Ethical Dilemmas: a Phletora of Topics

Should Animal Testing be banned?

Animal testing, as the name suggests, is the usage of animals for experimentation – mostly for scientific research and product testing. Whilst the context of the presentation that we have attended only defines animal testing to be within the boundaries of eye, skin and toxicity experimentations, I would like to remind you that the true depth of animal testing extends also to more severe medicinal research such as cancer and other terminal diseases. As such, there is the constant ethical dilemma to determine if the negative impacts of cruelty to animals arising from such tests outweigh the potential benefits that we reap from scientific breakthroughs and cures. My stand on animal testing has remained clear from the start – Animal testing is, and should, continued to be practiced as it produces more good than bad. Let me explain my perspective based on a few key points. First would be the virtue of our individualistic stand on speciesism. In the chain of priority, humanity would obviously hold more importance as compared to other animals. Whilst this does not automatically confer upon us the right to slaughter countless mice for research, it does give us the reason to consider that we should tend to our own wellbeing first and foremost. Secondly, may I suggest the idea that animal-testing contribute as a common good to both humans and animals as well? Think about when a research is performed on mice, with the primary focus in finding a cure for cancer. Should such a cure be found, we can sing high praise and salvation unto the human race, yes. But think a level deeper – wouldn’t we have saved the entire mice populace from cancer as well? This further proves the driving need for animal testing as a necessity, as it offers mutual benefits for both the experimenters and the experimented. Lastly, on a utilitarian viewpoint, animal testing is evidently causing an ultimately positive impact. Clearly, the advantage of animal testing substantially outweighs that of its harmful counterpart. By sacrificing the minority percentage of mice populace, humans and animals alike can procure a brighter future in medicine, healthcare and also a multitude of enhanced services and products. Therefore, the principle of utilitarianism builds strongly on my establishment that animal testing is indeed a right thing to do. However, not all positive changes come without harmful repercussions. We must proactively set counter measures to ensure that our actions today do not cause ripples and complications in the years to come. One such playing factor going against animal testing will be the rising cost of research. With modern technology requiring excessive amounts of funding, as well as the tremendous amount of expenses incurred through maintenance and procuring of lab animals, there may be the concern that excessive money might be spent unnecessarily on less essential research, when such funds could be better spent to aid the needy or just to boost the economy. Also, there remains the daunting possibility that cures for animals might not produce the same results for humans. A simple flu treatment that can usually treat mice might cause an otherwise adverse effect on humans. Worse still, it may even cause an epidemic outbreak widespread enough to infect humans around the world. Animal testing is still a freshly new option in science and medicine today, and any measure in its infant stage should be studied with meticulous care and concern, in order to ensure that such methods will not backfire once it reaches maturity.
Should Abortion be allowed to be exercised freely?

Abortion is the act of removing the foetus from the uterus to terminate the pregnancy. Taking accidental abortions like miscarriages aside, other common means would include induced abortions through menstrual extraction and vacuum aspiration. However, heated debates have constantly arisen to address the ethical concerns of such induced abortions. Many argue that abortion is tantamount to murder of an unborn child, while others factor in the child bearer’s rights and also the financial and mental capacity needed to nurture the child. I feel abortion should be exercised freely. It strongly considers and respects the expectant’s mother rights, especially so if she is not prepared to take care of the child. We should, first and foremost, consider that women are not mere vessels for child-rearing, and are instead respected individuals who hold the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Foetuses can evidently be classified to be part of a woman’s body, and these women should therefore have the final say if a foetus is allowed to grow within their wombs. It should also be noted that, in countries with stringent regulations and policies against abortion, women often resort to desperate measures like illegal abortionists, where surgeries conducted are unsafe and risky to both woman and foetus. The next factor to discuss would be the utilitarian aspect of abortion. With majority of our world living in overpopulation and scarcity of resources today, abortion will be able to effectively distribute resources to the current populace rather than to feed a new child. It could also aid poorer parents or single parents lift the financial burden of having a child, and enable them to contribute more efficiently to the society instead. Comparing otherwise, we should be aware that the potential harms of forced pregnancies really puts a huge strain on the progress of nations as a whole, and can even lead to a vicious cycle of poverty within less wealthy communities. Poor couples unprepared for their children will find themselves unable to provide, and these under-nourished children may continue in their parents’ footsteps, breeding a new line of unprepared and less educated generation. These families will ultimately provide little future prospects of societal contribution, and may also adversely incur a financial liability onto their society. However, we should also be cautious in our approach towards promoting abortion rights. Proper education and safeguards must be put in place, to ensure that citizens acknowledge the significance of pregnancies and also the severity of abortions. We can always promote the importance of birth control measures, and also set strict laws against underage sex. This will help individuals make the right decisions, and not result in unwanted pregnancies. We should also promote healthy family planning campaigns, instead of dissuading couples on acts leading to conception. The greatest fear any country might have in the future would be the eventual decline of birth rates that can sink a nation into an era of ageing population, where abortion would then ironically act as an anti-agent working against social productivity and progress.

