Maybe back in the not yet so advanced technological days, dummies were not equipped with contact points that register the point of contact and the amount of pressure of force exerted when contact was made with the dummy and at what speed the body of the dummy traveled past the point of the abrupt stop. That being said, the use of cadavers would give that information after the crash test during the autopsy without all of that technology being available to the testing facilitators. Even though cadavers were the “better choice,” as far as results go, I don’t think that using cadavers is a moral or good ethical choice. However, how is this different from cadavers being used for medical students to practice autopsies and mock surgeries? People might say because of the violent nature of the crash test vs. “just” being cut on.
After police found Cheryl a victim of Bundy found badly beaten and raped they were able to obtain a blood type from the assailant, sperm samples and fingerprint smudges. Unfortunately, most of the evidence that was tested proved to be inconclusive. The only firm evidence investigators were able to obtain were the hairs found in the mask, teeth impressions from the bite marks on the victims and an eyewitness account from Nita Neary. Although there was no suspect at the time the mask was strikingly similar to the mask found in Teds final arrest. The most conclusive evidence was associated with the murder of Kimberly Leach.
A very large percentage of tests conducted on animals have been proven to be futile. Often funding is put into animal testing, but the results do not correlate with human beings. Scientists have given great amounts of their time and effort attempting to find cures for cancer in rodents, but so far have been unable to imitate human cancer in any animal or even come close to finding a cure (Overton 1). Most diseases are unique to a specific species, and this is why using animals to test human medications usually fails. Animal testing has also been proven to be very inaccurate.
Clearly, animal tests are failing to protect people. This is partly because common symptoms, such as nausea, dizziness, headaches and visual disturbance, are essentially impossible to detect in animals. Furthermore, the lives of commonly used laboratory animals are up to 66 times shorter than that of a human being, making it difficult to identify side effects that are slow to develop. Dozens of treatments for stroke have been developed in animals but none has been successful in humans. In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals’ rights, causing pain and suffering to the experimental animals.
No therapy will be provided to alleviate their condition. Even if the pharmaceutical company decides that treatment will be supplied, it will probably be just another form of testing “under the name of science”, and no-one really knows if the pains will be aggravated instead. Although the inmates have infringed on others’ rights or even lives, their actions do not take away their identities as human beings. Recently, EU has banned the sale of animal-tested cosmetics. Therefore, testing on prisoners does not only deprive them of their rights but also indicate that their value is lesser than that of cats and mice.
In the late sixties and early seventies, California was haunted by dozens of unsolved murders. The offender remains unknown to this day. The murderer, who referred to himself as “the Zodiac,” ;made contact with the police and area newspapers throughout his reign of terror through a series of menacing notes. Although the police were never able to apprehend Zodiac, they were able to gather information about him via the letters. Zodiac boasted of killing up to forty victims, however, police The Zodiac Killer The late 1960’s and early 1970’s represented a great deal of things to a great deal of people.
Sometimes there are other factors that need to be taken into account that mean that not all ethical considerations can be taken. The study of Clive Wearing researched the effect of brain damage on memory. In Clive’s case, the brain disease Herpes encephalitis seriously damaged his hippocampus, an area of the brain required to transfer short-term memories into long-term memories. Due to this, Clive was unable to form new memories. When his case was studied, several ethical issues arose.
Here are the statics: “Since 1989 when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 328 defendants have been exonerated in the United States after being convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder. The exonerated were 316 men and 12 women; 145 of them were cleared by DNA identification and 183 by other kinds of evidence” (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/May10_04/25.shtml). What went wrong? * Eyewitness Misidentification * Improper Forensic Science * False Confessions * Overzealousness/Public Pressure Eyewitness Misidentification Imagine being a victim so frighten and traumatized after such a hideous unimaginable experience. It can be hard, almost impossible to accurately describe the assailant.
But blaming violent films isn’t the answer, because there is no proof the repeated exposure to cinematic horrors has more impact than, for example, mental illness, long-term unemployment and poverty, alienation, alcohol and drugs, mob behaviour or simply frustration and anger at the state of the world. Humanity is smart enough to understand the difference between the real world and the fiction world, and this talk about violence in films affecting children is another theory that isn’t supported. * * In an article I read called Not Wanted: The ugly side of Hollywood is an article written by Paul Murray about the negative side on violent films, and the writer uses the example of the movie Batman, “ I know there is an argument that the batman comic book character was conceived as an anti-hero. But that is a hopelessly inadequate justification for the sadistic horror that has replaced the Biff! Zap!
Also the way that the animals react to the stress of the experiments can severely affect the end results, rendering the experiments meaningless. Although it is true that we need animals to test our medical drugs on because if we didn’t, with modern day technology we wouldn’t be able to find cures for major diseases. But that doesn’t mean we should treat them so