Author’s name:
Instructor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Speech, Debate, and Debate brief on the topic: “Against animal medical testing.”
Introduction
As the world grapples with the very many and unending pandemics, medical laboratories world over are held up in countless research to understand the pandemics and possibly come up with remedies against these pandemics. The more current pandemic is the Covid 19 disease that continues to ravage and overrun the world’s best health care systems. Research in the medical field has been a continuous process ever since, and an everyday new drug is discovered and produced. These drugs undergo a rigorous process of development that includes studying the causal agent of diseases that the intended drugs being developed will treat. This is to understand the mode of transmission and action of the causal agent before a drug that counters such action is developed. The development process involves laboratory tests and clinical trials. The latter is discussed with an opposing view of such trials being conducted in animals
Topic justification
A clinical trial is a process in which a study evaluates new tests or drugs and their process of treatment to ascertain their effectiveness and outcomes on human health (WHO, 1). The trials may be done on a few healthy or sick human beings, or on many occasions, and the trial is conducted on selected animals. The trials may include drug administration, surgical procedures, devices implantation, radiological procedures, among other procedures. In all these procedures, scientists owe significant advancement in the medical field to animals. For a long time, animals have continued to play a very vital role in medical research. Animals have been used in very diverse ways. They range from medical research aimed at understanding disease to testing the efficacy of a new drug. The research may also aim at understanding the toxicological effects and contraindication characteristics of a certain drug.
It is estimated that over 25 million animals in the United States are used every year for scientific research testing or even commercial testing (ProCon.org, 1). However, due to the haphazard manner in which these animals are used, it begs the question of whether humans appreciate the vital role the animals have continued to play in their medical field advancement. Many of the animals are treated in a most inhumane and cruel manner. In addition, it is hard to make an absolute conclusion that the results obtained from such trials reflect how human beings will behave in case such drugs or procedures are administered to them. It is therefore important that this practice is discussed conclusively, pros and cons laid bare, and a substantive conclusion is made about the use of animals in the medical research trial processes.
History and key definitions in the field of clinical trials by the use of animals
The use of animals in medical testing matches the history of the development of the field of medicine, which has its roots traced in ancient Greece during the time of Aristotle and Hippocrates (Ghasemi and Dehpour, 2). There are records of the first experiment being performed on pigs and goats by Galen, a physician from Rome in the 2nd century. Other documented animal testing include that of Avenzoar, a physician of Arab descent who introduced animal testing as an experimental surgical procedure prior to it being introduced to human beings. There was also the use of Guinea pigs in an attempt by Antoine Lavoisier to prove that respiration was a form of a combustion process in the 18th century, among other experiments.
The research experiments used animals with little ethical and moral consideration in the 17th century per the philosophy of the Cartesians. There was no anesthesia, and animals could be subjected to inexplicable pain when performing certain procedures. The use of animals in medical testing even saw a surge in the numbers of animals used after a publication titled “Origin of Species” by Darwin. The publication opined that there were considerable biological similarities between man and animals. In addition, the surge in numbers was also occasioned by the discovery of anesthesia. In the 1880s to 90s, Behring demonstrated the effects of diphtheria toxins in guinea pigs, in 1921, Fredrick Banting isolated some pancreatic secretions from dogs and discovered that such isolates would be used to keep dogs with diabetes alive. In the 20th century, there has been even more advanced use of animals that led to the development of organ transplant techniques in humans, and today, animal use in medical testing continues in a bid to bring solutions to the very many medical problems bedeviling the human (Spelman, 4).
The increased use of the animals in the medical testing raised interests and concerns for the animals. Various groups emerged with varied views about the use with the proponent, arguing that the use of animals in medical research has led to the development of lifesaving drugs for not only humans but also animals. On the other side, the opponents view the use of animals as cruel and inhumane and observe that medical scientists can utilize available alternatives. The concerns raised by the opponents led to the formulation of legislative regulations that established regulatory committees on animal ethics (Ghasemi and Dehpour, 3). However, even with the existence of these regulations and regulatory bodies, animals were and are still being misused. The inappropriate use of the animals became controversial and continued to elicit emotions from the critics, especially on cosmetic trials. Significant populations have continued to disapprove of the use of animals in medical testing. Despite laws banning the use of animals, especially in cosmetic use, countries like the US and China continue to misuse the animals for such purposes as cosmetic trials.
