Is animal testing morally wrong?

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

 
  1.  
    r sole from buttstown says:
    Oct 25, 14:18

    its not wrong if it benefits us for we are the supreme beings animals are merely fodder and anybody who says otherwisw whilst wearing leather shoes, or eating meat or using make up, deoderant , toothpaste washing powder etc or who has had any sort of medical treatment is a hypocrite

  2.  
    Yvemaria from East Anglia says:
    Oct 25, 09:25

    leighton from scunthorpe. Re;using Older People for testing instead of Animals,hopefully you have put your Name and Address forward then?
    Also Testing should be done in Prisons on Criminals who have got Life Sentences,ie; the Disgusting Bloke that broke his 16mth Baby Girl's Spine.
    They should not use any Animals at all.

  3.  
    pete from london says:
    Oct 25, 08:33

    yes

  4.  
    Dr Mengalla from South America says:
    Oct 22, 16:46

    Of course animal testing is immoral, especially as theres so much scum in human terms around, round up the feral kids and experiment on them, then use their meat to feed rappidly declining carnivours like the big cat family.

  5.  
    john from northern england says:
    Oct 22, 14:59

    Does the world need another shampoo? or perfume,or other none essential luxury product?
    Maybe an acid test in the modern world should/could be:
    Does any animal testing benefit all mankind,or just a select group? IE is it a shampoo,or a potential cure for a horrible disease were testing?
    Whole world would benefit from a cure from AIDS (EXAMPLE) where as only a tiny tiny portion of world benefits from eye liners/shampoos ect.
    If we already have it as a product stop testing,what we have obviously works,it obviously sells.
    If we dont have it,ie cures for horrible diseases,or new medical procedures then we maybe should test it ...........on what,or who though i'm not in a position to decide.
    What I do know is though,if I had say parkinsons disease,or the like I wouldnt care what or who it had been tested on if it offered me,or my loved ones a cure...............ask yourself the same.

Report this comment:

This will never be published on the site.

Please tick if you are happy for us to contact you about your report if we have further queries.

Contains offensive language

Contains racist or sexist language

Is a personal attack

Is spamming or advertising

Other

 

Comments page 4 of 63

This comment board is closed.

Debate status

  • Total comments : 339
  • Allowed comments : 315
  • Blocked comments : 24
  • Waiting for moderation : 0