugs tested on animals have often failed to produce the same results on humans. Scientists and medical researchers identify disorders in animals that are similar to those experienced by humans, yet when the trials are undertaken on humans the results do not match. An example of Merck, otherwise known as MSD in areas other than USA and Canada, which is a healthcare company known for its research-driven work in pharmaceuticals. Merck came up with a painkiller known as Vioxx and had it approved by the Food and Drugs Administration (F.D.A) basing their approval on clinical trials carried out on animals that indicated the drug was safe. This was despite the fact that previous trials had shown that the drug increased the possibility of heart ailments. The drug was intended for painful menstrual cramps, acute pain and osteoarthritis and in the five year period that it was available, it was responsible for 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks. This was later explained by the fact that common conditions affecting humans such as diabetes, hypertension and heart ailments are not common with animals. What researchers such as Merck do is simulate these conditions in animals ("Animal Testing Not Reliable” 19). Opponents of product testing on animals have raised issue with the fact that there are alternatives to animals for the purposes of testing and experimentations. For example, in vitro models that are available commercially and can be reconstructed in three-dimension have been identified as being alternative to animals for toxicology tests in biomedical research. These models are adoptable where tests are carried out to find out the safety of drugs on human organs especially since three-dimension models make it possible to have internal organ models (Liebsch et al 842-843). There are in vitro tests as well that can be used in place of the Draize test used to measure irritability where one of these tests is applicable to a number of toiletries and cosmetics where the test product is put in with a synthetic fusion that replicates the human eye specifically the living cornea. Following a matching of color gradations, potential irritability is scored and this signifies molecular effects on the tissue (Beatrice 28). Additionally, the deontological view holds that animal interests similar to human interests are not subject to moral weighing. This is because by merely having interests they are morally protected therefore should not be subject to pain and cruelty of tests and experimentations. This view is important because it acknowledges both sides of the ethical argument of animal product testing. The Christian society insists that animals are creations of God and as such worthy of respect while animal rights’ activists insist that nonhuman animals are sentient and as such should not be subject to pain. This view emphasizes that there is no moral relevance to biomedical experiments simply because animals used are nonconsensual, in the same way that humans subjected to such experiments without their consent would be protected based on their rights purely (Beauchamp & Frey 799). On the other hand, product testing on animals is useful since doctors in poison control centers, emergency rooms and hospitals rely heavily on the information generated from these tests limiting misuse of such products. Secondly, there is the ethical argument for animal product testing that suggests that it would be immoral to use a drug or an experimental drug technique on humans without first determining the safety of that drug or experimental technique on animals. Information collected from preliminary animal trials helps researchers design safe trials for humans that are necessary prior to legalizing of the drugs or medical procedures. At the same time, a majority of revolutionary advances in medical research such as vaccines for measles and polio and chemotherapy for cancer have been attributed to animal experiments. Also, deeper insights into the human immune system are as a result of experiments carried out on mice, experiments done on dogs have led to further knowledge on the human cardiovascular system as well as use of anesthesia for painless operations is because of animal research (Hayhurst 23-24). In addition, the dilemma of animal testing moral standing emerges as to whether some animals are direct or simply indirect moral objects. Where their status is identified as being the latter, which is that of simply being indirect moral objects, then we do not have any duties towards rather we have duties regarding them. St. Thomas Aquinas and Kant explains indirect moral objects as those having no moral standing hold this perspective; thus, if one fails to observe a moral duty regarding them, they have not wronged them. The argument for moral standing of animals comes from the categorization of some as being nonhuman owing to the fact that they are self-conscious agents, rational and sentient. These attributes gives them a relation to humans thus allowing there to be an establishment of value. However, Kant’s and St. Thomas’ argument remains that we have no duty towards them as they lack a moral status. In addition, other arguments insist that because of the three attributes, they have a moral status and as such we have a duty to them (Beauchamp & Frey 262-263). Further, it has been argued by the Christian society that infliction of pain on animals in order to achieve a higher purpose such as coming up with medical advances is acceptable. However, society had to be careful to ensure that such pain was justifiable and not intentional where deliberate cruelty was viewed as morally culpable. This is because humanizing animals was misguided since animals do not have a soul and are not rational, making them mere objects. Nonetheless, due to the fact that they are a creation of God they deserve respect and as such unjustifiable pain was greatly opposed. The indifference by the Church was hence explained by the fact that humans do not share a common evolutionary lineage with animals owing to their lack of reasoning and a soul (Monamy 9-10). In conclusion, one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs implying that product testing is necessary primarily for guaranteeing human safety and allowing progresses within the industry with the creation of a variety of products ranging from toothpastes, deodorants, sun-block creams and hair products. Further, of importance is the fact that product testing on animals provides doctors with information on how to deal with misuse of such products by humans as cases of poisoning will arise where people fail to adhere to warnings or accidental ingestion by children occurs. This, nonetheless, does not undermine the need to monitor these tests to ensure that animals used are not subjected to unnecessary pain and cruelty. Having a clear parameter to govern researchers is essential as it has been reported that alternatives to animal testing are expensive and lengthened where they either take too much time or their time cannot be estimated (Gaul). As science progresses, these alternatives will become more accessible and following in the footsteps of certain European countries, America will be able to avoid animal testing. In any case, the simple fact remains that humans and animals do not fall on the same scale with regard to evolutionary lineage where humans are superior owing to their having a soul, a mind that allows for rationality and use of language. The argument for nonconsensual lacking by animals that get used for product testing cannot hold since animals do not have rationality nor share a common language with humans to allow for such communication. Works Cited Heilbron, John. The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003. Print. Monamy, Vaughan. “Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues.”Cambridge University Press: New York. 2009. "Animal Testing Not Reliable for Drug Approval Trials." Nutrition Health Review 2006: 19. ProQuest. Web. 3 Dec. 2013 . Liebsch, Manfred, et al. "Alternatives to Animal Testing: Current Status and Future Perspectives." Archives of Toxicology.Archiv für Toxikologie 85.8 (2011): 841-58.  Beatrice, Trum Hunter. "New Alternatives in Safety Testing." Consumers Research Magazine 05 2000: 26-30. ProQuest. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Hayhurst, Chris. “Animal Testing: The Animals Right Debate.” The Rosen Publishing Group: New York. 2000. Beauchamp, Tom, Frey, R.G. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press: New York. 2011. Gaul, Gilbert M. "In U.S., Few Alternatives to Testing on Animals; Panel has Produced 4 Options in 10 Years." The Washington Post. Apr 12 2008.  Read More