Introduction
Animal rights mean an idea where animals are eligible for possession of fundamental interests and existence, such as free from suffering. It means animals are given the same consideration that human beings receive. Animals have assisted the human race, whether it be for challenging tasks, food, companionship, or clothing. However, they had no rights before the year 1966 when the animals in the U.S gained rights that are recognized by the government through the formation of the Animal Welfare Act that protects the rights of all animals from inhumane treatment (Kymlicka and Donaldson, 163). The groups who advocate for animal rights do not have a middle ground; they just need a total and immediate abolition of using animals in research. No accountable medical professional or scientist wants to utilize animals or cause unnecessary suffering on them if it can be avoided. Thus, scientists or medical researchers accept controls on the use of animals in their researches. More generally, animals use in research is recognized by the bioscience community, but the study should be only within an ethical framework.
The paper examines entirely on animal rights by first focusing on the literature on animal rights as outlined by several scholars. Then it examines some issues surrounding animal rights, which include animal rights philosophy, animal rights myths, and extremism. Also, the paper examines the animals used in scientific and medical research, then the moral status of animals. There has been a debate on the necessity of animals used in studies of biomedical as it is widely discussed in classrooms throughout the country. Animals have been utilized for long in medical research, and they have played an essential role in various medical advances. However, the use of animals in medical research has been opposed by multiple anti-vivisectionist groups and animal rights extremists who believe that animals have rights as human beings do; thus, using them in medical and scientific researches is unnecessary, and the experimentation is cruelty, regardless of its benefit or purpose.
The Literature on Animal Rights
According to Jacobsson and Lindblom (56), animals have inherent worth the same to human beings, and this value is entirely separate from the way they are seen as being helpful to humans. Every being has a living will and should enjoy freedom from pain and suffering. Thus, it is wrong for society in general to view animals that are nonhumans as existing solely for human use. Also, Kymlicka and Donaldson (163) explained that animals have the same feelings human beings have when it comes to emotions like fear, joy, pain, loneliness, and love. Animals try to avoid harm as much as they can as they attach immense value to their personal life. It is then surprising to see human beings like medical and scientific researchers see no wrong in snatching such important freedom from animals. Animals are denied their rights based on prejudice conducted by human beings because prejudice is the only act that makes humans deny animals the right; they expect to possess themselves. Korsgaard (9) puts it clear that animals are sentient like human beings, and speciesism sends humans to treat animals differently, where humans see themselves as superior, leading to the exploitation of animals. Some researchers argue against animal rights, as Cochrane (18) argued that because animals are not in a position to exercise the responsibility that humans do, hence, they are entitled to any rights. The argument by Kymlicka and Donaldson (166) is countered by Liddick (621), who argued that the animal rights are all about allowing animals to be free from human use and exploitation and to live freely on their own. According to Scruton (3), animals should have rights as they are living creatures who have the right to live openly as long as they are willing to live. Tester (29), discusses the topic of animal rights in details regarding the biasness of the animal rights laws. She explains the deficiencies in the laws that exist and points out that such existing laws do not cover all aspects of interactions between the human population and animals. Her research is significant because when new laws are established, they can try to protect all animals in a better way versus the few that are protected. Then, Regan et al. (124) introduce the Animal Rights Movement, where he describes the movement as one of the most neglected and misunderstood in our era. He explains history attached to the movement and explores the reasoning behind the significance it contains in the society together with its importance on the social movement scholars.
Issues Surrounding Animal Rights
The philosophical position of animal rights is powering much of today's opposition to the use of animals for research purposes. According to the viewpoint of animal rights, all animals possess moral and legal rights like humans; this implies that using animals as pets or for other several purposes is unethical. The problem that weakens the arguments of animal rights activists is the notion that excludes animals from the capability of applying mutual acceptance to principles attached to ethics; they argue that because animals do not observe ethical principles like humans do, they should not have rights. Since 1980, there are several vandalism acts which are done by animal rights movements supporters on medical researches, and through such actions, they have caused a lot of damages to medical research facilities; costs that the scientific communities who were running the researches using animals do have any moral justification (Smith, 29). Animal rights activists have harassed the medical researchers, and the harassment, together with the acts of vandalism, has slowed down medical research as the researchers find it hard to look for another alternative to animals in the research process.
