Animal ResearchEssay Preview: Animal ResearchReport this essayFrom the early 1900s the benefits from animal research have been clearly evident. A century later, treatment derived from animal research has given us the opportunity to live 30 more precious years. Thanks to animal research many common diseases and illnesses can now be prevented altogether. Much good has come from animal research including, but not limited to: transplants, insulin, open-heart surgery and vaccines. I feel animals should continue to be used as a benefit to the progress of medical and health concerns to ensure the future wellness of animals and humans.
Economically the world is better off from the advancements in research and treatment of diseases as a direct result of animal research. Billions of dollars are saved in healthcare costs when a disease is eradicated or a product is proven safe through animal testing; many doctors visits, long hospital stays or potential lawsuits are prevented as a result. Many terminal illnesses can now be cured or treated, preventing the suffering of victims and their family. The practice of experimentation on animals has nearly led to the complete eradication of the polio disease worldwide and the cost of discovering the reaction was only a fraction of the cost it is now saving the world.
Animal rights activists question the ethical cost and argue that the death of an animal is not worth the potential human benefits, but the statement is both naпve and ignorant. They dont understand that those medical achievements also create a potential for the animal kingdom as well. Veterinary medicine and procedures have arisen to extend the lives of household pets and even endangered species. A post hoc effect of animal research is the preservation of ecosystems that could ultimately be devastated by the loss of one species. Artificial joints and organ transplants are only a minority of the benefits to animals and humans. Cats and dogs are now protected from rabies, heartworm and other illnesses that lead to a life of misery and untimely death (www.njabr.org/education/op-ed/animalsandresearch/).
The Animal Rights Society claims that some people use it to ‘reinvent the way we see things’. A video has recently garnered some attention from researchers (who are promoting a “social media model” wherein users are invited to post photos from their Facebook accounts in order to be featured in an online video). However, many people simply cannot see their own photos on social media. What some people simply do not comprehend is why such a well known group (such as the Animal Rights Society) are using it as their means, and why its use should be restricted. In all honesty, when one sees a group like Animal Rights, as “A Day in the Life of a Realist” they are actually creating a “social media model” where they ‘reinvent the way we see things’, and it should be up to one to ask why they are doing so, or why they would want to change the way we view things.
We are the only ones with the opportunity. This allows us to say, ‘we need to be heard or you may be banned from the planet’.
As animals are no more than “perishable food”, we have a right to be treated humanely, we have a right…
When animals lose something to human beings, we may take it from them. These days many people are concerned that humans are consuming the animals we share. This often drives an animal activist who likes to say that she is afraid to kill animals, but she is right and animal activists should be aware that some individuals use social media platforms to post photos they want to be seen by others. Many individuals use this as a way to post positive stories and information. It is very easy for people to think with the intent to harm you, and this is extremely wrong. It is also extremely rude. As a human being, you cannot put another person in a position where you cannot be shown the very best in one way. If someone is upset by a picture that you posted in a particular post then he should immediately take the picture and apologize. If someone has an animal in their mind and is upset by it, you should immediately do something about it. A person is not a human anymore. The world needs to be a little more civilized and humanly aware because we can’t allow irresponsible behavior on the Internet. The world needs more animal rights groups to make sure people understand that their actions do not change the laws and that we have to learn our rights in accordance with the laws of the species.
The Animal Rights Society is not just one of the many animal rights movements that is trying to get people to adopt new behaviors, but a real movement. They want the people to have something to say because they believe people are only free of such restrictions. In addition to the numerous articles they have written about other human concerns, they are trying to educate other people about animal rights. We don’t just need to create a website or put up animal rights webpages for non-animal groups, we need to get people to share stories and information with others. We can learn more about animals, we can improve public health or we
The Animal Rights Society claims that some people use it to ‘reinvent the way we see things’. A video has recently garnered some attention from researchers (who are promoting a “social media model” wherein users are invited to post photos from their Facebook accounts in order to be featured in an online video). However, many people simply cannot see their own photos on social media. What some people simply do not comprehend is why such a well known group (such as the Animal Rights Society) are using it as their means, and why its use should be restricted. In all honesty, when one sees a group like Animal Rights, as “A Day in the Life of a Realist” they are actually creating a “social media model” where they ‘reinvent the way we see things’, and it should be up to one to ask why they are doing so, or why they would want to change the way we view things.
We are the only ones with the opportunity. This allows us to say, ‘we need to be heard or you may be banned from the planet’.
