Ban Animal Testing Essay Example for Free

Ban Animal Testing Essay Regardless of efforts to reduce or eliminate using animals for testing purposes for consumer products, the practice continues relatively unabated. While the federal government does not require animal testing to ensure that such products as hair spray, toothpaste, and laundry detergent are safe for consumers. The companies such as Proctor and Gamble are continue in their vain to attempts at convincing consumer that they have virtually eliminated such inhumane practices. The truth is that in today’s world, cats and dogs are not safe from animal testing. Neither consumer boycotts nor efforts from those opposed to such practices within the scientific community have had much of an impact on the elimination of animal testing. This paper explores the continued practice of using animals for the sake of testing consumer products. In a sense, what has been written may seem graphic in nature, but it is all for good reason. If we profess to love our pets and also cherish the marvelousness and beauty provided by nature. Then, it seems quite evident that the only effective means left is through legislation and legally banning the continued practice of animal testing. There is a room somewhere in this world. It is very white and sterile and filled with small, white cages with openings at their front meant to allow the heads of rabbits to remain exposed. There are a good number of these cages lined up in neat rows befitting a clinical setting. Such a presentation infuses a sense of professionalism, that everything in this laboratory is sanctioned, authorized and approved. A technician enters the room, wearing a white smock befitting this featureless place, except for the rabbits. Staring front and center, the rabbit barely able to move because their bodies are locked within the small cages while their heads remain exposed bearing witness for what is to come. The technician seems to scribble a few sentences on a piece of paper affixed to a board and picks up a marked spray bottle filled with a watery solution. One step at a time, the technician passes the rabbits spraying the solution into their eyes. When at the end of the row, the technician turns around and repeats the process, doing it over and over  again until the rabbits begin to scream. For a few more moments the technician continues the process. The faces of the rabbits are sopping from the solution and there is a frenetic energy in the air resulting from them being in a state of extreme panic. However, the technician makes no note of this. Instead, they scribbling more words onto the paper stating something to the effect that the rabbits had survived. The pain and agony of the rabbits was just to test the safety of toothpaste (Boggan, 2011). It seems rather strange that various agencies within the federal government publish information pertaining to the ethical treatment of laboratory animals. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 remains the overriding authority for the treatment of laboratory animals used in experiments to test the safety of consumer products ranging from shampoo to household cleaners (USDA, 2014). Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) all have regulations that outline the care of laboratory animals, providing instructions on such things as feeding, transporting, and even how to care for their claws (USDA, 2014). Be that as it may, nowhere in this literature does it say that experimentation is authorized for the purposes of consumer goods. For example, the FDA regulates animal testing for cosmetics, but the agency makes it clear that such testing is not mandatory (FDA, 2014). If so, then why would Proctor and Gamble, a major producer of a wide variety of consumer products, go to such great pains to convince the public that it has eliminated all animal testing, except for that which is mandated by the government (Proctor and Gamble, n.d.)? In truth, Proctor and Gamble continues to test its products on a virtual menagerie of animals, such as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and mice. The company continues to conduct animal testing for purposes of bringing new consumer products such as hair dyes, skin creams and laundry detergents to market. If the package of a product states that it is â€Å"new and improved† then it is almost guaranteed that animal testing has occurred (Sourcewatch, n.d.). In the Proctor and Gamble universe, animals are fair game for experimentation because they are cheap, plentiful, and defenseless. Hamsters and rats are forced to inhale nanoparticles used in skin and hair products. A genetic alteration is commonplace when using mice and rats for purposes of improving  beauty and cleaning products. Other animals are continually killed and maimed for the sake of testing for skin irritancy with products used for hair and fabric care (Uncaged, n.d.). Perhaps, worst of all is that experimentation on animals continues even after a product has been deemed safe, and determined after testing had occurred with human subjects (Uncaged, n.d.). Animal testing should be made illegal. The federal government does not have an obligation that such testing is required in consumer product testing, then why continue to do it when alternatives have existed for years? Since 1981, Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has organized efforts to both reduce and eliminate the use of animal testing. CAAT was responsible for the development of a program to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing that was adopted by the NIH through the Revitalization Act of 1993, which specifically mandates that all scientific efforts that employ animal testing follow the example of CAAT (CAAT, 2014). However, oversight that ensures adherence to the Revitalization Act is virtually impossible to conduct due to a lack of funding. Yet it will be on the part of regulators, and possibly due to the power and influence that corporations such as Proctor and Gamble wield (Proctor and Gamble, n.d.). Thus, the only way to effectively prevent the continued abuse and cruelty of animals for purposes of testing is to ban such practices through legislation. Works Cited Boggan, S. (2011, July 29). Why 8 million animals face death to test your toothpaste and washing liquid. Retrieved 16 November 2014, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019976/Why8-million-animals-facedeath test toothpaste-washing-liquid.html Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. (2014). CAAT History. Retrieved 16 November 2014, from http://caat.jhsph.edu/about/history.html FDA. (2014, July 29). Animal testing cosmetics. Retrieved 17 November 2014, from http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ScienceResearch/ProductTesting/ucm072268.htm Proctor and Gamble. (n.d.). We’re committed to eliminating research involving animals. Cincinnati, OH: Author. Sourcewatch. (n.d.). Procter Gamble. Retrieved 18 November 2014, from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Procter_%26_Gamble#cite_note-15 Uncaged. (n.d.). PG animal testing: Procter and Gambles animal tests. Retrieved 17 November 2014, from http://www.uncaged.co.uk/pgtesting.htm USDA. Laboratory animals. Animal Welfare Information Center. Retrieved 18 November 2014, from http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/legislation-regulations-and-guidelines-subject/laboratory

