Ethics of Animal Testing for Medical Purposes

This paper will discuss animal testing for medical purposes. It will begin by defining the process of animal testing and go through some of its history. It will discuss whether the testing of animals for medical purposes is just or unjust and evaluate which types of testing are ethically acceptable and which are not from a Utilitarian and Kantian viewpoint. It will conclude with evaluations of the different standpoints and state why I believe it is just and ethically acceptable to use animals for medical research.

The subject of animal testing for medical research has been a topic of argument for decades now. With valid points for either side of the argument, it is certainly understandable as to why this has yet to be settled. Some questions everyone is still faced with today are, is animal testing for medical purposes right and ethical? Which types of testing are ethical? What would modern medicine be like today if we had not used animals for medical testing in the first place? All of these questions present strong arguments when answered, and will be addressed throughout this paper.With modern medicine as advanced as it is today, many argue that medical testing on animals should be conducted to make medical advances, while others argue it should not be done; This paper will address and evaluate all of the pros and cons of each side of the argument from a Utilitarian and Kantian viewpoint, proving in the end that animal testing was and still is very necessary for medical purposes. Defining animal testing for medical purposes is very important to be able to understand and critically analyze the argument of whether it is just or not.

To define animal research simply, it is the procedure in which researchers in laboratories use animals as controlled subjects to test different drugs, surgeries, and other such things. Animals are used because although they are clearly not identical to human beings, but certain animals share many anatomical and physiological similarities, which allow researchers to perform tests on them before they expose it to a human being. A range of different animals has been used in the past for testing; rats, mice, monkeys, and pigs to name a few. Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.

S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing” (Collins). Some of the animals are given anesthetics to numb the pain; others are put to sleep, while others do undergo painful procedures without any sort of pain relief. There are certain laws for different countries, this one is from the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research “These requirements are sometimes summarized as the 3R's: 1.Reduction-using the minimum number of animals necessary. 2.

Refinement-enhancing animal welfare and ensuring the best conditions possible. 3. Replacement-using other models when appropriate” (Rules and Regulation). The use of animals for research began in early Roman times.

To learn about swallowing, ancient physicians cut open the throat of a living pig. To study the heart they cut into its chest. For centuries, physicians and researchers used animals to increase their knowledge about how the organs and systems of the body worked, as well as to improve their surgical skills (Llyod).However, it wasn’t until around the time of the American Revolution that testing on animals rather than on humans became more common, and thus more controversial. As a result of these tests on animals, scientists have been able to control diabetes, test the effectiveness of certain pain killers, discover different cancer-causing properties of certain substances, along with numerous other incredible advances (Mackinnon, pg.

203). While there is factual evidence about how animal research has been so beneficial to the medical world, many people argue that it is not ethically correct.A common argument is that animals feel pain just like humans do, so they should not be submitted to such pain for experiments against their will. Other animal rights activists argue that medical testing is cruel and painful and should not be preformed. Although it is certainly clear that animal research has produced numerous medical advances and saved many lives, the question still stands: Is this testing just? When evaluating the ethics of animal testing there are many contrasting viewpoints.

It truly depends on the individual and what he or she considers as ethical or not.When viewing it from a Utilitarian viewpoint, certain Utilitarians believe that animals have the same rights and that the Principle of Utility, which states that the morally best thing to do is that which benefits the most amount of people, would apply to both human beings and animals. A famous Utilitarian, Peter Singer, is a strong animal liberation activist. He believes that it’s not even the issue that animals should be given certain rights (the right to vote, the right to bare arms), but Singer emphasizes that it’s the principle of equality that animals are not entitled to which is unjust.

He does not agree that the lives of human beings are of any higher value than the lives animals. Singer presents a strong argument that animals can feel pain and pleasure just like humans can, so animals should not be able to submit them to pain such as medical testing against their will. An objection to his view is that animals are not rational beings, can’t use language and are not autonomous so should they are distinguished from humans and thus less valuable. Singer refutes this by pointing out that many human beings do not always hold true to those standards either.Some people are not rational because they are mentally retarded.

Other can’t use language because they lost their sense of hearing or were born without it. People are also not always autonomous; babies certainly are not independent their first couple of years, as well as those born mentally or physically handicapped. Singer argues that even though some human beings may not be rational, autonomous, or use language, that they still are protected by the same rights and are valued as other human beings are, so why aren’t animals treated and valued this way?Some animals have higher capabilities then some seriously handicapped beings, but will never receive the same moral value as that handicapped human will. Singer doesn’t believe that this is just. Another objection Singer brings to the validity of animal testing, is that there are many cases in which the testing done on animals that cannot be completely beneficial to human beings because they are not genetically identical, so it is especially not ethical to use these helpless animals because they don’t even produce 100% accurate results.

He also argues that some of the tests aren’t even beneficial to humans or animals. As Singer puts it, “In psychology departments experimenters devise endless variations and repetitions of experiments that were of little value in the first place” (Singer). A fellow Utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, also holds the same views as Singer. Bentham believes that pain is an intrinsic evil whether a human being or an animal experiences it.

If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, then it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal and hence animal testing would be considered wrong (Mackinnon).Although Singer believes in equal rights between humans and animals, he still holds Utilitarian views about pain and pleasure. Since a Utilitarian holds that the morally correct thing to do is that which benefits the most people, Singer acknowledges, “If an experiment on a small number of animals can cure disease that affects tens of thousands, it could be justifiable” (Neale). Singer is claiming that animal testing can be justified if a small number of animals suffer and a bigger number of people receive pleasure from these tests.

