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.  
    anon from mids says:
    Oct 21, 13:16

    YES it is wrong and barbaric !

  2.  
    Larry from Aboard a UFO says:
    Oct 21, 12:44

    no it isnt wrong. i kicked my dogs balls the other day and he is still walking around fine

  3.  
    Hampshire Hog` from Hampshire says:
    Oct 21, 08:29

    They tested thalidomide on animals and look what happened there. I love animals and do not think cosmetics or cigarettes should be tested on them. If humans want to smoke or use lots of unnecessary cosmetics, then let them be tested on them. I am not sure about testing for medical research though, but feel in this day and age we should be able to find a better way of researching without using animals.

  4.  
    da from uk says:
    Oct 21, 06:13

    should use children instead

  5.  
    Paul from London says:
    Oct 20, 22:47

    What is the point of you Helen from Edinburgh?

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 7 of 63