Neha Siddiqui Vivi-section Vivi-section is the act of cutting open an animal for scientific purposes. Vivi-section should not be legal. Us humans are the smartest living beings on this planet but that does not mean we go around stealing the rights of animals for our selfish purposes. We use Vivi-section for scientific purposes, to find cures to deadly diseases but Vivi-section results aren’t accurate since humans and animals aren’t the same. Vivi-section violates animal freedom.
He tries to prove how animal testing affects animals, but the evidence that he gives us was some kind of violence and lacking police protection. These evidences do not match with the idea that he tells us that “lacking adequate police protection, fearing for the lives of their employees… bringing it to the brink of bankruptcy”. I feel that the writer uses red herring. He keeps bring up criminal issue instead of talking about how animal testing effects on animals. Moreover, the writer gives evidence that I feel it does not make sense “the crime against Huntington are not isolated incidents; animal rights terrorists commit more than 1,000 crimes annually”.
The quality of the experiments was necessitous. In this study, Roberts (2007) states that, The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Drugs that pass in animal test are not successful in human clinical tests. Animals as their matter are not germane to human health. Several can cause human diseases that can damage us instead of helping us.
People in the cosmetic industry say that they test on animals to make sure it is safe for humans. But humans and animals differ significantly making product testing inaccurate and dangerous. For example animals have much more sensitive skin then humans. They react differently to things. Sixty one percent of the cosmetics that are tested on animals and there is no affect and it is put on the market, people have gotten killed or seriously injured by it.
The extinction of animals will cause more of what they eat this can affect humans by more humans being bite by mosquitoes. The mosquitoes population will increase and anything else that they eat. The recovery and preservation of these animals is complicated because many people do not care about these animals and what it does to them when we destroy their homes, places that they feel safe at.
Society tends to trust scientists because they are the ones who usually want to better mankind, but if scientists conducted their experiments the way Milgrim did, people would not trust them, they would not want to be a part of them and it would break the general belief when testing on an actual person to not be treated as a subject but as a human being. We want scientists to actually care about our safety and wellbeing during their experiments. Clearly Milgrim did not, “The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment…” (375) It seems like a scientist who cared about the well-being of these people would actually call a stop before they started violently having a seizure, but to Milgrim it was as if he was testing his experiment on
Drug manufacturers test medications on animals after they have been injected with viruses and diseases to see if the medications work on the animals. There are many companies who use animal research to test their products; unfortunately these organizations do not look for alternatives besides animal testing. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. It is immoral to
The Hot Zone tells a dramatic, chilling and realistic story of an Ebola virus outbreak! It occurs in a monkey storage warehouse in a suburban Washington D. C. laboratory in 1989. Monkeys were being used in scientific experiments because they were most similar to humans and the virus couldn’t tell the difference. This then, allows the lab to become a ‘hot zone’. He becomes very interested in how the viruses work and their symptoms that appear in human beings.
Even though different cultures have different views on what is morally right and wrong, I believe when it comes to the treatment of animals it should all be standardized. In some countries it is acceptable for animals to be eaten, used in testing skin products, and even in the testing of new and sometimes lethal medicines, but this is cruel and inappropriate. Testing on animals does make some products safer on humans, but the suffering that is incurred is not worth the risk most of the time. The Diversity thesis states that there is no moral principle accepted by all societies, yet in the mistreatment of animals I believe its almost a paradigm case that is so central to the definition of evil that the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering should be wrong for all. Animals obviously have the capacity to suffer and feel pain, and we know this because they have similar mechanisms of pain detection that we have, and in their brain have similar areas that process and react to physical as well as mental suffering.
Why continue to test animals that may give inaccurate results on products that can still be sold to the human race? Now there are groups who say that there is no alternative to animal testing, and that animals have saved many human lives, but if the