Animal testing is the process of experimentation on animal life for the safety of human products and medication (Animals Australia, 2018). In terms of the biological system of the body, animals are considered to be similar to humans, therefore a behavioural or medical reaction to a product on an animal will be similar of a human (ProCon.org). During these procedures, an animal is said to undergo testing that is likely to inflict suffering, pain, and in some cases death (Humane Society, 2018). Despite being an extremely controversial topic, animal testing and experimentation is still conducted all over the world, and has become a multimillion dollar industry (Animals Australia, 2018) . Animals used as Guinea pigs in these experiments are usually bred in a facility for this particular purpose, living in a caged environment. The views of whether animal testing should be banned in Australia differ, as some believe it is the only viable way to safely test products.
Animal testing is mainly used for cosmetic and medical purposes. Treatments for diseases and illnesses that afflict both animals and humans are tested to seek cures and various suitable treatment options (ProCon.org). Animal testing has been used in history to discover the result of cures for illnesses such as Tuberculosis, Asthma, organ transplantation, cancer, Parkinson’s disease etc. The California Biomedical Research association has stated that almost every medical breakthrough and the discovery of cure and prevention has occurred due to the use of research on animals. However, the use of testing on animals for cosmetic purposes has been proven to cause much more harm on animals then it benefits a human (Health.gov). There are currently laws in place which applies a code of regulation which ensures protection of animals during the testing process, meaning that animals will be safe from any mistreatment. There is currently no viable alternative to testing on a living system, which makes animals the most successful option. The question is, should the lives of animals be put at risk to save the lives of humans?
A major disadvantage to animal testing is the inhumane treatment of animals. To begin animal experimentation in particular towards treatment of disease, animals are sometimes made ill or injured artificially, causing unnecessary harm which in no way resembles the natural course of the disease and people that researchers are trying to mimic in animals (Cruelty Free International, 2018). As per The Humane Society International, creatures are routinely forcibly fed, compelled to breathe in poisonous mixes, denied of nourishment and water, physically controlled for drawn out periods, and burned. Experiments that concern the mind and individual emotions are particularly absurd. Animals are unable to talk, yet often using painful measures they're made to react in a way that's claimed to be a symptom of a certain mental illness. For example, rats are subjected to electric shocks to make them feel desperate in order to study depression. In spite of the close relationship, people and animals differ from each other (ProCon.org). The difference of metabolism and reactions to substances. For instance, the painkiller Paracetamol functions admirably for people, however is poison for felines. Cancer treatments have been successful for over a million mice, but then subsequently failed for over 90% of people in later clinical trials.
According to a survey of the Loreto Year 9 cohort, 66.67% of people are not aware of the possible alternatives to animal testing. Supplanting animal tests does not mean putting human patients in danger. It additionally does not mean ending medicinal advancement. Rather, supplanting animal testing will enhance the quality and in addition the altruism of science. Studies have been taking place to discover new methods of testing to reduce the impact on animal life. The study of cell cultures in a petri dish has been proved useful, but does not deliver the same opportunity to study a living systems’ reaction to a product. For example, a medical drug could not be tested adequately using a petri dish. Diseased and healthy human tissue can be utilized as an approach to find the human science and response on the body (ProCon.org, 2018)). This can be donated from surgery or used after a person has passed away. An example of this is the use of skin and eye tissue to replace methods of rabbit irritation tests. With the modern advancement of technology, computer innovation has additionally been created to develop a digital image of the body and the impact a specific item has on it (Cruelty Free International, 2018).
The subject of the use of animal testing and experimentation is a widely talked about and controversial issue that faces society. The countries of South Korea, Turkey, India, New Zealand, Taiwan, Norway and Brazil have banned the use of cosmetic testing on animals. However, this leaves over 100,000 animals who are still being put through the suffering that comes with animal testing each year. Australia's code of practice for the use of animals for scientific reasons states that “Animals should only be used when ethically justified and when no other alternative methods are available” (The Conversation, 2018). This means it is expected that associations are be authorized by the Government who ultimately make the decision whether the advantages the testing provides exceed the damage perpetrated on animals. Amid the 2016 Election, the Australian Government resolved to present a prohibition on cosmetic testing on animals. The government received a strong positive reaction from the public to introduce the ban, bringing Australia into line with the European Union. However, the Government decided to defer the commencement of the scheme until 2019 due to time needed to prepare for compliance with the AICIS (Health.gov, 2018).
To benefit the health condition of a human, the lives of animals are put at risk. So, to reduce the suffering of a human, the question of whether it is ethically acceptable to sacrifice the life the life of a helpless animal is raised. Recent advantages in technology have proved that there are alternatives to animal testing, none of which have proved to be equally as successful. Globally, restrictions should be put in place to ensure animal testing is only used when an alternative is unable to provide a similar result. Laboratories should only treat animals in a way that is not cruel or inhumane, ensuring as minimal amount of suffering as possible. The government should be stricter with these principles to give as much benefit to the people in need, for the animals in need. The use of animal testing for cosmetic purposes however, should most definitely be banned in Australia, as the process causes much more harm to animals then it provides benefits to humans.