|
|
Vivisection 1 Vivisection: It’s Animal Murder and Cruelty, Not Necessary Science Vivisection: It’s Animal Murder and Cruelty, Not Necessary Science Imagine yourself petrified, locked up in a cramped metal cage, unknowing of the road ahead, which only leads to a horrific death. Suddenly, you see a pair of giant hands reaching for your tensed body. Before you can even react, the claws grasp you by the neck and you find every one of your limbs pulled and immobilized in stocks. Syringes filled with hazardous chemicals are pierced through your skin. The pain only gets more intense as time goes on. If this seems beyond harsh, prepare to be stunned because this is only the beginning of the savage torture that animals go through when they become “guinea pigs” in lab experiments. The subject of animal testing in the cosmetic, military, hygiene, and biomedical industries has been a debated and controversial issue among animal rights activists and animal research proponents for many years. One main question is at hand: Is animal testing cruel and unnecessary or beneficial and essential for human safety and medical advancement? In many cases, animal testing presents no helpful knowledge to humanity; instead innocent lab animals are faced with terrible outcomes filled with “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm,” as well as a horrific death (Animal Aid, 1999, Animal experiments). Is it morally ethical to torture and kill animals in the name of science and research data? Should animal experimentation and animal torture be allowed to continue in the cosmetic, hygiene, military, and biomedical labs? This is the chief concern among the debate of ethics involved in animal experimentation. History and Background Animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is defined as a painful treatment of live animals that involves dissection without anesthesia for the sole purpose of scientific research and data collection (Animal Aid, 1999, Animal experiments). Vivisection has been around for ages. It is an archaic method that dates as far back as to ancient Greek and Roman times (HSUS, 1999, Animal research issues). During vivisection, animals are “maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science” (Miller, 1999, Animal testing/ Yes or no?). Annually in the United States alone, an estimated 70 million animals suffer and die because of exposure to diseases such as cancer, arthritis, and hazardous chemicals (Animal Aid, 1999, Animal experiments). They also experience harmful injuries that are inflicted by experiments conducted by “private institutions, household product and cosmetic companies, government agencies” (Miller, 1999, Animal testing/ Yes or no?), and health industries. Each year, an estimated 200 million plus animals die worldwide because of cruel animal experimentation (Animal Aid, 1999, Animal experiments). The most commonly used animals in product, military, and biomedical research are mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, chimpanzees, baboons, birds, reptiles and fish (Animal Aid, 1999, Animal experiments). This brief definition and statistical data of animal experimentation brings us to the debate of ethics and moral status of animals involved in vivisection. Early Christian church permitted animal experimentation based on the belief that animals existed only for human needs. Animals were thought as not possessing a brain or moral status. Therefore, they had no rights. God gave humans a soul and the power to reason and non-human animals were merely objects for humans to rule over and exploit. It was a human “right” to use animals in experimentation for the benefit of mankind because it was God’s idea to put animals on this planet to serve humans in everyday life, no matter if the practice was cruel and unnecessary (Baird & Rosenbaum, 1991, p. 8). Opposition of this Christian philosophy developed as unnecessary vivisection continued. Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Jeremy Bentham were three of the pioneers that argued that animals had rights, interests, and emotions. They believed that human exploitation of animals was wrong and indecent. Bentham asked: “The question is not Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?” It is very clear and a proven fact that animals can suffer pain. Experiments on chimps have also proven that animals have a sense of self because they can recognize themselves through mirror reflections and images (Monamy, 2000, p. 41). Singer goes on and discusses the subject of speciesism and how it is morally wrong to take advantage of animals just because they are a “weaker being.” Speciesism, a phrase coined by animal rights campaigner Richard Ryder, is unjustifiable and can be put into the same categories of racism and sexism (Man’s mirror, 1991, p. 22). Regan argued that all individuals of any species possess an “inherent value.” “Inherent value” is the value of any conscious individual and with this “inherent value,” the individual being possesses a right and moral status to live regardless of their usefulness to others or their hierarchical rank in the animal kingdom (Paul, 2002, p. 11). With this in mind, are animals still insensitive, incapable, unintelligent “objects” that scientists can use to satisfy their own scientific appetites? Proponents for Animal Testing Proponents for animal experimentation have had to battle animal rights activists since the inception of animal experimentation. The industries mentioned above claim that they have valid reasons for using animals as research subjects. Most biomedical researchers argue the animal testing is essential in finding cures for many types of diseases ranging from arthritis to AIDS. They also claim that polio vaccines, treating spinal cord injuries, and Nobel prizes have resulted from research involving animal experimentation. Many antibiotics and vaccines used today were developed and tested through animal research. Insulin to control diabetes and nearly all present anesthetics can be credited to animal experimentation as well. It is hard to imagine life without some of these lifesaving drugs. Also, one has to realize that not all animal testing benefits humans.
|