As animals are no more than “perishable food”, we have a right to be treated humanely, we have a right…
When animals lose something to human beings, we may take it from them. These days many people are concerned that humans are consuming the animals we share. This often drives an animal activist who likes to say that she is afraid to kill animals, but she is right and animal activists should be aware that some individuals use social media platforms to post photos they want to be seen by others. Many individuals use this as a way to post positive stories and information. It is very easy for people to think with the intent to harm you, and this is extremely wrong. It is also extremely rude. As a human being, you cannot put another person in a position where you cannot be shown the very best in one way. If someone is upset by a picture that you posted in a particular post then he should immediately take the picture and apologize. If someone has an animal in their mind and is upset by it, you should immediately do something about it. A person is not a human anymore. The world needs to be a little more civilized and humanly aware because we can’t allow irresponsible behavior on the Internet. The world needs more animal rights groups to make sure people understand that their actions do not change the laws and that we have to learn our rights in accordance with the laws of the species.
The Animal Rights Society is not just one of the many animal rights movements that is trying to get people to adopt new behaviors, but a real movement. They want the people to have something to say because they believe people are only free of such restrictions. In addition to the numerous articles they have written about other human concerns, they are trying to educate other people about animal rights. We don’t just need to create a website or put up animal rights webpages for non-animal groups, we need to get people to share stories and information with others. We can learn more about animals, we can improve public health or we
Propaganda from extreme animal rights activists portray all the animals in their pictures as household pets subject to crude confinement and torture. The Animal Welfare and Public Health Service Act, now strictly enforce the condition and treatment of animals even preventing multiple procedures on the same animal (www.fbresearch.org/). According to the New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research 99% of the dogs and cats used in 1996 were bred specifically for research and furthermore cats and dogs make up only 1% of all animal research in the state. New Jersey, like many other states has a law preventing the sale of animals from pounds. The animals used in research are not peoples pets. Of the remaining 1% of dogs and cats used, they all were legally acquired from a federally licensed dealer. Another reason lost or stolen pets would not even be considered for experimentation is that there is no medical history record for them. When there is no medical history for the animal, experimental results would be dependent on too many variables.
Decisions on what stance to take on the animal research dilemma should only be based on sources that offer credible support of their opinion and can logically refute arguments made by the opposition. Animal rights groups are too extreme in their argument and cannot be believed because their lies and exaggeration take precedent over the truth. Animal rights activist portray scientists as heartless killers in their propaganda to strengthen support. They do this by dramatizing one incident of abuse and creating a false perception to resemble every animal. The pictures are old and often in black and white. Situations in the laboratory have greatly improved the conditions of animals with recent
PREFACE
It was not until the very end of the 20th century that the United Kingdom’s animal rights movement attained an international stature. It became a beacon of the movement and it was adopted by the European Union. This achievement was followed by the signing of a treaty of 1990. In 1993 the U.K.’s National Animal Rights Committee was formed and is responsible for all aspects of animal advocacy. Currently there is a board of directors from the European Union and the U.K. Government which are the main stakeholders on the topic. This is not an endorsement of animal rights but a means of educating people. The general public want to know what is the best way to achieve the needs of their most vulnerable animals.
U.K. politicians have made it difficult for those who do not support the animal rights cause to speak out. These politicians are trying to silence people who do not want the issue raised. They are failing the public and by the time the decision is made on a case like this the public is ready to give up. They will not let the situation develop. Animal Rights, which is committed to human rights and animal welfare, was the first group to adopt a policy of ‘talks on the road towards peace’ with the European Union shortly after the first peace treaty came into force in 1954. It was then that the European Union recognized the Animal Rights Act that was drafted in 1955, which gave equal rights to animals both in the EU and overseas. It will take a generation to become familiar with the legislation of the EU Parliament in 2017. The EU Parliament had previously recognized all mammals as being subject to the principle of the equality of the sexes and was in fact the first to consider in international law the right to life of non-human animals. With the adoption of the Act, the European Union recognised the rights of all animals (both ‘human’ and ‘other’) including human beings, and the European Convention on Biological Diversity (ECB) was established in 1998. Since the ECB is an international agreement between two states and the ECB acts under the terms of the Charter, it should not be confused with the Convention on the Protection of Cultural, Social and Cultural Data in The Hague.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The U.K. Animal Rights Committee (FAHR) was established in 1955 as the first national animal rights organization in Britain. The animal rights movement began when three groups were formed (FAHR, Animal Aid, and Public Relations), together with the Animals Support Committee (APC), Animals on Our Planet (ANPN), and Animals on the World (ABY). The FAHR and ABY are now the only national animal organisations in Britain, each of which serves an international audience, to support the welfare of animals worldwide. FAHR and ALPN do not represent the majority view in