Can we justify medical experimentation on animals? Researchers say we can; because of the enormous benefit to human beings. Although, single experiments will not lead to any medical discovery, only coordinated sequences of patterned activity will provide significant outcomes. .
When balancing the justification and moral responsibilities resulting from the use of animals in research we must not fail to place on the scales the terrible pains that would have resulted, would be suffered, and the continued suffering had medical experimentation on animals not been used. Every disease eliminated, vaccine developed and treatment prescribed was due in whole or in part to experimentation using animals.
Research has demonstrated the success of animal experimentation; in some particular cases the discovery was significantly greater than the interest of animal rights. However, legal legislation enacted to protect the rights and welfare of animals vary; what counts as "cruelty to animals" varies from location to location and government to government. For instance, most people think it would be morally wrong to kill an elephant just for the ivory tusks or a deer just because it was gazing by the road or senselessly killing for sport. The reality is animal exploitation is a profitable, yet senseless occurrence. .
We must reformulate the moral question; should we continue the practice of medical experimentation on animals? There must be circumstances under which the question of morality demands that we not intentionally inflict pain and the unnecessary suffering on an animal merely to bring a tinge of human pleasure or organizational profit. The justification for research openly acknowledges the moral worth of animals. When compared to the medical advancement, disease control, and the benefit to mankind, the moral worth of animals is substantially less than the survival and advancement of the human race.