An Argument on Why Animals Should not Be Exploited

Although humans often fail to realize the repercussions of their actions, every decision inevitably yields consequences. As the pressure to advance in cosmetics, biomedical research, and education increases, the methods of acquiring necessary information to meet these demands usually come into conflict with moral, ethical, and personal ideals. For instance, the use of animals for research purposes contributes to major controversy. The most pragmatic approach to this dilemma is to advocate for the usage of animals in medical experiments if the overall benefits for humankind or the overall benefits for other species surpasses a reasonable doubt. However, animals should not be exploited in order to cater to the demands of human vanity.

A Case Against the Exploitation of Animals

Researchers have developed numerous treatments to remedy potentially fatal diseases such as high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks, and heart diseases by conducting experiments on animals. Animals, such as dogs, have had a profound impact on medical innovations according to the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS, n.d.). For instance, the study of the internal organs of canines has allowed scientists to develop “open heart surgery, pacemakers, and heart transplants,” as well as to identify the cause of diabetes (AALAS, n.d.). As a result, technological developments such as insulin pumps have replaced injections for diabetics and heart procedures have revolutionized therapy for people who have severe heart problems, thus increasing human longevity. Furthermore, animals have an opportunity to benefit from medical research as well. By sacrificing the comfort of some cats for the sake of science, researchers have been able to increase their knowledge on the feline leukemia virus and the feline immunodeficiency virus (AALAS, n.d.). Familiarity with these viruses could lead to the manufacturing of powerful vaccines that prevent deadly infections in cats, 15 percent of whom are infected with one or both of these viruses (AALAS, n.d.).

Regardless of the cause which justifies the utilization of animals for research, all species should be treated in a moral manner. Additionally, animals depend on one another for survival at some fundamental level. This aphorism pinpoints the intrinsic value of all organisms, and because of their worth, these animals deserve respect. To preserve the dignity of their test subjects, humans must consciously minimize the discomfort of their test subjects. Under any circumstance, pain is an intrinsic evil, and deliberate infliction of pain upon another creature is simply morally negligible. Even with moral duties to fulfill, humans still kill about “20 million animals annually for experimentation” (Andre & Velasquez, 1992). Moreover, the availability of painkillers means that the estimated eight million animals who are utilized in the conduct of painful experiments should be spared unnecessary duress. Yet frugal incorporations and science firms opt to execute tests on ten percent of these eight million animals without administering painkillers (Andre & Velasquez, 1992).

Regulating Animal Experimentation

Because the behavior of some researchers infringes upon ethical values, the usage of animals for experiments should be regulated and limits should be placed upon the procedures that these organisms are forced to undergo. For instance, animals with “higher cognitive capacities such as chimpanzees should not be used in research” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005). Also, the testing of cosmetic products on animals which could damage their skin, create blurry vision and blindness, as well as put them in physical peril should become legally banned. In fact, the Animals Act 1986 weighs the advantages and perils of each scientific endeavor and states specific policies that “prevent the use of Great Apes and the use of animals in the testing of new cosmetics” (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005). Most of all, the human instincts and conscience should be used to navigate through the controversies provoked by the usage of animals to facilitate and revolutionize human life.

Conclusion

In extreme cases in which large percentages of a species become chronically afflicted with a malevolent disease, the use of animals to discover a cure is justifiable. Biomedical research may require experiments to be conducted with animals in order to acquire knowledge for educational purposes, technological advances, as well as pharmaceutical developments. However, animals should not be exploited for the sake of products which enhance human aesthetics, such as shampoo and makeup. Most importantly, morals, ethics, and personal ideals should be considered in coming to a conclusion on the controversial decision to utilize animals for experimentation. Most of all, humans should be aware that their decisions on this topic will leave a lasting impact on the future of all organisms for years to come.

1. American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). (n.d.). Animal Research and Human Health: A Vital Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.aalas.org/
2. Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (1992). Of Mice and Men: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. Issues in Ethics, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/
3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Retrieved from https://nuffieldbioethics.org/