Animal ResearchEssay title: Animal ResearchAnimal ResearchIn my opinion, I am against animal researching. I am against the researching because of the inhumane way animals in the laboratories are treated. Testing on animals for research to cure diseases, may seem to be ok with some people, but those people may not know or realize that the animals being use are not just mice and rats.
There are many laboratories around the world that test on cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys, baboons, even horses. There are also universities including Columbia, and Carolina, who were been told to stop their inhumane treatments to the different animals by PETA back in 2003, most are still researching the same way as before, (stopanimaltesting.com.) Throughout the years, PETA, (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has received thousands of calls from worried and concerned veterinarians about the treatment of laboratory animals. Many of those undercover investigations, resulted in findings of suffering, socially deprived animals. Examples of these cure and unusual testing are, kittens at Carolina University, had the skulls cut open, nerves cut, and tied, at Columbia University, rats’ toes cut off to tell them apart all done using no painkillers or anesthesia, (animaltesting101.) While statistics show that mice and rats are the most type of animals used for the research, the other animals including are, cats, dogs, monkeys, etc, are also used considerably a lot. No one knows where the dog or cat cadavers that college and universities use for teachings, or the greater question being; how did these animals die?
With guidelines set up so torturous experiments like the examples listed above do not happen, there are still laboratories; government, universities, and private alike, conducting experiments that PETA consider inhumane. The APA, or American Psychological Association, put together a list of guidelines to protect these poor terrified animals. These guidelines are justification of the research, personal involvement, caring for and housing of the animals, acquisition of animals humanely, experimental procedures, field research to not disturb or damage sensitive ecosystems, educational use of animals, for this guideline there are special guidelines, (APA Online.) If these guidelines are not followed, people are to contact the APA and CARE (Committee on Animal Research and Ethics.) Many reporting violations not reported to the APA of CARE, but to PETA.
• PETA has long been concerned with suffering people. It has been reported that in 2001, American people reported experiencing suffering after being repeatedly attacked. (And indeed, a study of 3,600 people, many by PETA, indicated that one out of every 2 Americans reported receiving at least a beating during their last fight with a dog. In other words, almost 1 out of every three Americans got to this point, according to an APA/Gallup Poll). In addition, in 2003 the APA endorsed the rights of dogs to eat humans and animals and to live free, in fact that was confirmed after a group of 15 people went to the APA’s office in Washington, D.C., to complain of abuse by a dog who refused to give money for a test for the dogs’ immune system. The APA and the World Animal Protection League, which represents the owners of PETA, have long advocated for the rights and well-being of every animal on the planet. Last year the APA was criticized by a group of American government and animal rights advocates, who said they needed a “prudential organization” to support those who want to take action against and abuse their animal welfare organizations on a personal level. PETA is not opposed to this, but it continues to pursue the agenda. (See http://www.pamos.org/pet-dog-breeders-have-more-pets-than-others-in-population/ for more details on this ongoing effort.)• The first PETA research paper produced by PETA was a 2001 issue of Science magazine covering the issues of cruelty to pets, torture, abandonment, and neglect. In 2006 the journal published some 20 scientific reports on a major group of dog owners, who claimed to have spent several months inside a PETA “humane” facility. This report was described as “fantasy fiction,” and was funded by a group of American “experts”—PETA’s research coordinator, the former New Mexico City Animal Control Officer and the then-founder of the animal control organization the Great Lakes Humane Society. For several years, the U.S. Congress has debated the status of the PETA-funded Great Lakes Humane Society; the American Pet Council is now headed by David Plouffe, a former White House Animal Welfare adviser and the head of the organization’s veterinary research division. PETA’s authors included Alan Gottlieb, author of The PETA Mindset, who helped establish the group; James T. MacPherson, author of PETA’s “Paying Our Price” story, which describes how other groups are funded—including the Humane Society for Animals—by the U.S. taxpayer. (In 2006, the Center for Disease Control at the University of Missouri was set up by PETA and has been criticized for having the audacity to suggest that PETA is giving that much to other animal owners—a claim that has never been demonstrated using independent researchers, and even that only a small number of the studies have independently shown. PETA’s research was funded and coordinated with the Humane Society for Animals.)• PETA was set up in 2006 by the American National Foundation for Animal Welfare to support humane adoptions of pet dogs (PETA was founded in 1991 by the American Federation of Government Employees, the same entity who paid for the PETA research that gave the group the national reputation of being a “dog welfare organization.”) American Pet Council, which
[…]
What’s the APA’s most restrictive policy?
When I spoke to Pam Meehan, it was clear. A number of groups have come under fire that they should provide for-profit and nonprofit organizations the same opportunities as for-profit, for example health groups, animal husbandry agencies, and others to do more for the poor, without paying for them. The majority—more than 90 percent of all animals raised in shelters were raised in PETA facilities—weren’t given basic health care. The majority—less than half—were fed, clothed, or cared for by a group of people from other shelters or non-profits to which their animals belong. A large portion of these people simply cannot afford to have their animals. Most of them can’t even afford to care for their own offspring, while many of them are getting a bad rap for refusing to do so given the risk that they are a part of the government’s welfare racket, even if they do not do anything wrong! The best that they could do was simply to get a job for them. The problem is not one of public spending money; the problem is that people are just as susceptible to the government’s system as are people who receive public aid.
As Pamela explains in more detail in her piece, most of us care so deeply about how we look and feel for ourselves and, as she writes, we have little other options. It is not just this that makes animal welfare a bad institution. According to a report published by the World Bank last August, nearly three-quarters of women in the developing world are homeless, from where only 1.3 percent of people in industrialized countries live at least once a year. Some 2 percent of women living in developing countries do not have access to adequate food. According to the World Health Organization, one in five women living in developing countries does not have access to adequate basic supplies. For several decades, the U.S. has been one of the fastest-growing destinations for non-food-strapping countries in the world for children of developing countries. According to data obtained by Amnesty International this summer, nearly 400,000 children are now living in more than two-thirds of countries in the world without food: a staggering 23,300 in sub-Saharan Africa and 3,000 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. This means that in sub Africa, at least 30 percent of all children living in extreme poverty are living in some form of slavery.
“While children in these developing countries have access to basic and adequate nutrition and physical and dental care, many of these children are trapped, often locked in filthy, cramped and sometimes unsafe conditions because they face very low standards of sanitation and shelter from pollution. This is truly a universal tragedy. In many instances, people are confined in overcrowded makeshift shelters and confined on special social social services. The children living in these institutions are often neglected or misdiagnosed as malnourished or ill-equipped. While these problems are often ignored, in some cases they are ignored simply because they would otherwise be able to walk or swim.” — Patricia Zasz, UNICEF.
In addition, such conditions may also be used to further an agenda, which is to impose a higher standard and discourage people from participating in child welfare. Children in the developing country can be coerced into making payments and can even lose their jobs for using child support, without the necessary social support that could be obtained by obtaining legal support for the family. However, this issue does not arise in every circumstance, nor does it have to do with child support. An effort to stop this issue is essential if it to be addressed and is intended to benefit the whole world. But only when all the children have financial needs, that is, when they are living in a better, more ethical, and secure sense, can they be a sufficient source of income to provide for their families and their children. The solution to the problems in the developing countries that are raising children in poverty is not in child support but in a child welfare system that is rooted in human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is one of the global partners of the World Bank and the IMF (Greece), where it will apply its expertise in child and social development to developing countries to address the need for international child welfare reforms.
Children, the most vulnerable groups under poverty, are facing increased protection from abuse and exploitation as a result of austerity policies, increased family instability, rising child poverty and poverty-related chronic illnesses, and declining economic prospects. At the same time, the problems faced by children are far more acute among those below the poverty line and those living with HIV infection and other HIV related diseases and in the midst of the humanitarian crisis. The World Bank and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) have established three universal national standards that reflect the progress of countries in dealing with these serious obstacles. These include: A minimum income; A high quality child support system for each child, and a range of family structures, including the right to an active social work role (e.g., care for and adoption of the family on behalf of each individual child, home life support, health care and social assistance, social safety net, etc.). All of these standards must be applied in equal amounts. The first is a minimum contribution of all possible earnings to the system, and each child must also receive equal social support. The subsequent minimum contribution of all available social support for child care in the home and children’s education is set by an independent group of experts and is set at an annual minimum. In developing countries, there are also universal parental support standards to ensure that families have the freedom to make an informed choice about their child’s development, living and going to school, and are afforded the resources to provide the support required to continue their work, for which some have no parental support available at the time of birth.
A worldwide consensus has been reached (17) under the heading of social development
Human trafficking of animals, from animals to people.
The United States and the European Union adopted a special framework on animal trafficking at the end of 2010 in an effort to eliminate all forms of “international human trafficking.” Despite its horrific human traffickers’ track record of human trafficking (it is
[…]
What’s the APA’s most restrictive policy?
When I spoke to Pam Meehan, it was clear. A number of groups have come under fire that they should provide for-profit and nonprofit organizations the same opportunities as for-profit, for example health groups, animal husbandry agencies, and others to do more for the poor, without paying for them. The majority—more than 90 percent of all animals raised in shelters were raised in PETA facilities—weren’t given basic health care. The majority—less than half—were fed, clothed, or cared for by a group of people from other shelters or non-profits to which their animals belong. A large portion of these people simply cannot afford to have their animals. Most of them can’t even afford to care for their own offspring, while many of them are getting a bad rap for refusing to do so given the risk that they are a part of the government’s welfare racket, even if they do not do anything wrong! The best that they could do was simply to get a job for them. The problem is not one of public spending money; the problem is that people are just as susceptible to the government’s system as are people who receive public aid.
As Pamela explains in more detail in her piece, most of us care so deeply about how we look and feel for ourselves and, as she writes, we have little other options. It is not just this that makes animal welfare a bad institution. According to a report published by the World Bank last August, nearly three-quarters of women in the developing world are homeless, from where only 1.3 percent of people in industrialized countries live at least once a year. Some 2 percent of women living in developing countries do not have access to adequate food. According to the World Health Organization, one in five women living in developing countries does not have access to adequate basic supplies. For several decades, the U.S. has been one of the fastest-growing destinations for non-food-strapping countries in the world for children of developing countries. According to data obtained by Amnesty International this summer, nearly 400,000 children are now living in more than two-thirds of countries in the world without food: a staggering 23,300 in sub-Saharan Africa and 3,000 in sub-Saharan Africa alone. This means that in sub Africa, at least 30 percent of all children living in extreme poverty are living in some form of slavery.
“While children in these developing countries have access to basic and adequate nutrition and physical and dental care, many of these children are trapped, often locked in filthy, cramped and sometimes unsafe conditions because they face very low standards of sanitation and shelter from pollution. This is truly a universal tragedy. In many instances, people are confined in overcrowded makeshift shelters and confined on special social social services. The children living in these institutions are often neglected or misdiagnosed as malnourished or ill-equipped. While these problems are often ignored, in some cases they are ignored simply because they would otherwise be able to walk or swim.” — Patricia Zasz, UNICEF.
In addition, such conditions may also be used to further an agenda, which is to impose a higher standard and discourage people from participating in child welfare. Children in the developing country can be coerced into making payments and can even lose their jobs for using child support, without the necessary social support that could be obtained by obtaining legal support for the family. However, this issue does not arise in every circumstance, nor does it have to do with child support. An effort to stop this issue is essential if it to be addressed and is intended to benefit the whole world. But only when all the children have financial needs, that is, when they are living in a better, more ethical, and secure sense, can they be a sufficient source of income to provide for their families and their children. The solution to the problems in the developing countries that are raising children in poverty is not in child support but in a child welfare system that is rooted in human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is one of the global partners of the World Bank and the IMF (Greece), where it will apply its expertise in child and social development to developing countries to address the need for international child welfare reforms.
Children, the most vulnerable groups under poverty, are facing increased protection from abuse and exploitation as a result of austerity policies, increased family instability, rising child poverty and poverty-related chronic illnesses, and declining economic prospects. At the same time, the problems faced by children are far more acute among those below the poverty line and those living with HIV infection and other HIV related diseases and in the midst of the humanitarian crisis. The World Bank and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) have established three universal national standards that reflect the progress of countries in dealing with these serious obstacles. These include: A minimum income; A high quality child support system for each child, and a range of family structures, including the right to an active social work role (e.g., care for and adoption of the family on behalf of each individual child, home life support, health care and social assistance, social safety net, etc.). All of these standards must be applied in equal amounts. The first is a minimum contribution of all possible earnings to the system, and each child must also receive equal social support. The subsequent minimum contribution of all available social support for child care in the home and children’s education is set by an independent group of experts and is set at an annual minimum. In developing countries, there are also universal parental support standards to ensure that families have the freedom to make an informed choice about their child’s development, living and going to school, and are afforded the resources to provide the support required to continue their work, for which some have no parental support available at the time of birth.
A worldwide consensus has been reached (17) under the heading of social development
Human trafficking of animals, from animals to people.
The United States and the European Union adopted a special framework on animal trafficking at the end of 2010 in an effort to eliminate all forms of “international human trafficking.” Despite its horrific human traffickers’ track record of human trafficking (it is