Animal Testing: Ethical Principles, Viability, and Legality

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Animal Testing
For many years, researchers have continued to use animals for scientific experimentation. The researchers use animals to establish medication. They also use animals to determine the safety of medical products destined for animal use (ProCon.org, par.1). However, the practice has, over the years, considerably become a contentious one. It continues to elicit mixed reactions and has split stakeholders into two opposing sides. One side of the divide vehemently defends the practice, while the other opposes it strongly. One of the reasons why opponents are more inclined to animal testing is its apparent viability. They claim that the approach has helped in developing many life-saving treatments. On the flip side, opponents claim that animal testing is cruel (ProCon.org, par.3). They argue that researchers should explore alternative methods. This back and forth between these two divides begs the question of whether there is a need to abolish animal testing. In answering that pertinent question, it would be prudent to consider ethical principles, viability, legality, and alternative methods that come into play. Considering these factors, it remains difficult to conclusively determine whether to abolish the practice or allow it to continue.
Ethical Principles
The question of whether animal testing is ethically acceptable continues to reign supreme. Some observers hold that the practice grossly infringes upon animal rights and should, therefore, be abolished altogether. According to Humane Society International, researchers commonly subject animals to force-feeding, deprivation of food and water, and infliction of burns and wounds (ProCon.org. par.4). Critics contend that such harrowing ordeals are unacceptable and should not be allowed to prevail under whatever circumstances.
On the flip side, proponents of animal testing contend that animal rights do not contradict the use of animals for experimentation. As such, they hold that it should be permissible. By good measure, the proponents argue that banning animal research would inevitably create an ethical problem. They anchor their argument on the notion that such a ban would effectively deprive animals of the benefits that potentially accrue to the practice (Martin par.1). However, proponents are alive to the overriding fact that animals should be accorded similar ethical requirements to those that guide human research. The requirements include social value and scientific validity, among others. They also contend that certain ethical principles such as replacement, reduction, and refinement should have ample space (Cheluvappa et al. par.1). They advocate for the treatment of animals in the most human way possible. In view of this, they believe that implementing these principles fully would most assuredly lessen the needless suffering of animals used in research.
Viability of Animal Testing
Proponents of animal research consensually agree that its importance is profound. As such, it would be foolhardy to dispense it. For instance, California Biomedical Research Association alludes that almost every medical accomplishment in the last 100 years resulted from animal research (ProCon.org. par.4). Major ad...