On Monday, we discussed in class whether it was possible to strike an ethical balance between nonhuman animal suffering and potential gains to humans through animal research. During the discourse there were several points made about the treatment of the animals, how they grow them in labs and expose them to dangerous substances to gauge reactions in hope to aid humans. The other side of the argument then brought up points about how the animals are not taken out of the wild and exposing the animals to these substances is not so wrong because it may benefit the animals. This conversation of sorts all made sense and valid points were made from varying view points, but can there be an ethical balance?
I think it would be very difficult to do so and this difficulty arises because of the pharmaceutical companies and their influence. The article pointed out that little benefit is given to the species that are tested and the testing actually retards progress made towards benefiting humans. This is seen in the polio tests done on monkeys and the liver transplants on dogs. To me, this is not science or research it is an exploitation of animals because we can force them to do things against their will.
This blatant mistreatment of animals is not very well known in the average community, but has been known in the medical community for years because very few medical professionals cite animal testing as support for their hypothesis, as stated in the article. And the very reason for this oversight is that it is not exposed and written about in mainstream media. I believe this is due to pharmaceutical companies throwing money at a problem to keep it under wraps because animal testing has been the god send for pharmaceutical companies in court. The animal testing becomes a scapegoat and the lawyers say, "we have countless tests on animals and found that it has done no harm to these animals so it can be our fault." And due to this sweeping under the rug by mainstream media and pharmaceutical companies countless people suffer from the dangerous side effects of drugs, receive wrong treatments or go untreated. So, the ethical balance being sought for in our discussion can never be achieved under the circumstances because the overshadowing evil of large pharmaceutical companies casts too great of an unethical shadow it hinders the process and until drastic reform is made there can be no talk or further testing on animals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The influence of money/politics on these debates (and our level of exposure to them) cannot be denied. It seems, moreover, (and consonant with your post) that the more people know about vivisection, the less they are inclined to support it.
Yes, the cliche phrase, knowledge is power, really applies here. The more that the public can know and understand about vivisection and this blatant immoral practice the more power the animals will be given. The animals will have power in the sense that they will no longer be under our forceful hand in laboratories. So, the animals will live as they naturally will and people will then classify themselves as more ethical as a result.
Post a Comment