Introduction
The use of animals for medical research has generated heated debate in recent times where certain quarters in society support the use of animals for research while others don’t. It is evident that the use of animals for research has enabled tremendous steps in the field of medicine that have helped mankind solve most of his health problems (Trull, 2005). Examples of such benefits include the discovery of many antibiotics, vaccines, the development of chemotherapies for the treatment of cancer problems, erythroproteins used in the treatment of several renal and anemia cases among other procedures that have been successfully implemented to solve most of the human suffering as far as health is concerned. According to Luedke (2000), without using animals for research, man could be suffering more as a result of health problems.
The use of animals for carrying out research has been applied while following ethical practices. Carefully controlled and monitored procedures are followed while using animals for research thus total suffering of the animal is reduced. In addition, as Luedke (2005) suggests, the research procedure is such that, after the study is approved using animals it is carried out on human beings. In doing so the human being used in the research gives out their consent that means that they agree to be used for the study. This makes a difference while using animals in that it is impossible to obtain the consent of the animals. This is not different from most of the activities that involve a human-animal relationship. Even in situations where human is kind to the animals, he does not obtain the consent from the animal. As long as using animals in research is morally acceptable in society, scientists should use them in an ethical manner in carrying out the research to benefit mankind.
A lot of evidence can be cited that places humans above other living things both in the universe origin theories and also in real-life experiences. Human being has for a long time controlled other living things including animals. Supporting the views of Aristotle as expressed by Gargaro (1991), that “nature is a hierarchy in which those with a less reasoning ability exist for the sake of those with a higher reasoning ability” this suggests that animals exist for the sake of humans while plants exist for the sake of animals. The views of Aristotle apply not only to the interspecies relationships but also to the intra- species relationships. For example, the situation where fewer reasoning humans are utilized by more powerful humans as slaves.
Those that oppose the use of animals for research argue that animals are exposed to a lot of suffering and also that, there are other better alternatives to the use of animals for research. If such an argument is followed then a lot of other issues that involve man and animals should be raising such kind of debate. What about slaughtering the animal for food? Using animals for traveling and carrying goods? In all these cases, animals suffer for the benefit of a human being. Therefore, the argument on the basis of causing animals suffering is uncalled for and inappropriate. Thus if it is morally acceptable to consume meat for food, likewise it is acceptable to use animals for research in the quest of alienating greater human suffering.
It is unethical to use animals for research
According to Sharp (2004), it has been recognized that, animals like human have psychological experiences including pain. Thus if it is morally unacceptable to treat fellow human in a manner that disrespects them similarly, it is not morally acceptable to treat animals differently given that they have similar psychological experiences. While performing such procedures on animals it amounts to some kind of a form of “speciesicm” i.e. treating a certain species differently just because members belong to that species. Supporting the arguments of Sharp (2004), animals have cognitive faculties that are connected with other members of the moral and ethical community. Treating animals differently from members of other species for the benefit of one species can only be supported if an establishment is reached showing that animals lack some capacities that members of other species posses.
Beyond reasonable doubt, animals feel anger, fear, pleasure and pain. The same experiences are felt by human being. Thus morally they are equal by the fact that both share these encounters. By avoiding the physical pain that may result when animals are used for research it does not mean that animals are being treated equally with humans but it means that the interests of both are taken into consideration.
The reason why animal rights movements advocate for total abolition of the use of animals for research is the fact that many procedures carried out on animals during research are painful, and thus causes suffering to the animals.
According to Gargaro (1991) while advocating for the use of animals for research, it gives an implication that, man is free to harm or abuse animals or that man is not obliged to care for animal suffering.
When I defend the notion of using animals for experimentation with humane, does not mean that I completely oppose the use of animals by human beings. My argument is that, the use of animals should be implemented with great caution of respect. For example, no animal should be used for experimentation without using the pain relieving anesthesia. On the other hand, some products that have been tested on animals do not have advantageous use on humans. Therefore such experimentation that implicates no significant benefits to either human or animals should not be carried out.
When animals are used, most of the times, they are used, they have to be removed from their natural habitat to an artificial environment for example in the laboratory. This can be regarded as cruelty of the highest order and does not show respect to the animals despite the experiments carried on he animal being beneficial to the human being. These views have been highly supported by Gargaro (1991) where he opposes the deliberate eviction of animals from their natural habitat which is different from when animals are evicted from the environment by natural means like hunting or natural calamities. In addition, man accelerates endangering some animal species by using them for research without putting into consideration their overall population and the degree with which they are endangered.