Relationships in Shakespeares As You Like It Essay -- Shakespeare As

Relationships in As You Like It      Ã‚   "Pronounce that sentence on me, my liege. I cannot live out of her company"(Shakespeare quoted in Norton Anthology 1611). Who made these remarks about the dear Rosalind, was it Celia, the one whom she calls 'coz', or is Orlando the man that she is in love with? The question then becomes if Celia said these words what was her meaning. Is it that Celia is attracted to Rosalind as more than a friend or is this just an example of the female friendships of the time? This is a look at the different dynamics of relationships during the Renaissance. Those relationships of female friends, male bonding and homoeroticism in "As You Like It".    During the Renaissance the friendship between females was very important. At this time in history there came a time when a woman was no longer considered attractive to a man. When she reaches this point the friendship that she forms between herself and another female takes the place of a marriage. "The female friendship seems to appear in a specifically social form of female chastity which revises the characteristic masculinity of friendship rhetoric in the period" (Shannon 658). An example of the friendship that exists between Celia and Rosalind in "As You Like It" can be found in Act 3 scene 4 lines 1-5:    Rosalind: Never talk to me. I will weep." Celia: Do, I prithee, but yet have the grace to consider that tears do not become a man Rosalind: But have I not cause to weep? Celia: As good cause as one would desire; therefore weep (Shakespeare quoted in the Norton Anthology 1634)    In this conversation Celia takes on the masculine role even though it is Rosalind that is dressed as a man. Celia is very strong at a point... ...ts are still present. It is a difficult situation to state if a relationship is truly erotic or if it is only the views that our modern society is placing on it. A society in which sex sells and it doesn't matter who the relationship is between.    Works Cited Sedgwick, Eve. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York. Columbia Univ. Press1985 Shannon, Laurie. Emilia's Argument: Friendship and 'Human Title' in The Two Noble Kinsmen. ELH 64.3 (1997) 657-682 Strout, Nathanial. As You Like It, Rosalynde, and Mutuality. SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 41.2 (2001) 277-295 Traub, Valerie. The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7.2 (2001) 245-263 Walen, Denise. Constructions of Female Homoerotics in Early Modern Drama. Theatre Journal 54.3 (2002) 411-430

The Business of Being Born

The Business of being born The Business of being born is an informative film that highlights us how hospitals turned into businesses and who actually benefits from the medicalization and the money that is made. We could see women giving birth naturally at home and others in hospitals and what has happened to women throughout the years in regards to childbirth. Also, doctors and midwives are interviewed which gives us a perspective from both sides.Before watching this film, I did not know about the â€Å"designer birth† which consists in scheduling deliveries and C-sections. This showed me how women prefer the medical aspect of birth that involves physicians. As one of the mothers said midwifery is â€Å"done†; it has become part of the past. In the US, midwives attend less than 8% of births because of technological and medical advances.Formerly, women including midwives used to give birth more than men before male doctors took over hospitals, turned them into â€Å"pat riarchal† institutions and made business out of it. However, we have to recognize that they should be remunerated for their services. Some mothers perceive surgery as an efficient and less time consuming medical technique. It has become uncommon and rare to see †fully† natural birth in hospitals. Doctors make decisions for monetary and legal reasons. These decisions can even affect the health of the mother or the baby.The use of Protozoan (medication that causes contraction) or Pitocin (helps inducing labor) and the practice of the Cesarean, which is a doctor-friendly technique, only reinforce the authority of doctors and the influence of their techniques on women bodies. Moreover, I found revolting that the United States has the second worst newborn death rate in the developed world. The medicalization of childbirth is challenging women’s confidence and self esteem. As one of the informant said â€Å"convince them that they do not know how to birth and the â€Å"power of birthing is taken away from women†.

Rhetorical Analysis Of Ronald Reagan s Boys Of Pointe...

Ronald Reagan’s Fortieth Anniversary of D-Day Speech became known as the â€Å"Boys of Pointe Du Hoc Speech† written by Peggy Noonan. The speech was delivered on June 6, 1984 in Normandy, France: the site where the Allied forces invaded the cliffs just forty years before Reagan had delivered this memorable speech (Stepman). The forum itself was an important aspect of the speech. The delivery of the speech there, on the windy shore cliffs of northern France, enhanced the visualization as well as the nostalgia for the Veteran audience as a backdrop for some of the many examples Reagan had used in his speech. The purpose of this speech was to not only commemorate the American Ranger Veterans for their valiant efforts in taking this Nazi stronghold, but to also address the world, and the Soviets, that conquest and tyranny will not stand in the way of peace and liberty. Through the use of effective rhetorical devices, Ronald Reagan encompassed his theme that there is somethi ng worth fighting for when someone uses â€Å"force for conquest† rather than â€Å"the use of force for liberation† (12). With his examples of the brave soldiers forty years before, he discussed how their efforts back then affected the world at the time. One of the most important rhetorical devices that Reagan used was exemplum. Throughout the speech, Reagan gave many examples of what the soldiers had done. He described their courage, difficulties, struggles, loyalty, bravery, risk, passion, and sacrifice, with the scene