The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Outline
1.
Introduction
A.
Hook: Animal testing refers to the practice of
conducting experimental projects on animals prior to human clinical trials to
examine the toxicity, dosage, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products
(Sepahban, 2015).
B.
Context/Background:
1.
For decades, animal testing to
check the safety of human drugs has been in practice despite the contentious
debate as to whether the practice is ethical.
2.
On the one hand, proponents of
animal testing posit that mainly the practice has enabled the development of
vital life-saving drugs for humans and animals.
3.
On the other hand, opponents of
animal testing opine that the practice is cruel on animals (Akhtar, 2015).
C.
Thesis Statement: While
concerns regarding the cruelty of animal testing are valid, animal testing has
historically reduced the impact of deadly diseases necessitated by the
complexity of anatomy and physiological aspects that leaves no adequate
alternatives save for the more inhumane testing on human beings.
2.
Pro-argument: Historically, the
practice of animal testing has contributed to the development of life-saving
drugs and treatments; without which humanity would still be batting severe
illnesses.
A.
Animal testing has led to numerous
advances in the scientific and medical fields over the course of the past
century leading to a better quality of life for humans (Franco, 2013)
B.
Testing on animals allows
scientists to identify side effects for drugs before humans can use them.
3.
Pro-argument: The argument
against animal testing fails to recognize that there are no adequate
alternatives to testing experimental cures and treatments on a living, whole
body system.
A.
Human anatomy and animal
anatomy are both extremely complex for cell cultures in petri dishes to be used
as alternatives (Hajar, 2011).
B.
If animal testing is abolished,
the only other alternative is conducting experimental tests on humans, which is
much worse.
C.
Computer models are still far
from being reliable to provide accurate information about the efficacy and side
effects of experimental drugs on humans.
4.
Pro-argument: If animal testing
is abolished, the only other physiological alternative is conducting
experimental tests on humans, which is much worse.
A.
Abandoning animal testing in
favor of human testing would expose people to the dangerous effects of
medicines in the preclinical stages of drug testing
B.
Microdosing which has been
proposed to reduce animal testing has limitations as they cannot predict
toxicity at higher doses
5.
Pro-argument: Modern
regulations have ensured that animal testing is performed with the ethical
consideration for animals.
A.
Scientists do not use animals
or inflict suffering on them if it avoidable.
B.
Where possible, animal testing
is conducted using noninvasive procedures by applying good animal welfare and
humane science (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007).
C.
Scientists operate under various
controls for protecting animals used for experimental and scientific uses.
6.
Opposing View: Opponents of
animal testing argue that the practice is cruel and inhumane, and for some
animal rights groups, the practice should therefore be abolished altogether
A.
Animals are subjected to
unnecessarily painful procedures.
B.
Oppose the practice on the
grounds that no animal should be placed in captivity.
C.
While regulations exist to
protect animal welfare, they fail to protect the animals most used for experimentation
7.
Rebuttal: While these concerns
are valid, it would not be reasonable to abolish animal testing altogether as
it has significant benefits for human health.
A.
Complete and immediate
abolishment of animal testing would have significant ramifications for
scientific research of cures and treatments.
B.
There should be a middle ground
for how animal testing should be conducted (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011).
C.
In vitro testing does provide
insights about an experimental cure or treatment but it is an inadequate
procedure as far as the effects of the cure on the human body are concerned.
D.
Experiments on animals are inevitable
in order to progress knowledge on medicine and biology for the development of
future cures (Hajar, 2011).
8.
Conclusion
A.
Thesis Restatement: With the
need to develop cures and treatments for human and animal ailments, the lack of
more effective alternatives due to the complexity of anatomy and physiology,
and the ethics of human experimentation makes the argument for animal testing
morally and ethically justified.
B.
Summary of arguments.
C.
Takeaway: Ethical animal
testing through the use of the 3Rs; replacement of animals with non-living
models, reduction in use of animals and refinement of animal use practices; is
necessary for advancement in drug discovery, and helps to uphold the moral
responsibility of humane animal treatment.
References
Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal
experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(04),
407-419. doi:10.1017/s0963180115000079
Ferdowsian, H., & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and scientific
considerations regarding animal testing and research. Plos ONE, 6(9),
e24059. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024059
Festing, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal
research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO
Reports, 8(6), 526-530. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400993
Franco, N. (2013). Animal experiments in biomedical research: A
historical perspective. Animals, 3(1), 238-273.
doi:10.3390/ani3010238
Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(1),
42. doi:10.4103/1995-705x.81548
Sepahban, L. (2015). Animal testing: Life-saving research vs. animal welfare.
Capstone.
=========================================================
The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for 'The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing Updated Version - Outline Sample by homeworkvan'.
COPYRIGHT © 2018. All Rights Reserved by homeworkvan.
