Download Free The Case Against Anti Vivisection Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Case Against Anti Vivisection and write the review.

This book is open access under a CC BY 4.0 license. This book explores the social history of the anti-vivisection movement in Britain from its nineteenth-century beginnings until the 1960s. It discusses the ethical principles that inspired the movement and the socio-political background that explains its rise and fall. Opposition to vivisection began when medical practitioners complained it was contrary to the compassionate ethos of their profession. Christian anti-cruelty organizations took up the cause out of concern that callousness among the professional classes would have a demoralizing effect on the rest of society. As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the influence of transcendentalism, Eastern religions and the spiritual revival led new age social reformers to champion a more holistic approach to science, and dismiss reliance on vivisection as a materialistic oversimplification. In response, scientists claimed it was necessary to remain objective and unemotional in order to perform the experiments necessary for medical progress.
Contains 140 illustrations & 10 easy steps to developing ten-pin bowling skills. STEPS TO SUCCESS series.
At present, human beings worldwide are using an estimated 115.3 million animals in experiments—a normalization of the unthinkable on an immense scale. In terms of harm, pain, suffering, and death, animal experiments constitute one of the major moral issues of our time. Given today’s deeper understanding of animal sentience, the contributors to this volume argue that we must afford animals a special moral consideration that precludes their use in experiments. The Ethical Case against Animal Experiments begins with the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics's groundbreaking and comprehensive ethical critique of the practice of animal experiments. A second section offers original writings that engage with, and elaborate on, aspects of the Oxford Centre report. The essayists explore historical, philosophical, and personal perspectives that range from animal experiments in classical times to the place of necessity in animal research to one researcher's painful journey from researcher to opponent. A devastating look at a contemporary moral crisis, The Ethical Case against Animal Experiments melds logic and compassion to mount a powerful challenge to human cruelty.
Book flips to highlight two differing perspectives of the issue.
The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on April 23, 1997, to prohibit the use of animals in the production of mAb. On September 18, 1997, NIH declined to prohibit the use of mice in mAb production, stating that "the ascites method of mAb production is scientifically appropriate for some research projects and cannot be replaced." On March 26, 1998, AAVS submitted a second petition, stating that "NIH failed to provide valid scientific reasons for not supporting a proposed ban." The office of the NIH director asked the National Research Council to conduct a study of methods of producing mAb. In response to that request, the Research Council appointed the Committee on Methods of Producing Monoclonal Antibodies, to act on behalf of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the Commission on Life Sciences, to conduct the study. The 11 expert members of the committee had extensive experience in biomedical research, laboratory animal medicine, animal welfare, pain research, and patient advocacy (Appendix B). The committee was asked to determine whether there was a scientific necessity for the mouse ascites method; if so, whether the method caused pain or distress; and, if so, what could be done to minimize the pain or distress. The committee was also asked to comment on available in vitro methods; to suggest what acceptable scientific rationale, if any, there was for using the mouse ascites method; and to identify regulatory requirements for the continued use of the mouse ascites method. The committee held an open data-gathering meeting during which its members summarized data bearing on those questions. A 1-day workshop (Appendix A) was attended by 34 participants, 14 of whom made formal presentations. A second meeting was held to finalize the report. The present report was written on the basis of information in the literature and information presented at the meeting and the workshop.
How can someone who condemns hunting, animal farming, and animal experimentation also favor legal abortion, which is the deliberate destruction of a human fetus? The authors of Beating Hearts aim to reconcile this apparent conflict and examine the surprisingly similar strategic and tactical questions faced by activists in the pro-life and animal rights movements. Beating Hearts maintains that sentience, or the ability to have subjective experiences, grounds a being's entitlement to moral concern. The authors argue that nearly all human exploitation of animals is unjustified. Early abortions do not contradict the sentience principle because they precede fetal sentience, and Beating Hearts explains why the mere potential for sentience does not create moral entitlements. Late abortions do raise serious moral questions, but forcing a woman to carry a child to term is problematic as a form of gender-based exploitation. These ethical explorations lead to a wider discussion of the strategies deployed by the pro-life and animal rights movements. Should legal reforms precede or follow attitudinal changes? Do gory images win over or alienate supporters? Is violence ever principled? By probing the connections between debates about abortion and animal rights, Beating Hearts uses each highly contested set of questions to shed light on the other.
Considers both scientific facts and public opinion regarding the use of animals in medical research, and seeks alternatives to vivisection and other techniques