The activism of animal rights has been prominent since the 1960s in the United Kingdom. Then, recently through the rise of animal rights groups, the issue in the United States is on the rise. In nearly all demonstrations of animal rights, placards that depict age-old experiments are carried out in many countries with lower standards of animal welfare. Through the distortions of truth on use on the use of animals in various researches, the animal rights groups through showing such truths gain funding, and they continually grow their movements. The animal rights groups in the past were justifying their activities from moral judgment. Still, recent, they have focused on a scientific angle as they argue that the use of animals in research should be abolished (Jacobsson and Lindblom, 58). The groups are not there to promote animal welfare in a better way, but to the band on principle, all experiments that use animals carried out in the United States and beyond. The welfare of animals is crucial in medical and scientific research because stressed animals do not give good results. Hence, animal care technicians and studies have always championed advances in animal welfare, which include improved training, better-designed cages, and new enrichment toys and animal activities.
Animal Rights Myths
Various claims are put forward by the animal rights activists. Several animal rights activists spend a lot of time propagating various distortions, outrights, and half-truths views in their literature. Some of the notable myths are insulin, penicillin, and digitalis; other medicines will be banned in a situation where the results from experimentation using animals were accurate. Animal rights groups claim that digitalis in humans decreases blood pressure, but in dogs, it does the opposite. Then the claim on insulin is that in animals, it leads to congenital disabilities but not in humans; the claim by the animal rights groups is wrong because from biology, insulin is produced by all mammals, and they survive on it to a large extend.
The other myth is that there are about 450 methods that are alternative to the use of animals in experiments; the myth is considered incorrect as it says the over 450 methods can replace current medical and scientific research on animals (Regan et al.,127). In the U.S, the law prohibits using animals in research when there is the presence of an alternative; hence, it means there is a lack of an option that why animals are used in medical research. The other myth is that Morphine excites cats, but it puts humans asleep; whereas, the truth is the effect of Morphine in cats and humans is the same.
Animal Rights Philosophy
Several people around the world believe that it is unethically to do medical research using animals. The center of such a belief is usually the assumption that animals have rights (Aaltola, 76). The animal rights groups believe that they possess the right to live where they defend their claims on the suffering that animals receive from careless handling by human beings. They exclude the argument based on animal reasoning and talking capability.
The same as humans were granted rights is the way animals should get rights. Rights were not present before humans came into existence, but it was allowed to humans by the power of action and thought; thus, the same entire power of thought and action have to be applied in giving rights to animals.
Animal Rights Extremism
It is the acts of violence against or threat of persons or property utilized t coerce individuals or institutions into ending animal research by medical professionals or scientists. It comprises of but not limited to death threats, physical violence that is directed to individuals together with their families. The act is instituted by small minority activist of animal rights who hold the belief that they are justified in going beyond the law for the sake of protection of animals (Liddick, 623). It has the impact of overshadowing the essential debate on the need for research using animals, which has an outcome of scaring most scientists into silence, meaning the discussion of animal rights in the presence of such extremists becomes one-sided and monopolized by the activists. At the presence of animal rights extremism, the broader public opinions who advocate for strict observation of animal rights turn against medical and scientific research and the activist at this point makes headway into forcing research institutions and governments into scaling back animal research to a situation where developments of animal research in future is severely challenged.
Animal research extremism is being tackled from any angle because of what they are capable of in advocating for animal rights movements. Most research institutions have encouraged their researchers to keep away from animal rights extremism by keeping a low profile and downplay links they may have with animal research. The extremism can be tackled through making scientists speak out concerning the importance of using animals for research and explain its importance in biomedical research so that the public or the animal rights extremism get to understand.
Animals Use in Medical and Scientific Experiments
In researching animal rights, it is essential to look at the use of animals by a human being in carrying out medical and scientific experiments. This subtopic brings the debate of using live animals in performing research experiments into primary diseases and biology. The debate has been going on for long, and in today's society, it is still prevalent. Most animals used in experiments exhibit symptoms of post-trauma stress disorder like a human being, and most of them die in cruel, drug, cosmetic, food, and chemical tests instituted by human beings who do not care about the rights of such animals at all.
