We
Would Ban Animal Testing
What’s in your mind when hearing the word animal?
They are wild, friendly, cute, and unique. Pets, wild animals, and farm
animals, there are various kinds of animal.
Based on www.dosomething.org , over
100 million animals are killed because burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused
each year in U.S., due to animal testing – including medical research,
psychological researches, and cosmetic testing.
Many different species are used
around the world, but the most common include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea
pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, and non-human primates. Many companies, including some popular
brands, have been doing animal testing. I
believe that animal testing should be banned, because it isn’t effective,
against animals’ rights, and it gives effect for humankind negatively.
The foremost reason is that using animals as a
test subject for medical researches, cosmetic researches, and psychological tests
isn’t effective. According to www.peta2.com, less than 2% of human
illnesses are ever seen in animals, but over 98% never affect animals. 92% of drugs passed by animal tests
immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous
or both. Based on another website, www.peta.org , Dr. Christopher P.
Austin said that, “Traditional animal testing is expensive, time-consuming,
uses lots of animals, and from scientific perspective, the results do not
necessarily translate to humans”. This
shows that animal testing is not effective to test drugs and medicine. Animal testing in cosmetic researches and
psychological tests might have shown the same results. Cause basically, although animals are living
things and have feelings, they are still different from human.
Since over 100 million animals are killed each
year (in the U.S.), animals’ population is definitely decreasing. Even though animals can be reproduced, but
some types took a long time to do that.
This can affect the environmental balance, food chain, and in the end it
will give effect to humans as well. How?
Animal testing uses some kinds of animals we eat, such as chickens, birds,
fishes, and farm animals. If their
population is decreasing due to animal testing, in the end, animals will not
exist. People will have to be a vegetarian. Imagine if you are buying a burger filled with
veggies. Few people will eat it, because
32% of the average human’s diet comes from meat. In this way, human can starve. Plus, animal testing also uses pets: rabbits,
hamsters, cats, and dogs. Most people have pets. They play with their pet, use it as
companion, and sometimes, animals like dogs, guides blind people to do their
everyday activities. So, if pets are
used for animal testing, people will not have companion and friend to play
with. Therefore, it will affect peoples’ psychology and people with
disabilities will not be able to live normally.
The last reason is that animal testing is against
the most basic right as a living thing like us.
But, do animals deserve rights? I believe they do. Because if human as a living thing can have
rights, why can’t animals and plants have them? According to www.therightsoflivingthings.earth , all
living things has the right to be recognized as a living entity, the
right to peaceful coexistence, the right of self-protection,
the right to freedom, and the right to be valued. Animal testing burns, cripples, poison, and
abuse animals. This isn’t giving animals
the right to have peace, the right to freedom and the right to be valued.
In
conclusion, animal testing isn’t effective to test drugs, cosmetics and human
psychology. Other than that, it can decrease animal’s population and affect
humans in negative ways. Last but not least, it is against living things’
rights. Therefore, I stand for banning
animal testing.
Government Shouldn’t Give Subsidy for People with Unhealthy Lifestyle
Lifestyle
is the way people live. It can be a
healthy one or an unhealthy one. Unhealthy
lifestyle will build a habit in people, which can slowly disadvantage
them. In America, based on www.helpstartshere.org , the rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
kidney disease, and cancer will continue to rise due to unhealthy lifestyle,
such as obesity, smoking and physical inactivity. Obesity in among Americans itself has risen
significantly in the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, more than 22% of American adults smoke cigarettes. Other than that, more than 60% of American
adults don’t get enough physical activity to obtain health benefits. This also happen in some other countries
beside America. Because some people
choose unhealthy lifestyle, they often get ill and need government’s subsidy,
when they are unable to pay the hospital costs.
Government’s
subsidies can come through all aspects – transportation, economy and
health. Some countries, based on www.encyclopedia.com , give subsidies to provide defense or other
facilities for emergency use; to stimulate domestic economy; to improve balance
of international payment; to improve welfare of specific groups. Those are the main purposes government gives
subsidies to their people.
I
disagree with the statement and I believe that government should give subsidy to people with unhealthy lifestyle.
The
first reason is related to the main goals of government’s subsidy, ‘To improve
welfare of specific groups’. Based on www.oxforddictionaries.com , welfare means the health, happiness, fortune,
and well-being of a group. This proves
that welfare is different from prosperity.
