What Place Do Animals Have In Our Society free essay sample

But the deeper I dug the more enlightened I became on the subject, which led me to ask myself the question that when it comes to animal abuse and/or animal cruelty what rights do animals actually have, if any, and what place do they have in our society? Historically, animals did not have any rights or a place in our society, since they were considered solely as â€Å"property†. Today, the courts still solve issues under the same concept as if they are â€Å"property†. Animals should not be considered as property they should be considered as part of the family, as for production animals they should be treated with the utmost respect, and testing on animals should be done away with. By definition animal abuse and/or animal cruelty is inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animals has suffered, died, or been put in imminent danger of death. Unknown, 2012) Sometimes these animals escape with minor or major injuries. Other times they die a horrible death. A common mistake that many pet owners make is, when they first bought their pets, they didn’t give a thought to whether their pets would take up their time or require lots of attention. Neither are they aware that their small, cute pet would grow to become bigger and less cute in a couple of months. Thus, they lose interest and some will decide to â€Å"set their pet free. Some of these innocent animals get tied up to a tree, torched alive, their tails cut off, and many more cruel things done to them. The luckier ones get sent to animal shelters where they have a second chance in finding a good home. Also, there are cases of animals being used for the testing of medicines, cosmetics, etc. (Unknown, ZKJ Designs, 2007) On November 11, 2011 the South China Morning Post featured an article titled â€Å"Animals deserve justice for abuse† and it stated that whe n it comes to pet lovers’ cruelty to animals is as traumatizing as violence committed against human beings. Such abuse cases are not being followed up by the law enforcement properly, which could be perceived as an animal’s life is less valuable. But the police have realized that there is a need to â€Å"beef up† the training in the way they handle these matters. The training will consist of how to ascertain if an animal has been injured by a person, another animal, or simply by accident. Only 70 out of 687 reports of cruelty to animals between the years of 2007-2010 were deemed to be enough evidence for prosecution. However, the first step is just better investigation. (South China Morning Post, 2011) The San-Antonio Express-News published an article titled â€Å"Violence against pets, people linked† on January 8, 2012 states that when Animal Care Services (ACS) specialists investigate animal cruelty cases, they sift for clues of other types of aggression. And its that instinct that kicked in when an ACS specialist investigated a case of a man that was accused of seriously injuring a 5-year-old schnauzer named Chester. A year ago, the accused man and his wife were arguing when he snatched the dog from the wife’s arms and slammed him against a bathroom wall and bathtub, which caused the dog to be paralyzed. The man was charged with cruelty to animals. Recent studies show that 80% of households with family violence also have animal abuse. An ACS team member stated that they don’t think people realize how widespread it is, and explained that domestic abusers sometimes use the threat of hurting animals to control their partners. The connection was made by Phil Arkow in the late 1980’s when he visited a women’s shelter. While he was waiting to speak he was looking through a newsletter with drawings by children and saw a lot of killed or injured pets. About 60 battered women shelters across the country have kennels. 1 states allow judges include pets in domestic violence protective orders. (Davis, 2012) Some forms of abuse and neglect of animals are illegal, but in many states, animals have no legal protection from â€Å"standard† practices. (Anonymous, 2012) The following is a list of some common cruel practices: ? Chaining dogs restricts their ability to exercis e ? Caging birds denies them the opportunity to fly or stretch their wings ? Declawing is a painful mutilation that involves 10 individual amputations—not of the nails only but the ends of the toes (bones and all) ? Ear cropping is done for cosmetic purposes only (Anonymous, 2002) Debarking involves the removal of 2 folds of tissues on either side of the larynx (Anonymous, 2002) ? Shock collars, electric fences, and prong collars are painful training devices ? Animal hoarding (Anonymous, 2012) Not all animals are equal: hundreds of millions of animals raised for food each year in Australia are denied the full protection of animal cruelty laws despite the knowledge that all animals share the ability to suffer. As a result, so-called ‘production animals’ endure intense confinement and surgical procedures without pain relief—all of which would be a cruelty offense if those same animals were dogs or cats. Each state and territory in Australia has enacted animal cruelty laws, which reflect our society’s opposition to animal cruelty. However, few in the community are aware that governments included exemption in that legislation which results in the vast majority of animals in human care—some 500 million animals that are raised for food each year—being denied the full protection of these laws so that cruel animal industries can maximize their profits. Instead of being protected by the law, so-called ‘production animals’ are subject to ‘Codes of Practice’ which exempt animal industries from prosecution for cruelty. Common practices on farms that cause immense suffering are legalized in these codes. As a result, millions of farm animals endure horrific living conditions and acts of abuse such as debeaking, dehorning, castration, and the cutting of tails and pulling out teeth without anesthetic, despite these practices being cruelty offenses if performed on cats or dogs. Cruel animal industries, retailers, and governments mislead the community to believe that these codes exist to ensure the welfare of animals—when in fact they are directly responsible for permitting cruel practices. These animals have no voice and they need ours to help them. Unkown, Animals Australia the voice for animals). Many animals are used in scientific and medical research. Animal experimentation is both cruel and sometimes unnecessary, and humans have no right to put innocent animals through such torture. Scientists often don’t benefit from testing on animals as they are so different from human beings and r eact differently to drugs. Results obtained from experimenting on animals are sometimes unreliable. There are numerous cases that highlight the absurdity of assuming that humans and animals have biology sufficiently similar for experimentation to yield useful results. For example, morphine calms humans but excites cats, cortisone causes birth defects in mice but not in humans, penicillin kills guinea pigs and hamsters and aspirin poisons