Bioethics Case

Bioethics

Should non-human animals have the same rights as humans? In my opinion yes but in the case of speciesists, they think animals should not. They believe that is more important to save a human life over "low level" animals. I think that is part of Mother Nature. A parent will always want to save his or her child no matter what. Moreover, scientists are always looking for new drugs to cure diseases such as, Cancer, Parkinson, etc. However, these experiments are tested on animals first. Are there any other alternatives to test these experiments? Three topics relate to each other are bioethics, torture, and speciesism.

First, I believe on animal rights. We are all cognitive animals. Why do scientists test drugs on animals that do not have the same complexity as we do? It has been proven that we have some similarities but we are definitely not the same. In addition, PETA stated "..Results of animal tests are often unreliable or not applicable to humans. Even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you." My question is why doing animal testing if the results are unreliable. I understand that many medicines have been discovered by animal testing, but animals should not be used as part of this testing. There are new methods such as "OECD QSAR Toolbox" that measures the toxicity of a drug, instead of testing it on an animal. In addition, the non-animal tests available today are cheaper and faster. Animals are tortured before, during and after the tests. What do they did to deserve this? They did not do anything wrong to be confined on a cage. After the tests are done, they are back to the cages in pain without medical treatment. According to "The Case of Torturing", animals are not a danger for humanity, so there is no reason to torture them. Moreover, animals used for experiments endure a battle with the scientists fighting for their lives. In other words, these poor animals are treated like the worst thing in the whole world.

First, Speciesism is defined as "the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals." Speciesists believe in this superiority to survive. For example, humans use the animals for experimentation. The only benefit that I see would be in the experiments. There is improvement in new medicines and products that are "safe" for humans. In addition, I think speciesism falls into the natural food chain where the biggest animal wins. Speciesists only believe on their own benefit, in a way they are discriminators. Speciesists would deny anyone because they are not human or because they are not human-like. I think any conscious person is a Speciesist. In a situation where a person needs to choose between his or her daughter and an animal, there would not be any doubts in which one to pick.

Peter Singer, professor in bioethics, have a different ethic theory.