Identify a public policy issue you consider important, then compare a selected theory and determine what factors like regulations, special interest groups, or principle stakeholders, assisted policy makers during the….
Final Draft Taking a Stand Essay(no plagiarism)
Animal Laboratory Testing and Experimentation
Ever since the fifteenth-century animal laboratory testing and experimentation has been practiced, but it was up to the 1800’s that it became prevalent (Cochrane 296). However, the issue has turned out to be a highly controversial topic, because humankind has realized that indeed animals have feelings too and can feel pain just like humans when subjected to torture (Nurunnabi, Dil-Afroz, & Nur-Alam 13). Those who are contrary to animal laboratory testing and experimentation, argue that it is immoral to succumb animals in laboratory testing and experimentation.
Whereas the proponents champion that the procedure is the only technique that can be applied towards advancement and research of medical drugs and equipment, including research and development of vaccines, surgical techniques, and antibiotics (Talcott, Akers & Marini 1219). In view of this, besides keeping in mind the end goal to give a more appropriate response reaction to the subject matter, within this paper an exploration of the reasoning on both sides of animal laboratory testing and experimentation is discussed.
Argument Supporting Animal Laboratory Testing and Experimentation:
Premise 1: Supports researchers towards the discovery of drugs and treatments
Premise 2: It is used in testing the safety of drugs and other substances, hence making them safe for human consumption
Conclusion: Animals should be used for laboratory testing and experimentation.
Support for the Argument:
The first premise champions that through using animal laboratory testing and experimentation, researchers will have a high inclination of finding appropriate drugs besides treatments towards improving healthcare quality and medicine (Cochrane 302). Indeed, various animal and human medical treatments have been achieved through these procedures, including rabies vaccination in animals, insulin, cancer drugs, and antibiotics.
The second premise advances that through use of animals in laboratory testing and experimentation, the safety of drugs and other substances used by humans, can be tested; hence, making certain that they are safe for human consumption (Talcott, Akers & Marini 1230). In particular, drugs use can be extremely lethal to our systems, but animal laboratory testing and experimentation permit researchers to at first measure the drug safety before starting trials on humans. This significantly minimizes the exposure of humans to harm.
Argument Against Animal Laboratory Testing and Experimentation:
Premise 1: Involves the painful killing of the animal besides keeping injured ones in captivity
Premise 2: Certain substances tested, might never be utilized for any beneficial use
Conclusion: Animals should not be used for laboratory testing and experimentation.
Support for the Argument:
The first premise indicates that animal laboratory testing and experimentation involves numerous animals that are afterward killed and discarded after undergoing painful experiences (Nurunnabi, Dil-Afroz, & Nur-Alam 14). On the other hand, the injured ones continue to live under captivity as their progress and reactions are monitored (Talcott, Akers & Marini 1250). Moreover, given the fact that these injured animals continue to thrive in an unnatural environment that is not their habitat, they are under stress; which implies that their possibility of reacting to drugs positively as compared to when there are in their natural habitat is very minimal.
The second premise ascertains that many of these animals, unfortunately, undergo rigorous laboratory testing and experimentation then killed or get injured in course, for substances that will under no circumstances be approved for human use and consumption (Cochrane 308). Without a doubt, this factor is the most important negative impact against these practices, as it is viewed that the animal died fruitlessly since no direct human benefit transpired.
Exploring Both Sides of the Issue:
As noted, both sides of the argument have solid backups to the certainty of their references. Each argument integrates a premise that links the factual case made in the preceding premise to the precise declaration made by the conclusion, fostering about considerable backup for the every conclusion factuality. Moreover, the inferences do create positive points, concerning the argument. Be as it may, I believe that the factor concerning ethical surpasses either argument; which implies that the ultimate determining factor in whether one is contrary to or supporter of animal laboratory testing and experimentation, lies in the individual’s emotions.
Animal laboratory testing and experimentation can be vindicated when animal well-being besides interests are valued. Animals do have the moral rights of not being subjected to experiments that cause harmful pains and end in death for experiments of products that will never be approved as fit for human consumption. Therefore, it is vital that radical transformations be instituted in the present animal laboratory testing and experimentations because not all procedures are certainly harmful.
Cochrane, Alasdair. “Animal rights and animal experiments: an interest-based approach.” Res Publica (2007) 13: 293-318. doi: 10.1007/s11158-007-9037-8
Nurunnabi, Sadat-Mohammad, Dil-Afroz, Rokhsana, and Nur-Alam, Salman. “Ethical debates on animal research.” Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, (2013) 4(3): 11-18. Print
Talcott, Michael R., Walter, Akers, & Robert P. Marini. “Techniques of Experimentation.” Laboratory Animal Medicine (2015): 1201-1262. Print.
(my original paper)