A test that would not provide any good towards human beings or other animals and solely brings pain to animals, would not be considered morally right from a Utilitarian viewpoint. This goes to show that deciding whether animal research is ethically just or unjust is very complicated and can vary from situation to situation, and person to person. Evaluating this subject from different viewpoints is important to get the best understanding of whether animal research is just or not. Although a Utilitarian view may depend on the circumstance, a Kantian view does not.Immanuel Kant strongly opposes that animals have any intrinsic value since they don’t have good will. “While both animals and human beings have desires that can compel them to action, only human beings are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take.

This ability is manifested by our wills. Since animals lack this ability, they lack a will, and therefore are not autonomous... ” (Wilson).

According to Kant, the only thing with any intrinsic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills and therefore do not have any intrinsic value.Kant’s only exception is that humans must not treat animals cruelly, because then those human beings may act cruel to other humans, which is not good. So if experimentation were done on animals for medical purposes and not with cruel intentions, the Kantian would have no objection to this kind of testing.

A Kantian would also clarify that since animals are not human beings, the categorical imperative does not apply to them and it would be ok for people to treat them as ends. Thus, from a Kantian view, medical research done to animals would be just and ethical if it is not done with cruel intentions.Even after being informed on the opposing views of the value of animals and whether or not medical testing is just or not, it does not make it a simple issue to come to a conclusion on. Evaluating a Utilitarian viewpoint, it is easy to say that both Singer and Bentham provide very strong points as to why animals should be given equal value as humans and not be subjected to medical testing against their will. There definitely exist cases where human beings are severely disabled or handicapped and can function on a much lower level than animals, but are still given the same rights and moral value as humans are.

Why aren’t animals subjected to this equality? Also, when Singer brings up the issue about the fact that animals feel pain just as humans do, yet humans don’t take that into consideration when doing medical testing on animals. There is also the statement that Singer believes animal testing for medical research is not only unethical, but unnecessary because animals and human beings are certainly not genetically identical, so is it ethical to do these testing’s even though they may not be 100% accurate? Kant on the other hand presents a different view on animal value, one that many believe is quite harsh.He holds that animals have no intrinsic value because they have no good will, and thus can be used as ends. Kant provides an interesting view, which presents a valid argument. Animals don’t have a ‘will,’ so why should they be treated like human beings? Just because they feel pain doesn’t mean their lives should be valued as much as human’s life. Given the different views and evaluations of each, I believe the stronger argument goes toward the issue that it is ethical to do animal research for medical purposes.

Even though Singer and the Utilitarian views were very strong, there were a few loopholes in the reasoning. The major opposition I found was that even though they believed animals should be treated equal to humans, Singer stated that if the pain of a few animals produces the pleasure of many, many people, then it’s ok to do the testing. These testing’s are done against the consent of the animal, so if Singer believes human beings and animals are equal, then he would agree that it would be ok to do medical tests on human beings without their consent too; that just doesn’t justify it for me.Also, there is still much uncertainty out there as to what exactly animals experience concerning pain and how it mentally effects them.

It is obvious that animals do feel pain similar to humans, but who’s to say it’s as much as we do? How do we know how that pain mentally affects the animals? With human beings, certain experiences of pain can be traumatizing both mentally and physically, but how do we know that animals experience the same thing? Singer also supports that it’s unethical to do medical testing because animals aren’t even 100% identical to human beings so the tests aren’t completely accurate.I believe that even though they’re body is not identical, it is still much safer to do these tests on animals before we submit them to human beings; even if the results aren’t 100% accurate, the chances are better than having to use a human being in the experiment and potentially risking their life. I believe it is ethical to treat humans with more value than animals because we are certainly different than them. Although we share some similarities in the way we act, history has proven that human beings more capable beings and thus superior.Animals do not hold nearly close to the same amount of intelligence as humans do, they also lack many key functions such as language and reasoning.

Although there are the cases where a handicapped person may be less functional than an animal, this is an exception to the issue. If an animal is born with disabilities, it is still treated and valued as an animal. A dog born with two legs is still considered a dog even though it’s not the norm, so why should a disabled human be not valued as a human?Kant proclaims that animals should be used as ends since they have no intrinsic value. This presents an interesting argument and gives yet another difference between human and animal.

Maybe animals were put on this earth to be used as ends, to help us find cures to diseases and to nourish our bodies when eaten, but that would be an entirely different subject to get into. Ultimately I believe that animal testing for medical purposes is just in cases where it benefits human beings or even animals.Tests done with no goal of being beneficial are neither necessary nor just. Regardless, I believe that animal research has been an enormous and crucial part of our medical advancements throughout the years.

Although the Utilitarian view has some very strong points as to why animals should be treated equally, I do not agree that this is the case. There are too many differences between animals and human beings that it almost seems silly that animals’ lives would be valued equally as human beings’ lives are.I agree with Kant to say that it’s unjust to be cruel to animals, but I don’t believe we have any moral obligation to protect them or value them as equals in any ways. As Mackinnon says on page 210, “They may be justified if they do, in fact, help us develop significant medical advances…” In conclusion I believe that given the opposing views on the medical research done on animals, although it is certainly a view that differs from person to person, I believe that human beings are much more valuable than animals and thus using them for medical research is just because it is extremely beneficial.