Throughout the history of animal testing, various l terms kept popping, and they include; Alternative: as raised by the opponents of animal use, alternative meant the use of non-animal models or a less objectionable model that can be used by medical scientist as opposed to real animals. The other term is Humane/Inhumane: and it involves adhering or the failure to adhere to the minimum animal handling requirement by the animal welfare Acts when using animals for medical testing procedures. Pain is also a major term in this field. It involves the unpleasant sensory experience that comes with a damaging tissue process. In most cases, the tissue-damaging process in the medical field may include surgical procedures or administration of drugs through injection. Welfare is another term that is widely used. When using animals in a medical test, the opponents and regulations demand the observance of animals’ welfare to minimize negative effects on the animals through proper handling and even administration of anesthesia in cases where surgical procedures are conducted (Gilbert et al., 1).
Argument and counter-arguments against the use of animals in medical testing
Despite the medical advancement that has been made possible through the use of animals in medical testing, the world seems still not to agree on whether the trials on animals is important. Various reasons in support and otherwise have been put forth about the use. Scientists have also been involved in trying to make sense and make valuable contributions to the argument. Whereas some compromises have been made on the topic, a section of the population completely opposes the use of animals in medical studies. For example, opponents have argued that animals and human beings are significantly different. That animals are inappropriate models of human beings, and according to clinical Neuroimaging professor at Aston University in UK Paul Furlong, it is almost impossible to create a human model from animals (ProCon.org). It is therefore argued that any test procedures and results thereof cannot be used to infer to human beings. However, proponents argue that it is possible to identify animals that are up to 99% similar to human beings. They give examples such as the Chimpanzees whose genetic makeup is up to 99% that human beings, mice are also considered to be 98% alike to humans. This point is further justified by the biological facts that all mammals, human beings included, have a common ancestor and that all their organs essentially function the same way, and therefore any test procedures and results thereof can be used to infer to human beings.
The second argument and most popular is that the use of animals is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, there is forced feeding, food deprivation, wounds infliction, killing in the most inhumane way, such as neck-breaking, among other procedures that are so cruel to animals. More opponents are perplexed by the fact that some of these procedures are out of unimportant or unnecessary reasons, such as merely advancing human beauty (Kabene and Baadel, 2). This can be tied up to whether the test the animal is being subjected to is useful. In a study by Kabene and Baadel to find out how useful animal testing is, 65% of the respondents observed that animal testing in a medical research process was useful only if alternatives were unavailable. In the same study, a whopping 80% of the respondents observed that it was unacceptable to use animals for medical tests for purposes of cosmetics (Kabene and Baadel, 4).
The proponents, however, argue that animal testing is of essential need because it ensures drugs and vaccines developed are safe for human use. Given the times and situations the world finds itself in, for example, Covid 19 pandemic, numerous drugs, and vaccines are always in development and ultimately will require testing. With the uncertainty about the negative effects of such drugs, it is considered safer to administer such drugs and vaccines to animals before they are used in human beings. The process of testing may also require exposing the experimental being to the disease-causing agent with the uncertainty of how the experimental being would react to such exposure, and as such, animals are considered first. It is also argued that the use of animals in medical testing on many occasions, end up being beneficial to the animal. According to ProCon.org, millions of animals that would otherwise have died from various illnesses such as rabies, tetanus, hepatitis virus, etc. have been saved through their use in medical testing.
Debate on the topic
It is clear that issues surrounding animal tests in the medical field are not about to end any time soon. While considering both the proponent and the opponent arguments, it is pretty clear that both of them have a point that cannot overlook. However, looking at both arguments in a broader picture, the arguments can be advanced with compromises being made. Whereas one would wonder why animals should be subjected to medical research tests, there are other exceptional reasons why it would be necessary that animals are used in a medical research process. For example, in coming up with a vital vaccine to arrest a situation of utmost importance, such as developing vaccines for COVID 19, developing a lifesaving drug against a life-threatening condition. However, animal misuse in medical research processes should highly be discouraged. For example, the use of animals for cosmetic purposes is uncalled for, and it amounts to misuse of animals.
