নমুনা বিস্তারিত

Much has been debated over experimental subjects, with some people arguing that using animals in medical research is permissible because of benefits for human beings, while others think otherwise, saying that it is wrong action. While I acknowledge the validity of both arguments, this essay contends that both factors are crucial, and combining these recommendations would be more likely to result in long-term benefits for animals and humankind.

On the one hand, advocates of using animals in medical research argue that it could reduce the risky issues before deciding to apply it to human beings. Medical research means the systematic investigation of biological and physiological processes to develop new treatments, medicines, and medical procedures. Because of such innovative characteristics, it sparked fears among not only patients but also the researchers about these inventions’ safety. Therefore, using animals is the optimal choice nowadays. For instance, in Covid 19 pandemic, using rats or rabbits to test new vaccines is a last resort as at that time, the rate of people’s death is alarming, if not having vaccines, it could lead to disaster that may wipe out humanity.＋

On the other hand, those who emphasize the moral wrongs also have certain grounds for their position. Using animals in medicines is immoral actions since in the process of researching and testing treatments, medicines or vaccines, it is undeniable the death results of animal testers. Such cruel actions could provoke outrage among citizens, especially the people who love animals which may lead to many humanitarian protests. Thus, gradually the belief of dwellers in science decreased which adversely affected medicine’s reputation. Moreover, if this issue continuously lasts for a long time, the ecosystem could be disrupted due to the broken food supply chain. As a result, it could leave many problems related to the environment which nowadays are being affected by other factors.

＋Upon weighing both views, I believe that treating these suggestions as competing priorities is a false dichotomy. Using animals in the medical field and the reduction should be pursued simultaneously, as each strengthens and mutually reinforces the other. In fact, these two domains are closely intertwined. Testing and doing research by using animals could reduce the precarious situation that happens with patients. However, the restriction in using animals could save animals’ lives and reduce inhumane acts. Moreover, prioritizing a single area to the exclusion of the other may give rise to serious long-term consequences. An exclusive emphasis on indiscriminately using animals for medical purposes while overlooking the frequency and the laws of using, could destroy the ecosystem detrimentally. Conversely, placing excessive emphasis on the strict reduction while overlooking using could limit the ability to invent new treatments which result in the limitations in curative potential. Ultimately, the key to achieving a holistic strategy lies not in relying exclusively on applying animal testers or not, but in recognising the rate and scenario of using, which means just applying animal subjects in reluctant situations. Therefore, adopting a balanced perspective is far more convincing than treating these two factors as mutually exclusive.