Animal Testing

They even condemned the approach as barbaric and equated it with what the Nazis did with the Jews during World War II or with other similar events of disregard to other creatures’ rights.
Articles about views, reactions, and arguments, and counter-arguments have been written about each specific stand on the issue. They have their own contentions that could lead us to think and understand why they support such viewpoint. The vividness of their opinion depends on how they touch the moral and ethical issues without compromising logic and the greater interest of the people.
On the one side, the editorial of The Lancet published by www.thelancet.com on September 4, 2004 outlined the over-reaction of the anti-vivisection group and their resorting to violent behaviors like attacking people involved in the research and threatening facilities used in the process. Their exaggerated moves even hampered important programs intended to benefit the entire populace. It also explained the negative implications of using humans as subject and the consequences of eliminating the testing process. In the over-all context this article has expressed its purpose of conveying the message.
On the other side, David Thomas, a solicitor specializing in animal p…
The article presented the stand in an ethical, moralistic, and emotional fashion. It pointed out our inconsistencies in dealing with ethical issues by applying the moral obligation to one while neglecting the others. He emphasized that if we condemn non-consensual testing on human subject we should also denounce such practice in laboratory animals. He did clearly justify his own reasons by using analogies and examples and had delivered his feelings well.
The ethical touch
Thomas clearly defined his argument in the ethical standpoint. His main points revolved around applying the ethical philosophy without discrimination. When we say it is unethical to inflict pain on a person, the same thing applies to other creatures (199). But his arguments seemed to backfire upon his own by dismissing the idea that the same should also apply to food animals. In the sense his ethical consideration still suffered inconsistency. Granting that it could be applied indiscriminately what ethical standards should we base our opinion in choosing between human and animals in carrying out tests. If by mere common sense we cannot decide on this issue, we might as well start discarding our meats from the cold stores or open our stores and parks to animals. The Lancet editorial clearly stated that the use of animals is the most humanistic approach in dealing the situations (815). It is the most ethical. The consistency of ethical standards could be applied horizontally across human situations whatever the social, political, economic, and medical conditions are. It could not be applied laterally unless we consider our morals and ethics as comparable