The processes and mechanisms of use are also of importance. Animals, just like any living beings, need to be accorded some decorum. Their welfare must be taken care of when designing a medical testing process. As discussed, animals have been exposed to cruel and inhumane treatment unnecessarily during medical trial testing. Actions such as neck-breaking are to the extreme. The artificial creation of wounds of considerable adverse health effects on the animal’s body is inhumane. These animals are left to suffer from great frustration, waste away in pain, ache, and loneliness. This is even more alarming considering the number of animals that are currently being used in haphazard and poorly designed tests whose outcome does not prove to be of utmost importance. For example, the US Department of Agriculture reported that over 300,000 animals had been subjected to pain-inflicting research activity in just a year; this is unnecessary and morally impermissible.
The very many trials that are poorly designed with no utmost importance in many a time are not published, and therefore their results not known. This begs the questions of why the trial was even carried out. In addition, many of these trials are always repetition, and their results can be predetermined. Astonishingly, some trials are mainly for academic purposes at the undergraduate level, and one wonders if an animal needed to be used in such an experiment. This shows a lack of respect for the welfare of the animals and failure to observe harm-benefit and cost-benefit analysis in all these procedures. This, therefore, calls for national animal ethics committees for different countries in the world to weigh interests in scientific research and only permit the use of animals in these trials if the interests are justifiable, the trial acceptable, and the outcome is beneficial. This is in considering the fact that many research methods do not need animal trials yet are very relevant to humans and can be carried out in a little cheaper manner. Therefore, it is time for medical researchers to start considering such methods and reduce the sufferings animals are subjected to during the medical research trials.
Debate brief
It generally agreed that animals have contributed immensely to advancing inventions in the field of medicine. Enough evidence has it that the same animals continue to be used even in situations, which have proved not necessary. Kabene and Baadel evidence this in a study that found out that 80% of respondents termed it unacceptable to use animals it trials that are for cosmetic purposes.
Whereas it is important to carry out trials, how such trials have been carried out is objectionable. Cruelty and inhumane treatment of these animals is highly discouraged, as is evidenced by the fact that there was a need to create regulations and national regulatory committees to regulate the use of animals in research.
It is also noted that due to the role played by the use of animals in medical testing, and the benefits the animals get while being used for trials, the American Veterinary Medical Association has even gone further to approve their use (ProCon.org). However, the number of animals being used is worrying, depicting the insensitive use of the animals in unwarranted research work such as those meant for academic purposes. Therefore, it is imperative that animal research maximizes the good and minimizes the harm on the animal and that the research process should be essential such as those aimed at finding solutions to life-threatening medical problems.
It is also in the considered view that appropriate alternatives are available that medical research scientists can utilize and reduce misuse of animals. For example, in recent times, many human volunteers avail themselves for trials unless it is necessary that the trial should strictly not be administered to human beings due to possible unprecedented severe outcome. Otherwise, human beings themselves would be ideal and would further save animals the agony.
Work cited
Ghasemi, Mehdi, and Ahmad Reza Dehpour. “Ethical Considerations in Animal Studies.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 2, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2009.
Gilbert, Susan, et al. Glossary Terms – Ethics of Medical Research with Animals. http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/glossary-of-animal-research-ethics-terms/. Accessed 1 May 2020.
Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. “Bioethics: A Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and Cosmetics in the UK.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, vol. 12, Knowledge E, Nov. 2019, doi:10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875.
ProCon.org. Animal Testing – Pros & Cons . https://animal-testing.procon.org/. Accessed 1 May 2020.
Spelman, Francis A. “The Ethics of Animal Research.” Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology – Proceedings, vol. 3, no. 6, European Molecular Biology Organization, 2002, pp. 2670–71, doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400993.
WHO. Clinical Trials. https://www.who.int/health-topics/clinical-trials/#tab=tab_1. Accessed 1 May 2020.