Right: PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has often been denounced as a fringe group, or even a fanatical oraganisation, but the group's efforts have been very effective in keeping surgical training's use of live animals in the public eye.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour using animals for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training
1. The commercial incentive not to animal test cosmetic and household products is growing
Although there are no laws which prohibit the use of animals for the testing of products such as cosmetics and cleaning products, the majority of Australian consumers do not support animals testing of these products and some 40 percent of Australian companies claim not to do such testing of cosmetics.
Two hundred and sixty-six Australian companies have been listed on the Choose Cruelty Free site as selling products that do not test their products on animals nor have components that have been tested overseas on animals.
In May, 2013, Choice magazine listed the following as among the companies that do not use animal testing: Aesop, Akin, Alchemy , Argan Life, Australian Pure, Australis, Aussie Mineral make up Aveda, Bare Essentials, The Body Shop, Catwalk, The Cruelty Free Shop, Dermologica, Eco Tan Face of Australia, Gaia Skin Naturals, Inoxa, Jason, Tri-Shave, Lush, Natio, Nature's Organics, New Directions, Paul Mitchell, Smashbox, Stila Cosmetics, Sukin Organics, Trilogy Urbay Decay.
It has also been noted that China is developing procedures for product testing that do not involve animals. This has been seen as a major step forward and one likely to reduce the number of products that have components within them which have been tested on animals.
(The current requirement of the Chinese market that products be animal-tested has been a significant factor in renewing the extent of animal testing among international companies.)
Australian campaigner, Claire Fryer, has stated, 'This is obviously a huge step for animals within this market. Many, many animals will be spared the pain and suffering of these tests thanks to this non-animal test which will be coming in soon.'
Companies currently ideologically opposed to animal testing have enthusiastically noted this development as they may now soon be able to enter the Chinese market. In addition it has been suggested that once China has an approved process for testing products without using animals, other companies are likely to cease testing on animals.
Claire Fryer has further stated, 'Companies such as Paul Mitchell Systems, Urbay Decay, Dermologica, The Body Shop,...have shown it is important to them to remain cruelty free and all companies should be following suit.'
Opponents of stricter laws to prohibit product testing on animals note that current developments indicate that such laws are not necessary.
2. Using animals for medical research and surgical skills training is sometimes the most suitable option
Regarding surgical skills training, it has been argued that there are some forms of training where only a living animal is sufficient to replicate the circumstances under which the surgeon will ultimately have to work.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on April 26, 2016, John Cunningham, an orthopaedic spinal surgeon at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Epworth Richmond sought to demonstrate the relative inadequacy of other surgical training subjects.
Mr Cunningham stated, 'A human cadaver can teach anatomical layout and technical procedure, but lacks feedback about tissue tension, blood pressure and, for example, success in sealing a burst vessel.
A mannequin teaches process and stepwise procedures, but lacks the feel of real tissue. Basic procedures such as cannulation can begin to be taught using mannequin simulators, but it is only by learning on Shylock's pound of flesh that one can learn the sensory feedback of a procedure.'
The United States site, Animal Research, has outlined the extent of rodent use in medical research and why these animals are so important for this process.
The Animal Research site states, 'Specially bred rats and mice are the mammals used most often in medical research.
Because rats and mice have so many biological similarities to humans, they make up 90-95% of the mammals in biomedical research. Some strains of rats and mice are susceptible to diseases such as cancer or high blood pressure.
In addition, rodents develop diseases over a span of days or weeks instead of months or years. In the 1980s, major research discoveries made it possible to create strains of mice whose genetic make-up has been altered so that they carry specific disease-causing genes.'
Animal Research has also indicated what animals are used for other research purposes: 'Other mammals commonly found in research are guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, and farm animals such as pigs and sheep.
Most of these animals are specifically bred and raised for research. Researchers choose the species that best parallels the biology of what they want to study. For example, sheep provide a model to study osteoarthritis, a breakdown of cartilage that occurs as people age, causing pain and inflammation in the joints. Pigs offer a model for research on skin problems, including what may happen when medicine or a toxic substance is absorbed through the skin.'
3. Human life has to take precedence over animal life
Supporters of animals being used for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training typically argue that whatever the importance attached to animal life, human life has to take precedence.
John Cunningham, an orthopaedic spinal surgeon at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Epworth Richmond, made this point in an opinion piece published in The Age on April 26, 2016.
