Is it morally justified to perform tests on animals if the results may significantly reduce human suffering?

Topic:
Science Debates

17 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
53% of users

  • I believe that testing on animals to avoid human suffering is justified, because it more humane than testing on people.

    If a new product comes out, would you want it to be tested on you or your pet rat? That is the situation asked of us with questions such as this. My belief is that we have coddled these animals out of their natural state, and that these animals are taking resources that could easily be used by humanity. That being said, I don't mind animal testing. It's certainly a lot more humane than testing on people.

    Yes PuzzledCharles70

  • I support animal testing only when human lives are at stake, because there are many diseases where cures could not be found without this kind of testing.

    At any given point in time, new drugs are being developed that could treat or cure diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and AIDS. New drugs are often tested on animals, before being given to humans. This is to ensure a baseline level of safety. This way, we can find out important facts, such as how much of the drug can be given before it is toxic, and if it has any fatal side effects. The alternative is testing the drugs' safety by giving the drugs straight to sick people. If this were the case, then new drugs would never be developed.

    Yes babyuniqh

  • Animal sacrifices to improve the quality of humans is morally justifiable.

    As long as animals don't suffer needlessly and it's in the name of science to increase human knowledge and to benefit humanity as a whole, it's morally justifiable. As unpopular as it sounds, the human species has become the dominant species on Earth. All life forms on the planet answer to humanity, and they are subject to humanity as well. To perform tests on a human would be worse than an organism of another species.

    Yes RayEar

  • While every effort should be made to treat the animals without cruelty, the value to mankind is more important.

    I most certainly am not an advocate of animal cruelty or even animal testing. However, I do believe that animal testing is a safer alternative to human testing for crucial and important research on a variety of things. Where I think it is most justified is in research on medical purposes, when we are attempting to alleviate the world of the suffering brought on by diseases, illnesses, and disabilities. I do not believe that we should be using animal testing for things like cosmetics or other ridiculous and unimportant items.

    Yes MariaR

  • Yes, it is morally justified to perform tests on animals, because in order to bring a drug to market, it must be safe for humans, and the FDA won't let you blindly test humans.

    It is morally justifiable to perform tests on animals, because any drugs or vaccines that we develop will benefit society as a whole. We have a lot of diseases that we not have a cure for including Aids, cancer, along with a lot of diseases that affect us when we get older. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold yet!

    Yes labusy

  • Animal testing is justified in some situations as long as the harm is minimized and the benefits are maximized

    Animal testing with methods that minimize suffering and produce great benefit to humans is justifiable, especially if the harm to animals is minimal and the animals are not particularly intelligent or sensitive.

    Yes EmmeAnguris

  • Animal testing can be morally justified, as long as that is the only option.

    Animal testing is too often used in some industries, like in the testing of cosmetics, but if can be useful in the medical field. If the only way to find a cure for diseases that kill humans is to do the testing on animals, then I agree with it. But, if there are other methods of testing that do not involve harming animals, even if they are more expensive, I think it is more morally responsible to leave animals out of the process. I think in many cases there are human who would try out the experimental medicine and we know enough about most treatments by now to be able to leave animal testing out of the process.

    Yes lachercheuse

  • I believe that animal testing is morally justified if diseases can be cured and lives saved.

    Testing animals is morally acceptable because of the human suffering it can help to alleviate. By using test animals, scientists have been able to find results that give more knowledge to medical professionals to use in the treatment of serious diseases in humans. Some of the results from animal testing have helped to reduce death rates from certain conditions in humans. Certainly, all test animals should be treated humanely, but I believe it is for the benefit of mankind to continue to do this type of testing.

    Yes R0d0Ferdy

  • I support animal testing if its use will reduce human suffering.

    If the use of animal testing will eliminate just one human's suffering than it is worthwhile. If animal testing was abolished than many helpful medications and food additives would never be discovered or employed by humans because we would not know they were safe. The only drawbacks to animal testing is the possibility of harm done to the animal. I believe that this is a small price to pay to prevent the suffering of countless human beings.

    Yes VampireShu
Voice Your Opinion
No
47% of users

  • I oppose animal testing; it is cruel to the animals!

    Everyday animals are kept caged in medical labs to be used for testing. They use the animals to test for medical reasons as well as cosmetic reasons. It is unfair to the animals. While humans may benefit from testing on animals it is the animal who loses. If we wouldn't want it done to us, we shouldn't do it anyone else, including animals.

    No HealthyMose59

  • If humans won't try it, why try it on animals?

    It doesn't make sense to try out drugs on animals. Most of the products that are being developed are for symptoms that almost any person with the disorder would be glad to be rid of. Usually those people have exhausted every other option. If they wouldn't be willing to try an experimental drug to better their quality of life, why should we subject an animal, who has none of those symptoms and can't benefit from the drug, to the testing?

    No SassyKarl57

  • It is not a justified method to induce suffering on animals just to relieve ourselves from pain.

    Testing on animals is done all over the world not because it is the only option available, but merely because it is the cheapest one. The idea of harming animals and making them suffer pain for the sake of humans may seem unjust, but it is also truly pathetic reasoning when we realize that we always have other options such as using cloned/removed cells from human bodies, computer simulation of experiments etc.

    No QuizzicalRomeo61

  • Animal testing is not morally justified, because they do not choose to participate.

    Animal testing is a cruel practice preformed against the will of an animal. I do believe, however, that human testing is quite justified. Humans have choice, and those who choose to volunteer for a test have done so under their own free will. Less harmful products would also hit the shelves, since bad press and publicity would surround tests that have horribly negative affects. It would also be a good way to reintroduce natural selection into our society.

    No BrianDj

  • No, because it is morally wrong to inflict pain on one species to help another.

    Humans and animals are similar, but not the same. The particular animals used for testing are usually the ones most dissimilar to humans, so the benefits are negligible at best. Better to test on humans already suffering from a disease, who have no hope left, and who are going to die anyway, rather than inflict pain on innocent animals in the name of science.

    No N3vinFace

  • Animals are living creatures who feel pain too and should not be tested on.

    Just because we are currently the dominating species on the planet does not mean that we have the right to subject creatures who are not as sophisticated as us to animal testing. I remember reading a study that even simple creatures have pain receptors. If something is capable of feeling pain, then they should need to be able to consent to situations where they might be put in harm's way. Anything else, I believe, should be considered criminal.

    No EImerBuddie

  • With the advances in human tissue creation technology, we no longer need to subject animals to the cruelty of laboratory testing.

    Every single day, there are scientists working to create human tissue for use in medical practice. This could also be used to make animal testing obsolete. They've grown a human ear, a human bladder, and other organs from stem cells. This technology can create an animal cruelty-free testing alternative.

    No EmeIM00n

  • Even if animal testing reduces human suffering it isn't right.

    Animal testing is painful and unfair to the animal that is the subject of the testing. Who is to say that humans and our well being is more important then an innocent animals is. Just because an animal cannot express its feelings or opinions does not mean that it doesn't have any.

    No B3rkIffy
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Is it morally justified to perform tests on animals if the results may significantly reduce human suffering?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource