WK4 Project

Animal Rights

Linda Dotson

Walden University

Animal Rights

The world is faced with several social problems that do not only affect human beings but animals too. One of the biggest problems facing animals that qualify as a social problem is animal testing. This practice has elicited a divisive debate with one side of the debate arguing that it is unethical to met animals with the cruelty of killing them or injuring them for experiments. This is because animals too have feelings and therefore need to be respected (Newkirk, 2020). On the other hand, the proponents of animal testing argue that without doing so, the advancements made in the medical field could not have been realized. As a result of this debate, several solutions have been proposed to save the lives of animals. This paper presents a literature review on the proposed solutions, their feasibility, conflicts involved, interests, values, and rights of all stakeholders, and ethical dilemmas involved.

Literature Review

To find solutions to the social problem under consideration, several researchers have conducted fruitful studies and proposed a number of lasting solutions. Having noted the concerns raised regarding the use of animals for experimentation, Newkirk researched the best alternatives to the problem and came up with different approaches that are relevant to human health. Newkirk proposed conducting research using human volunteers using a method known as micro-dosing to provide vital information on the safety of drugs and how they metabolize in human beings ahead of being put on a large scale trial. This method replaces animal tests and is equally useful in screening out drug compounds that may not work in humans.

Apart from the human volunteer, Newkirk proposed the use of human patient simulators. Computerized human-patient simulators that breathe, talk, and can also die have the ability to teach physicians about pharmacology and physiology even better than inflicting insurmountable pain on animals. According to Newkirk, human-patient simulators mimic illnesses and injuries to give appropriate biological responses that inform physicians about the best medical intervention.

Researching with human volunteers may not be feasible unless people are fully informed that using them for research does not expose them to other risks. Elsewhere, Walker and Fisher argue that there needs to be parallel ethics and work to consider the structural features of volunteers and animals. On the other hand, the human-patient simulator may not be feasible because of a lack of technological advancement in every part of the globe. Additionally, physicians need to be trained to understand how to use simulators.

There are different and conflicting perspectives regarding the proposed solutions. For instance, it is argued that doctors intentionally infect healthy people to research various diseases and their treatment. This raises ethical concerns regarding the beneficial effect of research with human volunteers. As such, Walker and Fisher suggest limiting research with human volunteers on ethical grounds and to avoid the risk of harm. Elsewhere, the human-patient simulators have not attracted plenty of conflicts and almost all healthcare practitioners agree with the practice. This is because no human being or animals are affected and the simulators are able to give accurate feedback that dictates the appropriate medical intervention.

Different interests of different stakeholders must be considered. For example, in the research contacted by Walker and Fisher (2019), biomedical ethics advocates argue that doctors intentionally infect healthy people to use them for research. As such, the principle of beneficence must be addressed to minimize the risk of harm and maximize the potential societal benefit from the research. On the other hand, the human volunteers are motivated by financial benefits and therefore argue that the practice should be carried out with less restriction. Elsewhere, human rights advocates have welcome both approaches because they are geared towards eradicating the use of animals in experiments. On the other hand, the physicians have welcomed the human-patient simulator because it improves the basic knowledge as one of the essential attributes needed to professionally competent.

The proposed solutions are not immune to ethical dilemmas. For instance, biomedical ethics advocates argue that it is absurd to infect healthy human beings to research them to develop appropriate medical interventions to improve society. Any research that subjects some people to harm with the view of improving medical practice violates the ethical principles. Elsewhere, simulation is designed to enhance clinical skills to ensure that patients are not endangered. However, its influence on the competency of nurses regarding their ethical values in practice remains unknown.

References

Newkirk, I. G. (2020). Animals are not ours: To experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. PeTA. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/

Walker, R. L., & Fisher, J. A. (2019). Advancing Ethics and Policy for Healthy‐Volunteer Research through a Model‐Organism Framework. Ethics and Human Research, 41(1), pp 4-14, doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500001