Writing
West Coast University Using Animals in Research Reflection Paper

West Coast University

Question Description

I’m trying to study for my Nursing course and I need some help to understand this question.

To complete each scenario assignment:

  • Complete the entire scenario.
  • Compose your reflection in a Word document and be sure to address, at a minimum, the following questions:
    • Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
    • Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you feel is the most ethical and why?
  • Support your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, as well as other sources as needed.
  • Your reflection must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate.

The scenario is not available anymore, but I have work of 3 other students that you can get the idea of what is the scenario is about. Please do not copy and paste from these files rather paraphrase them so we can avoid plagiarism. Again, you do not need to give reflection on 3 files attached, but read them to have idea on what is the case study about. If you have any questions, please ask me so we can avoid confusion. Thanks.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

RUNNING HEAD: Animal Research Scenario and Reflection Week 4 Animal Research Scenario and Reflection Michelle Renee Valenzuela Professor Hoffman West Coast University-OC 1 Animal Research Scenario and Reflection 2 Medical Ethics Scenario 4 Medical research has really improved and developed through-out the years, however, the number of animals being used for experiments for human use has been massively increasing. Dr. Miller stated from the symposium that “there was an estimate of about 834,453 animals that have been imprisoned, underwent pain, and suffering to be used for medical research. This number of documented animals have only been counted from the United States only, meaning that not all researchers accurately document or even count the actual number of animals being used (USDA, 2017) Imagine having every country in the world using over ¾ of a million animals. Animal testing for me has more negative connotations compared to positive; helping with the advancement of medical research, human medicine, cures for certain diseases, makeup choices, allergies, etc. However, there are way too many animals being killed every year. Dr. Nguyen claims that advocates for the animals are basically wrong and have no background on the science and lives it will save for the human race. Dr. Millers response is something I back up because she is a part of the medical community and has probably dealt with the animals being terminated or mistreated first hand. Giving a perspective to those who argue against depleting animal testing involves having their pet be used as a testing animal; asking, “Can your dog suffer? Would you want your dog to be subjected to a randomly selected currently legal test?”. It’s a really big eye opener because the big truth about animal testing is that these animals are “contained, abused, and even killed” (Pence, 2015). As Dr. Miller stated towards the end, “I am not in favor of abolishing all testing-certainly not non-harmful testing, and possibly not minimally harmful testing if there is a good chance that such tests will yield results that will save lives”; it is all about meeting halfway and doing what is right and equal in the world. 3 Animal Research Scenario and Reflection Reference Pence, G. E. (2015). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Running head: WEEK 4 REFLECTION Debating Animal Research Scenario and Reflection 1 WEEK 4 REFLECTION 2 Debating Animal Research Scenario and Reflection The following scenario discusses about the use of animals in research. Dr. Nguyen is an advocate for animal research, arguing that minimal or no harm is done in a fair percentage of animal testing and that many anti-science advocates are trying to eliminate the need for animals in research. On the opposing side, Dr. Miller asserted that there are many advocates, including those in the medical community, who have moderate views on animal research and argued that much of animal testing, often for consumer products that don’t save human lives, cause pain and suffering. Dr. Nguyen believes that human rights are more important than animal rights and that many lives can be saved through animal research, but he also advocates for “better oversight and more humane regulations” (“Debating Animal Research,” n.d.). Dr. Miller doesn’t wish to abolish all testing, especially not ones that cause minimal pain and produce results that can save lives. Even some tests may potentially save animal lives, but many changes need to be done if everyone comes to hold the view that animals have a right to life without suffering. It was mentioned that computer simulations could be used in place of animals, but Dr. Nguyen argued that computers have limitations due to the usage of only known data. Living systems should be studied for better understanding and federal law requires that new drugs, devices, and procedures are to be evaluated on animals before proceeding to clinical human trials. Additionally, the Animal Welfare Act regulates treatment of research animals and gives “cats and dogs, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, marine animals, and ‘other warm-blooded animals’” minimum standards for housing and care (“Debating Animal Research,” n.d.). Out of the four responses provided, I agree with option B the most. Like Dr. Miller, I don’t believe all animal research should be