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.  
    steve from devon says:
    Oct 20, 21:33

    a human life is worth moor than any animal life.i love animals but i love my family and frinds moor

  2.  
    Helen from Edinburgh says:
    Oct 20, 20:35

    Many decades ago there was a need for animal testing but with today's technology, previous tests done on various medicines and the ever increasing use of human guinea pigs there is no such need for the use of animal experimentation.
    Let's be honest here, nobody knows how a particular drug is going to affect a human being until it is tried on a human being and even then there can and will be problems depending on each persons individual chemical make-up.

  3.  
    CHARLES from HIGHGROVE says:
    Oct 20, 19:43

    There is no reason to test on animals ,USE ALL THE WOGS INSTEAD.

  4.  
    Alistair Currie from London says:
    Oct 20, 19:38

    Of course not.

  5.  
    John from Nott,s says:
    Oct 20, 19:13

    I hate it,and hate to think of it,I love animals and find both this and cruelty abhorrent.What real tangiable results are gained from it that are of any use to us are limited I feel,though I may be wrong.But for such as cigarettes,cosmetics and such is,I feel totally wrong.If it,s for something to save or prolong life,and its justified then I could see a more positive argument for it,if it had to continue at all.But to echo many other people,there are plenty of Ian Brady,s,Beverley Allit,s,and other such "People" who would make much better subjects for this kind of thing.I am not comfortable with animal testing no matter how hard the pro argument is though if I,m honest.

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 8 of 63

This comment board is closed.

Debate status

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