Mr Cunningham has stated, 'I understand the concerns of animal activists. It is far from ideal that we should use animals in this way, but until a completely lifelike simulator is invented that can mimic humans as closely as animals do, we are obliged to train ourselves in this way. We owe it to our trauma patients.
It may seem grotesque at first, but if you want your trauma surgeon to train in the most realistic manner, at the sharp end of surgical trauma care, then these animals will possibly one day help save your life.'
James Bourne , the chair of the Nonhuman Primate Breeding and Research Facility Board of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute has stressed the importance of nonhuman primate research in combating critical diseases which kill human beings.
Bourne has stated, 'If we just look at what's happening today we've got the Ebola and Dengue Fever Viruses, which to get that rapid response, these viruses requires the use of primates and those vaccines are currently being tested in primates.'
4. All possible measures are taken to ensure that the animals used in medical research and surgical skills training do not suffer
It has been noted that in whatever circumstances animals are being used, care is always taken to ensure they are not caused distress.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on April 26, 2016, John Cunningham, an orthopaedic spinal surgeon at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Epworth Richmond highlighted the caring attitude typical of trainee surgeons.
Mr Cunningham has stated, 'It is human nature to feel for the animals that you are about to learn from, that are going to give up their lives for your education. They were treated with utmost respect. Surgeons are not barbarians, after all - we are in the business of saving lives, and no one would have proceeded if there was any concern that the animal was suffering.'
Mr Cunningham has noted the care which was taken in surgical trauma training practices. Referring to a training cause he had undertaken, he stressed the processes which were followed to ensure that the animals used in his training suffered no pain. He stated, '[It was] called the Definitive Surgical Trauma Care course, and taught worldwide. It was several days of didactic teaching, discussion of case management, and simulation using both mannequins and animals such as pigs - alive, but very heavily anaesthetised and completely unaware and unconscious, under the supervision of a veterinary anaesthetist.'
Professor Doug Hilton, director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, has similarly stated, 'The researchers and technicians that work with animals, in my experience, feel a remarkably deep sense of responsibility that comes with the privilege of being able to work with them.
[It's a] sense of care for those animals that permeated the whole organisation.'
Even those who are critical of the use of animals in surgical skills training have noted that care is taken to ensure that the animals feel no pain.
Dr Tomlinson, a plastic surgeon who is opposed to the use of animals in surgical training has described her own training. Dr Tomlinson stated, 'Because I had expressed concerns ... my demonstrator [a senior surgeon teaching the course] turned up the gas fairly high and said I could be reassured the animal wouldn't feel anything.'
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has noted that after the procedures, the animals are humanely killed.
5. Australian laws and regulations ensure that the animals used in product testing, medical research and surgical skills training are humanely treated
Supporters of the use of live animals in product testing, medical research and surgical skills training argue that there are strict regulations to ensure that these animals are treated humanely and not abused at any point.
The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 8th edition (2013) provides the regulatory framework governing the use of animals for these purposes in Australia. The summary of the Code states, 'The Code provides an ethical framework and governing principles to guide the decisions and actions of all those involved in the care and use of animals. It details the responsibilities of investigators, animal carers, institutions, and animal ethics committees, and describes processes for accountability.'
Among the stipulations stated within the Code's introduction are: 'The use of animals for scientific purposes must have scientific or educational merit; must aim to benefit humans, animals or the environment; and must be conducted with integrity. When animals are used, the number of animals involved must be minimised, the wellbeing of the animals must be supported, and harm, including pain and distress, in those animals must be avoided or minimised.'
The introduction to the Code further states, 'The Code encompasses all aspects of the care and use of animals when the aim is to acquire, develop or demonstrate knowledge or techniques in any area of science-for example, medicine, biology, agriculture, veterinary and other animal sciences, industry and teaching. It includes the use of animals in research, teaching associated with an educational outcome in science, field trials, product testing, diagnosis, the production of biological products and environmental studies.'
It has been noted that the care requirements are quite specific. For example, the regulations regarding the transport of animals state: 'Methods and arrangements for the transport of animals must support and safeguard the wellbeing of the animals before, during and after their transport, and take into account the health, temperament, age, sex and previous experiences of the animals; the number of animals travelling together and their social relationships; the period without food or water; the duration and mode of transport; environmental conditions (particularly extremes of temperature); and the care given during the journey.'