Testing drugs on animals is the sacrifice we have to make
Since centuries it is evident that the scientist makes use of specific animals to test new drugs (Anadón, 70). From the research, human being makes use of animals such as dogs, rats, monkeys, and rabbits to check whether the new drugs are valid or not. The regulatory of the medical department needs the researchers to test the medicines first. However, the act is a tremendous sacrifice because it may not render effectivity of the drug. From the medical records, over twenty thousand animals are in the laboratories to help in confirming the effectivity of the drugs (Harloff-Helleberg, Stine, Line Hagner Nielsen, and Hanne Mørck Nielsen, 60). In this argumentative essay, it is going to give both effects of using animals to test the drugs.
Pro and cons of testing drugs on animals
The decision of the medical department to make use of animals in testing the effectiveness of the drugs have various positive effects on human beings. The first main advantage is that the action assists in saving the lives of many individuals who would have died from ineffective drugs. Many medicines that the scientists come up with are not effective at first. They carry out various tests before they come up with a final drug (Beck, 325).
Consequently, the process of testing may result in loss of life. Human life is so precious that losing it in such activities can be termed as a crime. However, when the doctors test the drugs on animals and find some complications, they can try and correct the situation to make the drug effective. The second issue is that some medicines when need to be tested on human tissue, the computer need to study the issue for some time. However, there is no living creature apart from animals that doctors can use to get the tissues that they need for testing (Schweitzer, 46). The human body is a complex system that when one lacks a muscle, it can lead to other serious complications. Thirdly, animals are more similar to human beings that proves them appropriate to test drugs that human beings are going to consume. For instance, ninety-nine percent of chimpanzee’s DNA is identical to that of the human body. There is also another positive effect in that; the animals benefit from the testing they undergo. Many animals suffer from strange diseases such as rabies and feline. The trial provides immunity to the animal’s body and protects them from such unknown diseases
Even animals make the best creatures to test the effectiveness of the drugs; the action remains sacrificial. For example, from human society, the act is inhumane and cruel. The researchers subject these animals to painful conditions such as forced bleeding and starvation. Such actions lead to the death of the animals. They are not humane because no person can promote the end of the organisms. Secondly, the fact that drugs pass the animal tests may not make it useful. Some medications cause defects despite doctors testing them on animals before taking it to the human body. For example, in the 1950s, the researchers came up with thalimode, a sleeping pill for human beings (Paine, 432). However, over ten thousand mothers gave birth to children with deformities despite the researchers testing the drugs on the animals. The incident made human nature anxious about the drugs. Many feared that they are going to die because of the drugs.
On the other hand, animals suffer same as human beings, but they are neither able to talk or reason. The meaning of the above situation is that the animals may be suffering from a given disease from the drugs, but they do not speak or reason. It is also evident that animals such as rats, rabbits, and dogs that the scientists make use while testing human drugs lacks toxicity (Zucker, 110). When toxicity is absent in the organism, the medicine that doctors are testing cannot be useful when human beings are making use of it.
The other reason why the use of animals in testing drugs is a divine action is that of religious matters. From the religious traditions, it requires human beings to be in good faith with the animals. People should avoid using animals in a way that causes harm to their lives. In the earlier paragraphs of this assignment, it shows clearly that testing drugs on animals require researchers to inflict pain on the animals which may cause bleeding and other severe sufferings. Such sufferings are against the teachings from several teachings such as the Bible and Hindu doctrine (Rayburn, 15). It is essential to maintain some level of humane in the field of research. The sacrificial part of the action comes when the animals are dying without any justifiable reason. The love that God has given to every creature, they should extend it to the animals.
In summary, from the research, there are several effects of using animals to prove the efficiency of drugs. They include pain, suffering, and death. From that perspective, the researchers should find a way apart from animals to determine the drugs. For instance, Dr. Robert demonstrated the ovarian function without making use of animals as a sample (Wendlandt, 50). The act of using animals is not only sacrificial to the animals but also the human beings that consume the drugs. For instance, babies have experienced defect because of the sleeping pills their mothers took during pregnancy. The scientists tested these drugs before giving them to human beings thus making the process ineffective. In an advancing nation in the field of science, the scientist should able to come up with alternative ways of testing the drugs. They can also innovate what other leaders tried to bring out on board to assist in conserving the lives of every individual and the animals. The regulatory act that permits the use of the animals to test drugs should undergo some review. Some scientist may be misusing the animals, and at the end of the day the animals end up dying due to the drugs. Therefore, when doctors are enjoying their freedom of testing the drugs on animals, they need to consider various factors such as human dignity. The pain that they inflict on the animals is not fair as it leads to more other complications. Animals may not be able to talk to express their feeling, but human beings should understand such issues.
Work cited
Anadón, Arturo, "The role of in vitro methods as alternatives to animals in toxicity testing." Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology 10.1 (2014): 67-79.
Beck, Melissa J., "Nonclinical juvenile toxicity testing." Developmental and reproductive toxicology. CRC Press, 2016. 316-359.
Harloff-Helleberg, Stine, Line Hagner Nielsen, and Hanne Mørck Nielsen. "Animal models for evaluation of oral delivery of biopharmaceuticals." Journal of Controlled Release 268 (2017): 57-71.
Paine, M. F. "Therapeutic disasters that hastened safety testing of new drugs." Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics101.4 (2017): 430-434.
Rayburn, Elizabeth R. "FDA-approved drugs that are spermatotoxic in animals and the utility of animal testing for human risk prediction." Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics (2017): 1-22.
Schweitzer, Brendan Nolan. An assessment of lateral flow immunoassay testing and gas chromatography mass spectrometry as methods for the detection of five Drugs of abuse in forensic bloodstains. Diss. 2016.
Wendlandt, Sarah, . "Multidrug resistance genes in staphylococci from animals that confer resistance to critically and highly important antimicrobial agents in human medicine." Trends in microbiology 23.1 (2015): 44-54.
Zucker, Irving. "Risk mitigation for children exposed to drugs during gestation: A critical role for animal preclinical behavioral testing." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 77 (2017): 107-121.