cats. Certain steroids, adrenaline, insulin, and some antibiotics are also toxic to many animals but medically beneficial to humans. Not only are results obtained from animals testing sometimes unreliable, but animal testing puts animals through a lot of unnecessary suffering. Some tests that are commonly used include the Draize Eye Test, the Lethal Dose 50 Percent (LD50), and Skin Test for Toxicity. These tests are used in the general cosmetic industry and in the household products industry. The Draize Eye Test is used to test shampoos, weed-killers, pesticides, household detergents, and riot natural gases. The substances are applied to the eyes of conscious rabbits in order to test irritancy. Rabbits, dogs, cats, mice, and guinea pigs are used in the LD50 test, and it’s used to test lipstick, skin-care products such as: moisturizers, cleaners, shampoos, and nail polish. The LD50 test is administered by introducing the ingredients under investigation into the animal via the mouth or intravenously. The animal is fed up to 50 percent of its body weight and the aim of the test is to find the dose which will kill half the animal sample. For the test to be valid statistically, a minimum of 50 animals are required. Rats are used in the Skin Test for Toxicity test. Their fur is shaved and the substance to be tested is applied thickly to the exposed skin. The skin is frequently broken or cut to increase absorption. (Unkown) Although I disagree with testing on animals for any reason, using animals in research is a concern to some. However, the benefits derived from the ethical, humane use of laboratory animals for biomedical research are huge. Nearly every major medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has been achieved by research with animals. For example, vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and children’s leukemia were developed through animal testing. (Unknown, 2004) The replacement of animals in research is actually the aspiration of most medical researchers, because not a most scientist would use any animal if there were a choice. Biomedical research is aimed at alleviating both human and animal suffering through the development of new preventing and therapeutic agents. However, this aspiration cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future. All scientists who use animals are required to justify in great detail why there is no non-animal alternative and must describe how they are applying the â€Å"3Rs† (Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement) in their proposed studies. In particular, non-human primate models have played an important role in demonstrating, for example, the pre-clinical efficacy of novel drugs such as the highly effective agent tenofovir as well as the benefits of other strategies in the treatment and prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Research using non-human primates also remains essential in the search for novel treatments for neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s dementia (Furman, 2009). All seven of Scotland’s MEP’s (Member of the European Parliament) signed last year a declaration in the European Parliament seeking a ban, eventually, on primate testing. We all agree that the use of primates in experiments is regrettable; so do Scotland’s scientists. But, if there is an outside chance of a cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s, MS, motor neuron disease, infertility, or any number of human ailments then Mr. Parton, for his part, fall on the side of Scotland’s flourishing biotech sector continuing experiments, subject to strict controls, until we no longer have to (Parton, 2009). The concern is that there are many just like me that disagree with the abuse or cruelty of animals; however, we use the makeup, use the medication, and eat the food that if it were not for these animals, none of this would be here. We should ask ourselves what is it that we can do to help these animals since they did not volunteer to be food for humans or a test subject so we can look pretty. When it comes to testing on the animals for makeup, why can’t we use humans since they can volunteer their services? Dr. Ian Gibson, a member of the Commons’ Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, said, â€Å"There is a great variety of impressive technologies to assess drugs in humans: the species in question. They deserve to be given a fair trial against animal tests, to find out whether they could do a better job of protecting patients. These new technologies coming through – using human tissue cells – mean we don’t need to go straight to animal testing. We have got locked into animal experiments as the only way. It’s still very important that we do that, but sometimes we don’t look at the alternatives. It states that one possible option is â€Å"micro dosing† – the practice of administering drugs in such low quantities that the effect can only take place at a cellular level, rather than on the organ or body as a whole. The dose is often administered to a tissue culture extracted from a human volunteer. (Adams, 2009) In conclu sion my position to animal abuse still stands the same that I for one am against it. However, unfortunately when it comes to ‘production animals’ or testing on animals I am standing on the fence. I know that if it were not for the testing on animals must of us humans would not be here today. And now when I sit down to eat a meal that contains meat I sometimes wonder if the animal that unwilling gave their life for me was ever abused at any time. References Unknown. (2007). ZKJ Designs. Retrieved 04 15, 2012, from http://www. nma. sg/nnmc2007/woodgrove/animalabuse. html South China Morning Post, L. (2011, November 11). LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved April 23, 2012, from http://www. lexisnexis. com. proxy. itt-tech. edu/hottopics/lnacademic/? Davis, V. T. (2012, January 8). LexisNexis Academic. Retrieved April 23, 2012, from http://www. lexisnexis. com. proxy. itt-tech. edu/ Anonymous. (2012). Retrieved 03 26, 2012, from http://www. peta. org/issues/Companion-Animals/Cruel-Practices. aspx Anonymous. (2002). Retrieved 03 26, 2012, from http://www. vet4petz. com/articles/cosmetic_surgery. htm Unkown. (n. d. ). Animals Australia the voice for animals. Retrieved 04 15, 2012, from http://www. animalsaustralia. org/take_action/legal-protection/ Unkown. (n. d. ). Retrieved 04 15, 2012, from http://members. iinet. net. au/~rabbit/aniexp. htm Unknown. 2004, November 18). News Medical. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://www. news-medical. net/news/2004/11/18/6385. aspx Furman, B. L. (2009, January 10). Retrieved April 16, 2012, from http://www. lexisnexis. com. proxy. itt-tech. edu Parton, C. (2009, January 13). Retrieved April 22, 2012, from http://www. lexisnexis. com. proxy. itt-tech. edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ Adams, S. (2009, January 25). The Telegraph. Re trieved May 07, 2012, from http://www. telegraph. co. uk/science/science-news/4339504/Human-alternatives-to-animal-testing-should-be-investigated-MPs-say. html