Vivisection is both immoral and unjustifiable - Discus.
In this modern world there is no place for this barbaric practice that is "animal testing". This is a highly sensitive issue on which many members of the public are un-decided. Animal testing sounds so innocent and may appear to be necessary, however the reality is quite different.
Supporters of vivisection argue that animals are anaesthetised during procedures. Polly Toynbee from "The Guardian" states that "animals in experiments are anaesthetised" whereas the "Animal Aid" leaflet informs us that "two thirds will receive no anaesthetic during procedures". The "Guardian" article offers little or no evidence to substantiate its claim, and offers us no statistics, un-like the "Animal Aid" source. It is based on opinion not on fact. The "Animal Aid" leaflet gives us numerical evidence (two thirds), and also offers pictures, to add weight and back up its argument.
The next claim is again from Polly Toynbee and "The Guardian". The journalist makes her point that vivisection is morally justifiable by saying "Sorry, I think a dying people are more important than dumb animals". This is a poor argument as it is purely based on opinion with no source of evidence to back up her argument. The "cats backache" article quotes "many (cats) are dying this way in excruciating pain". This is well backed up by a Mr Hamilton stating, "Most of these tests are unnecessary". This also shows us that the tests are carried out with little, if any success. This also shows us that these tests are not morally justifiable, and are barbaric and cruel. A Mr Bill Dyer quotes "the results have never been published". This shows that the results must have been of no use.
The third argument is if there is an alternative to experiments on animals. The answer from the "Guardian" article by Polly Toynbee is simple- NO. She states clearly "there is no other way".
Vivisection is the act of experimenting on animals. ... Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic, said of vivisection,"It should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection. ... I believe vivisection is wrong because it is very cruel to the animals, experts say it is inaccurate, and there are humane alternatives. First, vivisection is very cruel and painful for the animals. ...
In addition the researchers involved in vivisection are often said to overshadow its negative aspects. Although vivisection supporters claim that it has played a crucial role in virtually all medical advances. ... The unreliability of vivisection is due mostly to misleading information that has delayed necessary further research. ... The misleading information not only stems from the unreliability of vivisection research but also from vivisection researchers. ... In order to encourage continued support for vivisection cancer research (now annually exceeding two billion dollars) administrators...
Maybe they would if they were presented with the facts about vivisection and the meat industry. ... Let's start with the large amount of animals Vivisection effects. ... The single largest financier and advocate of vivisection would have to be The National Institutes of Health(NIH). ... Every time we pay our taxes we are supporting Vivisection. ... The truth is that Vivisection wastes money and lives that could otherwise be spared. ...
Yet, we, the public have been led to believe that vivisection, more commonly known as animal testing and dissection, is responsible for "mericle cures" and "medical breakthroughs." Actually vivisection has not cured a single human. ... Although people think that vivisection comes up with cures, disease incidence is actually increasing. ... Even if vivisection worked, which it doesn't, it kills animals and is like torture for them. ...
For decades it has been believed that experimentation through vivisection has provided enormous benefits for human beings. ... Centuries later, Charles Mayo, founder of the highly regarded Mayo Clinic said, "I abhor vivisection. ... Not only are these tests more humane than vivisection, but they are also more accurate, usually faster, and less expensive. ... These are just a few of the alternative methods available today, and they are proving to be more beneficial to mankind than the "traditional" methods of vivisection, not to mention the obvious benefits to the innocent victims of vivisectio...
INTRODUCTION: Voices demanding the rights of animals against vivisection have been louder then ever over the past thirty years. ... Animal rights against vivisection have been expressed in a serious of protest and riots, which have fallen short of their purpose. Although Vivisection has been taking place since the seventeenth century nothing has happened to stop the inequitable situation. ... Alternatives to Animal Testing: Banning vivisection is a topic often debated. ... Vivisection is a cruel act that is costing tax payers hundreds of dollars to help the suffering of innocent...
Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Vivisection is the medical term for the practice of experimenting on animals. ... More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method still in use: animal vivisection. ... Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Vivisection is the medical term for the practice of experimenting on animals. ...
Animal testing or vivisection, as it is commonly called, promises to cure ills through animal experimentation. ... Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. ... Tragic Consequences More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method still in use: animal vivisection. ...
Vivisection, the practice of experimenting on animals, began because of religious prohibitions against the dissection of human corpses. When religious leaders finally lifted these prohibitions, it was too late- vivisection was already entrenched in medical and educational institutions. ... Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic explains, "I abhor vivisection. ... I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. ...
