1 / 14

Bioethics Quest

Bioethics Quest. Animal Testing. By Nikaela Bryan. Animal Rights Issues. Is animal testing acceptable when it benefits humans? What animals should be tested on and which should not? Does animal research be justified by its benefits to mankind?. Animal Testing.

Télécharger la présentation

Bioethics Quest

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Bioethics Quest Animal Testing By Nikaela Bryan

  2. Animal Rights Issues • Is animal testing acceptable when it benefits humans? • What animals should be tested on and which should not? • Does animal research be justified by its benefits to mankind?

  3. Animal Testing A worker feeds white rats at an animal laboratory of a medical school on in Chongqing Municipality, China

  4. Animal Testing A monkey caged as it awaits to be tested on by scientists.

  5. Animal Testing Debate From TV show Politically Incorrect

  6. Sociologist • “I don’t think that animals should be tested on for cosmetics” • “I believe that testing on animals for thing such as cosmetics is wrong….if its medical research that benefits the greater good, then it is O.K.” • “…I agree on testing for finding cures to diseases” • http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212161055AABBd7x

  7. Lawyer • No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products…requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be “Adequately substantiated for safety”…FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test…the agency that administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act does not have to be tested on animals….neither the FHSA nor the Commission’s regulations require any firm to perform animal tests…The Animal Welfare Act requires laboratories to report the number of animals used in experiments. • http://www.thenazareneway.com/vegetarian/animal_testing_toxic__tragic.htm

  8. Scientist • The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.

  9. Educator • Why is it so important to test products to make sure they are safe for humans? • Why don’t scientists test products on humans? • What are the reasons FOR animal testing? • What are the reasons AGAINST animal testing?

  10. Discussion Questions The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details. http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8

  11. Pros • Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life.

  12. Cons • Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’.

  13. Pros • Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 we have known that human beings are related by common descent to all other animals. We owe a duty of care to our animal cousins.

  14. Cons • The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights

More Related