|
Jeff Albrecht Joseph Aimone Writing and Rhetoric 13 December 2000 Animal
Cruelty One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the
use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and
household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even
though no law requires them not to.
Some people, called anti-vivisectionists,
are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments
on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite
all right for us to do whatever we like to animals.
They say that God gave us
such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has
dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to
scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is
worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that
the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative
methods Albrecht 2 are available.
The anti-vivisectionists say we should not
allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists,
claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of
humanity.
Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals
that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical
techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it
right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human
illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment,
eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active
life-style?
Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly
healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and
over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information
is going to be gained?
Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are
pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never
have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70
Albrecht 3 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and
mice-suffer and die in the name of research.
Animal tests for the safety of
cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals
have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes or
applied to bare skin in attempts to measure eye and skin irritancy levels. Other
are force-fed massive quantities of toxic materials such as bleach or soap, in a
hit-and-miss attempt to measure levels of toxicity.
Since 1938, The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has required that each ingredient in a cosmetic be
adequately substantiated for safety prior to being made available to the
consumer.
However, neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission (
a regulatory agency that oversees product safety, consumer complaints, etc.)
requires firms to conduct animal testing of any cosmetic product. Cosmetic
companies use animal tests to insure themselves against possible consumer
lawsuits. If sued for liability, they can protect themselves by arguing that the
cosmetic was adequately tested for safety with tests standard in the cosmetic
industry. .
|
