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
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Murray Lack, Cosmetic Act, Biomedical Research, Humane Association, AIDS Gettys, Virginia OBrien, Compassion Animals, Revlon Spira, Jeff Getty, Ferid Murad, animal research, animal rights, research animal, animal research animal, animal testing, testing products, standard compassion, cell cultures, food drug, compassion animals, 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)
|
 |
