Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing

Observation-The pros and con's of animal testing Today we are debating about the general pros and con's of animal testing, not whether animal testing is immoral and not whether animal testing needed to be stopped. Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals. Ct.1-Animal Testing has saved countless Human Lives and is saving more Sub-point A-Polio and animal testing Polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th Century in the United States. In 1952 polio epidemic became the worst outbreak in the nation's history. Of nearly 58,000 cases reported that year 3,145 died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis. Before Jonas Salk began testing a polio vaccine in 1952, an average of between 13,000 and 20,000 polio cases of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported yearly just in the United states from 1916 onward. It is estimated that 23,000,000 people have died from polio worldwide. "While perfecting his vaccine against polio, Albert Sabin conducted tests on many animals. The sacrifice of these animals has enabled entire generations of humans to grow up without fear of the crippling effects of polio. Animal rights advocates who see animal experimentation as cruel and wasteful overlook the fact that it has been instrumental in developing medicines that have saved countless human lives. "[1] Animal testing is needed, Without it many human lives could not be saved. Much understanding of common household diseases and afflictions were solved or advance through animal testing. These are diphtheria cholera polio rabies syphilus measles rubella hepatitis Diabetes, Asthama Ct.2-Animal Testing has saved countless Animal Lives and is saving more Sub-point A-Saving Animal Lives "Heart worm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself. "[2] You see animal testing saves animal lives too. Whenever someone usually think of animal testing they are think that the animal gets nothing out of it, but here it shows that many are benefited. The Con Case 1. Animal testing is immoral and causes much suffering on the animal First of all the con gives his moral argument based off of what he himself believes, He never actually gives a poll or any feedback from the countless people animal testing has saved. Secondly he does not give any source that says the animals are experiencing suffering or being tortured. There are also laws on animal testing and what can go on inside the laboratories "Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing. "[2] 2. Animal Testing is not reliable A)Clioquinol Clioquinol was not the cause of SMON(the disease that causes blindness/paralysis) This is straight from the US National Library on medicine "Between about 1955 and 1970, some 100,000 Japanese were diagnosed as having sub acute myelooptic neuropathy (SMON), a new disease characterized by abdominal and neurological manifestations. Circumstantial evidence obtained in 1969-70 suggested that SMON might have been caused by clioquinol (CQL), a gastrointestinal disinfectant, and led to the suspension of further sales of CQL in Japan. However, several inconsistencies for the CQL theory of SMON have now emerged; first, CQL had been widely used in Japan for nearly 20 years before SMON occurred. Secondly, the SMON epidemic began to subside several months before CQL sales were suspended. Thirdly, a large proportion of SMON patients--probably about one-third and possibly more--had not taken CQL within six months of the onset of the disease ; of the remaining two-thirds or so, many had taken CQL as part of the treatment of the first symptoms of SMON itself. Fourthly, there was no dose-response relationship. Finally, SMON rarely, if ever, occurred outside Japan. "[3] B)Opren Because the company making opren did not follow the proper standards in testing the drug(Known as Oraflex in the US) they were immediately sued by multiple parties(victims, FDA, and more)[4] This leads back to my animal testing laws arguments and the statement about the "unethical animal testing" C)Thalidomide This drug is actually being used again in the united states The FDA re-approved it then later endorsed it in a positive manner 3. There are alternatives to animal testing Let's look at this debate today, As I said in my first observation this debate is not about seeing whether animal testing should be stopped or looking at the alternative, It's just debating the pros and con's of animal testing. Nothing else. I also fail to see what this argument accomplishes, because if these alternatives are so great, why aren't we using them? The main reason we use animal tests is because. 1. We want to save humans 2. Any organisms body is so complex that just using a piece of it or a dead one is not sufficient enough Example Experiment-Try to give a dead person a cold, Doesn't work so well does it? 3. Since we have to use live organisms to get the best results and killing human each experiments would just set us back ward we have to use animals Conclusion What this debate comes down to is the value of a human over a animal. Would you kill 30 fruit flies to save one human? Would you experiment on 1000 specially bred lab rats in order to save 2,000 children? Today we have to weigh the facts and the sides. Since there is no formal resolution and both sides have an equal burden of proof the only thing you can truly weigh is the facts Con facts-Why Animal testing is bad 218,000 animals killed 33,500 humans affected 62 human deaths Faulty medicine Pro facts-Why animal testing is good Millions of animals saved At Least 23,000,000 human's saved Vaccines that have saved countless people Sources I turn the round over to Peacefulchaos and wish him the best of luck. [1]-. http://www.post-gazette.com... [2]-. http://www.buzzle.com... [3]-. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4]-. http://www.time.com... [5]-. http://en.wikipedia.org...