Should Euthanasia be allowed?

Euthanasia, on a loose term, is the act of ending a life for the sole objective of relieving any pain and suffering afflicting the patient at the time. The ethical dilemmas encompassing this subject often debate about the morality of the practice, and also its impact on the society at large. Some may consider it a necessity - as an ultimatum to end their pain, whilst others deem it an irresponsible act on the patient’s part, and that it should be seen as a devaluation of life. I will be stating my convictions on this topic, and will provide the essential reasoning to explain my perspective. Euthanasia should be allowed, and therefore made legal. It is a very viable option especially to victims of terminal diseases, where they constantly suffer from the acute pains of both treatments and afflictions alike. Following the standards of utilitarianism, we can see that the benefits of euthanasia do outweigh that of its shortcomings. Not only does this help patients receive an easy end to their pain, it also allows the care-takers to mitigate the costs incurred in sustaining the patient’s otherwise fruitless life. These resources can then be redistributed to other segments of finances that require support, and thus being able to at least better the society cost-effectively. The next factor strives to define the boundaries of an individual’s rights. By this, I am not referring to one’s rights as a taxpayer, nor as a citizen of his nationality. Rather, it is his rights to live that provide the basis for his rights to die as well. The essence of this is evidently clear; anyone in-charge of living their own life – their diet, their hairstyle, their job and even their choice in marriage – surely deserves the right to write off their last chapters in life. Thus it is even more crucial that euthanasia be opened as a viable option, should these individuals need to find a way out of their otherwise endless sufferings. I believe in the ability to make my own decisions, and that people sharing my ideals should be offered the chance to make their own choices as well. Moving to my last point, would be the idea that the process of euthanasia promotes certain virtues to both the patient and the society surrounding him. Immediately we can see that the patient displays individualism, acting in his best interests to ease his own pain. His family, by finally being able to let go, would have acted on empathy and respect. They understand his pain, and accept his decision knowing that this is what he wants. This builds character within our people, and such a positive change should also not be ignored. In view of euthanasia as a whole, its flaws should also not be left unaddressed. The major concern behind legalizing euthanasia would be that it indirectly endorses the right to commit suicide. What the law-makers must deeply consider would be to set measures to educate the public on the disparity between euthanasia and suicide. Euthanasia is, and will always remain a last resort, for suffering patients with no alternatives left to turn to. Strict standards should be implemented to deem patients fully acceptable for euthanizing. As euthanasia might sometimes be misinterpreted as an embrace towards death, we must therefore hold heart, and cherish the value of our very lives.

References
Animal Testing
Justifying Animal Experimentation (September, 2002) http://sobek.colorado.edu/~irvinel/Animals%20and%20Society%20Readings/Frey%20Justifying%20Experimentation.pdf Is Animal Testing Justified (January 30th, 2010) http://testfunda.com/examprep/mba-resource/user-resources/article/is-animal-testing-justified.htm?assetid=21e29c97-962f-4a66-9205-3d374538bd9f Abortion
Utilitarian View on Abortion, StudyMode.com (May, 2012) http://www.studymode.com/essays/Utilitarian-View-On-Abortion-990244.html Euthanasia
The ethics of euthanasia, Nargus Ebrahimi (2012) http://www.amsj.org/archives/2066 Ethical Key Issues, Life.org (n.d.)
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiaethicalkeyissues/

References: Animal Testing Justifying Animal Experimentation (September, 2002) http://sobek.colorado.edu/~irvinel/Animals%20and%20Society%20Readings/Frey%20Justifying%20Experimentation.pdf Is Animal Testing Justified (January 30th, 2010) Utilitarian View on Abortion, StudyMode.com (May, 2012) http://www.studymode.com/essays/Utilitarian-View-On-Abortion-990244.html Euthanasia The ethics of euthanasia, Nargus Ebrahimi (2012)