In this paper consisting of five pages the writer supports the contention that the testing of live animals for medical purposes should cease. Seven sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: LM1_TLCAnmlT.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
humans do; indeed, there could be nothing further from the truth, being that they are just as sentient and aware as any person. Lest it be forgotten, man is
-- and will always remain -- a member of the animal kingdom, a fact that is easily overlooked when addressing the issue of consciousness. It can be argued that
there is a distinct level of consciousness with regard to each individual species; however, there can be no debate about the fact that all living entities possess a consciousness that
is not necessarily recognized or understood by others. "Although animal life is typically not as rich and therefore not as valuable as human life, some animals have lives that
are more valuable than other animals, and some animals have lives that are more valuable than some human lives" (Beauchamp 368). Vivisection, the
practice of experimenting on animals, began as the result of a religious ban against the use of human corpses for medical study. When the ban was lifted, it was
too late for the sacrificial animal, because "vivisection was already entrenched" (Animal Experimentation) within the medical world. Geoff Paddock, a representative for Imperial Chemical Industries, contends that animal testing,
whether one likes it or not, is a legal requirement. Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic, refutes such a claim that animal testing is indeed a necessary
component: "I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could
not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil" (Animal Experimentation). Then came mandatory testing of cosmetics, cleaning products and myriad other consumer