animal testing
Using animals for biomedical research is morally right; however, using animals for the testing of cosmetics is morally wrong. "Animals need protecting," says Ann Rotsten, the wife of Michael Rotsten. Michael Rotsten is a lawyer in California. For Rotsten, no case or client is too large, too small or too furry. Fifty-four year-old Rotsten works from a one-room office in Los Angeles and runs one of the only practices in the nation devoted exclusively to dogs, cats, livestock, birds, and just about anything that is not human. Rotsten has taken on about 250 animal-related cases such as helping Virginia O'Brien legally adopt K.K., an abandoned horse (Jerome 72). Working with animals in research is essential to continued medical progress. Many medical breakthroughs have been made by the benefits of animal research ("Animal"). If the vaccine to prevent and cure polio were not developed in monkeys (Murray), polio would kill or cripple thousands of children and adults in one year ("Animal"). Insulin-dependent diabetics would not have insulin, a benefit of research on dogs, without animal research (Murray). Lack of medication to control high blood pressure would cause sixty million Americans to risk death from heart a
Henry Spira, along with many other animal rights activists, deserves the credit for changing the way cosmetics are tested. These activists saved the lives of many rabbits through creative and nonviolent movements. One of Spira's dramatic efforts was his 1980 protest against the cosmetic manufacturer Revlon. Spira and other animal rights activists ran full-page ads in newspapers showing bandaged white rabbits with the caption; "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for beauty's sake?" Some activists even put on rabbit costumes and marched in front of Revlon's corporate offices (Hyde 18). two-thirds of all Nobel Prizes in medicine have been given for discoveries that involved research with animals (Calnan). After the passage of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, tests were developed to evaluate the safety of cosmetics. Rabbits were chosen for the testing of these products. Every year, 100,000 rabbits were restrained while their eyes were squirted with potentially harmful cosmetics. The rabbits' eyes were studied to see if they were red, blistered, or bleeding. In some cases the rabbits became blind (Hyde 17-18). ttack, stroke or kidney failure without animal research. In one year, more than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye because cataract surgery would be impossible without animal research. Also, smallpox would continue unchecked and many other people would join the two million people already killed by the disease. Instead, smallpox has been eradicated with the help of animal research ("Animal"). According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a nationwide survey indicates that seventy-seven percent of the American people support the use of animals in biomedical research. Animal rights issues continue to be highly emotional and controversial. Many medical researchers see the problem in one way or the other. Some feel that any medical benefits for humans justify any experiments on any kind of animal. Others believe in finding alternatives for animal testing. While some people believe strongly in one idea or another, many are finding a middle ground. The moderate
Some common words found in the essay are:
Murray Lack, Cosmetic Act, Biomedical Research, Humane Association, AIDS Getty's, Virginia O'Brien, Compassion Animals, Revlon Spira, Jeff Getty, Ferid Murad, animal research, animal rights, research animal, animal research animal, food drug, animal testing, standard compassion, compassion animals, testing products, cell cultures, standard compassion animals, corporate standard compassion, corporate standard, animal rights activists, food drug cosmetic,
Approximate Word count = 1580
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