abolished, especially ones that cause minimal to no suffering. Just as minimum dosages are needed to provide the optimal therapeutic effects for WEEK 4 REFLECTION 3 certain medications, so should the minimum number of animals be used as necessary for research and testing. Cessation of animal suffering and unnecessary disposal of innocent lives should be done whenever possible. Federal law states that animals must be tested to screen for drug toxicity and determine any benefits to humans. Some animal genomes are quite similar to that of human genomes, and thus, they make excellent subjects for research and testing. For example, cancer research with mice has provided quite a wealth of information regarding pathogenicity, potential treatments, and genetic backgrounds of and for cancer. Additionally, extensive testing on animals is done in the first phase of drug testing to determine the maximum amount that can be given without producing toxic effects, and such testing is needed to prevent toxic reactions in humans. Without the availability of animals for research, humans would have to be used for testing, but there are certain tests that would be outright wrong to conduct, such as inducing cancer in humans to test anti-cancer drugs, slowing the progress for research. As such, animals serve as vital research subjects in human medical advancements (Pence, 2017). While animals are essential for testing and research, we need to ensure that the tests we perform on animals would produce the same desired outcomes in humans. Some tests done on animals may not predict harm to humans, and drugs, devices, and procedures that are found to be harmful in animals but helpful to humans are screened out due to animal testing. For example, some drugs such as Practolol and Opren were tested to be safe in some animal species but were later found to be harmful to humans (Pence, 2017). Indeed, it’s unfortunate that some animals have suffered in the name of human medical advancement, but it’s difficult to ignore the fact that animal research has largely contributed to WEEK 4 REFLECTION many medical advances. I believe we need to find common ground, to use animals to help with the progression of research while also minimizing suffering as much as possible. 4 WEEK 4 REFLECTION 5 References Pence, G. E. (2017). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education. West Coast University. (n.d.). Debating animal research [Web content]. Retrieved from https://learn.westcoastuniversity.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3789942-dt-content-rid3777341_1/courses/WCU_PHIL_434_OL_MASTER1/Weegee%20Presentations/Week %2004%20Debating%20Animal%20Research%20%20Storyline%20output/story_html5.html Running head: ANIMAL RESEARCH 1 Animal Research Caroline Cruz NURS 434 West Coast University ANIMAL RESEARCH 2 Testing on animals for research study purposes is a topic that many people are not very comfortable with the idea of testing on animals in general. For this scenario of the four responses I believe the most ethical on was B: I agreed with Dr. Miller. He is not advocating that all research be abolished, rather that we take a closer look at what we are doing and what tests are necessary. If we can stop animal suffering and throwing away innocent lives unnecessarily, we ought to do it (Animal Testing, n.d.). The reason that I believe this is the most ethical is because he doesn’t believe that all testing on animals should be abolished. In some cases animal testing had its benefits in the medical field and they were able to find medical breakthroughs to improve people’s lives. There are things that can be done where researchers don’t cross that ethical line when it does come to testing on animals such as doing unnecessary testing on the animals or trying something new that will cause the animal more harm than helping. In 1986 congress mandated Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) for all institutions receiving federal funds for research on animals in order to prevent any further unnecessary abuse to animals in research studies (Pence, 2017). On the other hand more than 10,000 animals are killed for every new pesticide chemical tested, fragrance, painkillers, and fabric dyes in our clothing. There are ways for theses items to be done without testing on animals, there are brands that have done it without testing on animals. I believe if certain brands can do it with causing harm to an animal other brands can do it too. ANIMAL RESEARCH 3 References Animal Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://learn.westcoastuniversity.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-3789519-dt-content-rid3777341_1/courses/WCU_PHIL_434_OL_MASTER1/Weegee Presentations/Week 04 Debating Animal Research - Storyline output/story_html5.html Pence, G. (2017). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases (8th ed.). Boston, NY: McGraw-Hill Education ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Hello. I am through with the paper, I passed it through grammarly to ensure that grammar is perfect and also turnitin for plagiarism. The paper is good now. However, you can contact me in case you want anything more. pleasure working with you. goodbye

Running head: ANIMAL RESEARCH

1

Animal Research
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

ANIMAL RESEARCH

2

Using animals in research has been a controversial topic for a long time. This is because
there are some people who s...

Tutorshaph (11043)
Purdue University

Anonymous
I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags