The issue of testing medicines never fails to spark controversy and draw widespread public attention. While some people argue that it is necessary for the development of new medicines and for ensuring that cosmetics and other products are safe to use, others hold the stance that testing on animals is fundamentally wrong and that alternative methods should be found. Which I am an advocate of.
To commence with, the opposing viewpoint is reasonable to some extent. From their stance, it is often argued that animal testing plays a vital role in medical and scientific development. Before new medicines are approved for human use, they must be carefully tested to ensure that they are safe and effective. To epitomize, animal testing has contributed to the discovery of treatments for serious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and heart conditions, and vaccines and life-saving drugs are often developed through experiments conducted on animals.
Nevertheless, the counterargument tends to overlook the significant benefits of my stance. I strongly argued that others feel testing on animals is fundamentally wrong and that alternative methods should be found is more compelling. The foremost reason for my conviction is that it causes pain and suffering to living creatures, and they argue that animals have rights and should not be used for human benefit, especially for non-essential products such as cosmetics. Equally important is the fact that many people believe that these alternatives should replace animal experimentation wherever possible. These factors are collectively affirm that my perspective is not only viable but also necessary.
In conclusion, having considered arguments on both sides, it is evident that the case that testing on animals is fundamentally wrong and that alternative methods should be found is more persuasive. Therefore, I remain convinced that animals also have the right to freedom to live their lives.