Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICAL ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Pub Date : 2019-11-12 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875
Stefane Kabene, Said Baadel
{"title":"Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK.","authors":"Stefane Kabene,&nbsp;Said Baadel","doi":"10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.</p>","PeriodicalId":45276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7166243/pdf/","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v12i15.1875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物伦理学:英国药物和化妆品的动物实验。
将动物用于化妆品和医学试验引发了一场基于利益冲突的辩论。尽管努力证明动物在进行分析中的价值,但本研究试图详细说明在医疗和化妆品领域使用动物作为实验对象是否合理。当动物成为医学和化妆品领域的实验对象时,产生的情感冲突的核心是动物生命的价值。这项研究的目的是确定在医学和化妆品中使用动物试验是否存在伦理差异。本研究通过对现有文献的回顾和内容分析,通过对英国进行的研究,比较并提供了在医学和化妆品试验中使用动物的结果。这项研究的结果表明,只有在没有其他选择的情况下,动物试验才被认为在医学领域是可以接受的,但在化妆品领域是完全不可接受的。该研究还以替代方案的形式提供了建议,以保护动物免受虐待,并可能使不同的利益相关者和整个社会受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
23 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating ethical dilemmas in complementary and alternative medicine: a narrative review. The criterion of human dignity in the Quran. How can physicians' professional reputation be damaged? Patients', nurses' and physicians' viewpoints. Ethical issues experienced by otolaryngologists: a conventional content analysis. Evaluation of medical sciences students' awareness of the patients' rights charter: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1