Is animal testing morally wrong?
Around the world, animals are used to test products ranging from shampoos to new drugs to treat cancers. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and anaesthetics all rely on animal testing, and British law states that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal.
Surely this can't be necessary? Animals have as much right to life as humans and modern technology must be able to provide an alternative.
Is it morally wrong to use animals, or is it difficult to ignore the fact that operations on them helped develop techniques such as organ transplants and open-heart surgery?
Do we need animal testing to fight against diseases and to advance medicine? Have your say.
Your comments
-
ehydheu from england says:Sep 25, 12:39
i think that animal testing is wrong
-
Dunitall from Liverpool says:Sep 24, 15:31
Emily so you think prisoners are less than animals?
-
janet from preston says:Sep 23, 18:40
"real testing that can acheive the results we need can only be tested on other humans!!!!" - untrue, but we should maintain the current strict regulations about when animal testing is permitted.
-
emily from tiv says:Sep 21, 15:06
i agree with ghi test on people who r in prison for like and people who no one woulde care if they like or di!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! coz itis just so rong to test on animals!!!!!
-
dizzy from under the sea says:Sep 20, 08:22
it is wrong !!!!!! it is a fact ,testing ,real testing that can acheive the results we need can only be tested on other humans!!!!
Report this comment:
Comments page 11 of 63
This comment board is closed.
Debate status
- Total comments : 339
- Allowed comments : 315
- Blocked comments : 24
- Waiting for moderation : 0