Animal Testing Is Unethical

Animal testing is not animals sitting down and filling in the bubbles with a pencil. Animal testing is experimentation and testing on animals that results in agony and death. Animal testing thrives on the agony of the animals. Who are we to stand idly by while sentient beings are killed? Frame: I would like to frame this debate as animal testing referring to the testing of products on animals, lessons, training or any other physical experimentation that causes pain. This also includes the artificial induction of diseases. Therefore, any psychological testing does not stand in this debate. Define: Ethical: The golden rule. Treating things the way you want to be treated (Peta.org) BOP: My burden of proof is to prove that treating animals the way they are treated in testing is not the way people should be treated. The opposition must do the opposite. 1-Animals die inhumanely and needlessly All countries that use animal testing use about the same amount of it. In the US, 215 million animal die every year due to testing in the US. There are currently 140 countries that use animal testing. Therefore, that means that 30 billion animal die each year due to testing! Only 1 billion human lives have been saved due to advancements in animal testing. should 30 dead, sentient or sapient beings be killed to save 1 human?. Lethal dose 50 kills 50% of the test population immediately, then kills the other 50% gradually. Endotracheal intubation, a procedure in which a tube is passed through the mouth into the windpipe, is used on sick and injured children and adults who are experiencing breathing difficulties. Many cats, kittens, and ferrets are still tormented and killed in order to teach pediatric intubation to doctors, nurses, and others at a number of facilities across the country. During these training sessions, live animals endure repeated intubations by inexperienced students, and most are forced to undergo this trauma every few months, often for many years. Cats and ferrets often suffer bruising, bleeding, scarring, pain, chronic coughing, collapsed lungs, or even death . To determine the danger of a single short-term exposure to a product or chemical, the substance is administered to animals (usually rodents) in extremely high doses via force-feeding, forced inhalation, and/or eye or skin contact. Animals in the highest-dose groups often endure severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, seizures, paralysis, or bleeding from the nose, mouth, or genitals before they ultimately die or are killed. The Draize eye and skin irritation and corrosion tests date back to the 1940s. In these tests, a substance is dripped into rabbits" eyes or smeared onto their shaved skin. Laboratory technicians then record the damage"which can include inflamed skin, ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, swollen eyelids, irritated and cloudy eyes, or even blindness"at specific intervals for up to two weeks. There is no requirement to provide the animals with any pain-relieving drugs during this prolonged process. The rodent carcinogenicity bioassay is a test in which rats or mice are forced to ingest or inhale a test substance or the test substance is injected into or spread on their skin. The substances are administered to the animals for up to two years before they are killed so that researchers can look for signs of cancer, such as abnormal cells or tumor formation. A 2002 review of existing data suggests a high degree of both false positives and false negatives when using rodents to predict carcinogenicity in humans. For years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) conducted so-called "wound labs," during which conscious or semiconscious dogs and other animals were suspended from slings and shot with high-powered weapons to inflict injuries for crude medical training drills. Department of Homeland Security continue to conduct highly secretive trauma training exercises (often referred to as "live tissue training") in which thousands of other live animals"mainly pigs and goats"are maimed and killed each year. One service member described what happened to a pig during a trauma training exercise: "[Instructors] shot him twice in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol, and then six times with an AK-47 and then twice with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire. 2-Experimentation on animals is breaking their rights and the law AWA (Animal Welfare Act)The AWA is a law that attempts to ensure the health and well-being of animals in research, exhibition, and transport. However, labs can get around this law. 95% of labs threaten the inspectors who come to inspect the labs and make sure the animals are not hurt. That means that even the people doing the experimentation know it is wrong PHS (Public Health Service) The PHS has passed multiple laws against artificially inducing diseases in animals As with the AWA, there are minimal inspectors and those inspectors are threatened 3-Animal testing is pointless Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory, whether they be mice or monkeys, are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. Animal species differ from one another biologically in many significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal experiments will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way. Former National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn"t work in humans." At least 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been successful in nonhuman primate studies, as of 2015, every one has failed to protect humans. In one case, an AIDS vaccine that was shown to be effective in monkeys failed in human clinical trials because it did not prevent people from developing AIDS, and 98% of doctors believe that it made them more susceptible to the disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated, "Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies." If all the suffering animals are going through is for nothing, then why should we continue it? Alternatives: Testing human cell cultures Using computer models Microdose testing on volunteers Artificial Skin testing Microfluidic chips Sources: Peta, NY Times, USDA.gov, USPHS.gov I await opposing arguments in the next round. Best of luck! Animals were here before us. If we are not careful, they won"t be here after.