Animal Testing?

Animal testing? Ok for the Sake of Human Lives?

Animal testing has been a controversial topic discussed about since the early 19th century, when people started becoming aware that tests are being done for superficial products. The purpose of using animals for experimentations was to further the knowledge for medical pursuits. Testing is supposed to be done for curing diseases and making more medical advances, not for cosmetic products made purely to satisfy the vanity humans contain. There are two ways to look at this issue; one is from a deontological point of view and the other of a utilitarian view.

To start off, having this issue viewed from the deontological approach, "the prima facie duty of beneficence towards human beings has to be weighed against the prima facie duties not to harm animals and to respect their integrity."1 That would mean there is a choice to be made. Is there a way to justify the fact that the animals are suffering? Simply because they are animals doesn't mean people can ascertain that these creatures don't deserve rights just as humans do. So, the same rules need to be applied because if it's necessary to do the least amount of harm for humans, why not animals as well?

1 "Science and society: different bioethical approaches t... [ALTEX. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI." National Center for Biotechnology Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

We as people have an obligation to respect these animals' rights to life. The way these creatures are being used just makes them seem like tools in the experiments and guessing games lab workers play. This type of torture to innocent non-human animals really makes a person question the moral standing of these lab workers or even the companies paying these people to do it. For the simple reason that an animal can't communicate or sue a person in front of a judge, people believe that they are superior to these creatures, thus taking advantage of their rights.