If government doesn’t give subsidy to people, who are ill due to
unhealthy lifestyle, it shows that government doesn’t help people to stay
healthy. Healthiness can affect
happiness and well-being too. Now, if
government can’t maintain peoples’ happiness, health and well-being, it means
that they’re not improving welfare of specific groups. So,
not giving subsidy to people with unhealthy lifestyle is against government’s
main purpose of providing subsidy.
The next reason is that government needs
to show that they care for the people to get peoples’ trust by giving subsidy
for people who need it. Trust is very
important. First, government needs
peoples’ trust so that they can get full support from the people and run their
programs and duty easily. Second, trust
is needed to maintain the bond between government and people so that a country
is united.
However,
some may agree with the statement, because the money for subsidy can be used
for other needs. Besides, those people
chose unhealthy lifestyle and they should’ve known that it can disadvantage
them – it’s not beyond their control and it’s their responsibility. To solve this problem, in my opinion,
government still should give subsidy to people with unhealthy lifestyle, but
only once. So, if they (the people) continue to live in
an unhealthy lifestyle and get ill again, they won’t receive any subsidy. This way, people with unhealthy lifestyle can
learn to live in a healthy lifestyle and in the same time government will lose
not that much money compared to giving subsidy more than once. Also, to avoid more people applying unhealthy
lifestyle, education of a healthy lifestyle must be given to people.
In
conclusion, government should give subsidy to people with unhealthy lifestyle, because
not giving subsidy to people with unhealthy lifestyle is against government’s
main purpose of providing subsidy and government needs to show that they
care for the people to obtain peoples’ trust. But, the subsidy must be given no
more than once to avoid more lost to a country and also to make people learn to
live healthy.
Should
Globalization be Reduce to Decrease the Spread of Disease?
First of all, based on www.oxforddictionaries.com ,
globalization is ‘the process by which business or organization develop
international influence or start operating on an international scale’. This means, globalization is worldwide, or
specifically, across countries. In this
statement, disease means more to physical illness, rather than psychological
illness. I believe not all kinds of
globalization have a direct influence on the spread of a disease. Globalization in terms of transportation
affects the spread of disease directly.
Nowadays, transportation has evolved
from bicycle and ships to cars and airplanes.
This has given an effect to people.
For example, more people visit other countries today, because it is
easier and faster to travel around the world; countries develop more on
technology and knowledge, because they can communicate and visit other
countries easier; export and import can happen between countries due to the
easiness of transporting products abroad.
In terms of health, globalization can make the flows and trades of
medicines between countries faster. This
can of course, decrease the number of illness in a country. In the other side, this can also give
negative effects as well.
As a proof that transportation can
spread the disease quickly, according to www.who.int , in the
14th centuries, there was a disaster called the ‘Black Death’
following shipping routes. The Black
Death itself is a bubonic plague caused by black rats’ fleas. The fleas live in rats, which inhabited the
docks of seaports. Then they were
carried by the ships to a new place.
There, the fleas bit humans and killed approximately 50 million people
worldwide. If disease like this happens
today, globalization of transportation can make the spread of disease even
faster!
Since globalization has lots of
positive effects, in my opinion, it is not worth it to reduce globalization
just to decrease the spread of disease.
Cause if we do that, it will make more negative effects than positive
ones. Although in health perspective,
the spread of disease should be reduced. Why? First, once it is spread, it
keeps continuing. For example a person
is infected with an infectious disease.
He went to another country for better treatment and he’s ill there. The disease spreads. This can happen round and round with a
different person.
Second, I believe that healthiness
affects the growth of a country.
Healthiness can increase productivity and happiness. I think, happiness is the most important
thing in our life. Some may think money
is more important. But, if people aren’t
healthy, how can people work and produce money effectively? Others might think knowledge is important. Without health, people will be too tired to
study and search for knowledge. Perhaps,
happiness is the most important. But, a
sick people couldn’t feel happy. Now, if
almost all people in a country are healthy, they can produce money and boost
the economic growth. Others can learn
and make more advance technology and knowledge.
And the rest can at least feel happy and be creative.
So, to not reduce globalization and
still minimize the spread of diseases, every country must have a national
health security system. This means that
a country have to protect people inside the country from infectious disease. At the same time, also protect people from
disease coming from outside the country.
A country can do this, by checking the health on every visitor and
tourist, who visit the country.
In conclusion, globalization in terms
of transportation can make the spread of disease easier and faster. However, it has lots more positive effects
than negative ones, like the disease.
This shows that it is not worth it to reduce globalization just to
decrease a disease. So, I stand for not
reducing globalization to decrease the spread of disease, as long as a country
has a national health security system.