Researchers sometimes fail in their missions by using animals in developing or experimenting on human medicine. Some examples of this are during the research on polio where, results that were obtained on animals were misleading. About Peta (2009) Human being has therefore unnecessarily used animals to carry out research that yielded negative results. It therefore causes animals being used unnecessary suffering by being used for such experimentation. This implies that it is certainly possible to find other methods of research and experimentation that would give probably better results that using animals as specimens. A lot of animal lives would be saved if such other methods are implemented. The result of some experiments carried by using animals for test has produced drugs that have in some cases been recalled from public consumption as a result of negative effects or dismal performance. An example of such kind of a drug is the Rezulin that was used for curing diabetes and was abolished due to the fact that it caused liver failure. Another example is Lonronex that was produced for treatment of bowel-syndrome that was abolished due to its effects in causing fatal constipation and colitis. About Peta (2009), the above indication means that it is not animal experimentation method only that can be used to produce results that are beneficial to human. Thus other methods can probably yield better results that lead to animals not be unnecessarily exposed to suffering and risk but also human realizes the best remedy for health problems.
Synthesis
Any human activities are assessed of their benefits by comparing the positive impacts they accrue to his well being and the negative impacts it may cause to his life. It is evident that man has controlled most of the undertakings in the world as a superior species. Man has applied his senses to formulate means and methods that aim at fostering greater comfort in his life. This includes using animals for experimentation and research while finding the solution to most of the cure of his health problems. In addition, man has applied animals in research in finding most of the cure for animals.
Man has been endowed with brains unlike animals and at no instance will an animal embark on finding the cure for neither the sufferings of mankind nor that of other animals. In today’s world, almost all activities of animals have been significantly affected by human activities that aim at benefiting both the animals as well as the human. According to Prater (2002) although animals are used in carrying out research involving human medicine, there are some rules and regulations that are formulated and enforced by regulatory agencies in order to ensure proper care, handling and pain management of the animals being used for research., therefore, the aspect of respect to the animal life is well taken care of. It is also indicated that, research procedure is such that, tests are first carried out on cells, then to small animals like rodents, then to bigger animals like dogs and monkeys before being tested on the human being. This does not mean that the animals have a lesser life than the human but this is the most practical procedure that is possible to give results. In addition, every due procedure is followed in approving drugs and chemicals, selection of the animal as well as the procedures to use. Also, the way the animals to be used for experimentation are reared and prepared follows all the regulations of health, breeding, and feeding. Thus, while I support the views of Prater (2002) allowing research using animals does not mean allowing all experiments during research.
According to Festing and Robin (2007) any responsible scientist utilize animals for their research work by causing minimum or as little suffering as possible. The bioscience community gives a more general consensus that animals should be used for research and experimentation only within an ethical framework. Rather than abolish the use of animals for research, some laws and regulations should be formulated to give an appropriate ethical framework that governs the procedures of using animals in research work involving human medicine. An example of these regulations is those enacted in 1998 in UK. This regulations aim at ensuring that good animal welfare and humane science by making sure that utilization of animals for research at the designated establishment is justified.
The use of animals for research is supported by a vast majority of people in the world. It is reported that, in 1999 approximately 84% of the people surveyed endorsed the use of animals for research work. Also 90% and 89% of peoples interviewed in 2002 and 2005 respectively supported gave similar indications. In giving out their views people felt that before animals are considered for any research work, other options should be considered first and that animals should be utilized incase there are no other appropriate alternative (Festing and Robin, 2007).
Despite the negatives of use of animals in research work involving human medicine, a lot of positive feedback has been realized that have enables serious human health problems be alleviated for good or appropriately managed.
Conclusion
The suffering that animals endure in research procedures involving human medicine, contributes so much to the alleviation of human suffering. Appropriate regulations should be put in place to govern research involving animals. Researchers who fail to comply with the regulations should face the full legal implications. Animals can however be used in research work in procedures that are ethically and morally justified. This is through formulating regulations that aim at reducing overall animal suffering in research work. This should go in line with reducing the number of animals that are utilized for experimentation.
Opposition being felt by some groups is a way of expressing their democratic right of free expression of their views concerning the issue. However, unless completely impossible other methods of the undertaking the research other than using animals should be implemented.
References
Festing, S., & Robin, W. (2007). The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research. Web.
Gargaro, C. (1991). Animals Used for Medical Research: A Philosophical Viewpoint. Web.
Luedke, D. (2000).Animals & research part4: ethics of using animals in research. Hearst Seattle Media. Web.
Peta. (2009). Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs. PETA. Web.
Prater, M. (2002). Should animals be used for experimentation? Web.
Sharp, R. (2004). Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Baylor College of Medicine. Web.
Trull, F. (2005). The Essential Need for Animals in Medical Research. Web.