Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As lightning has pointed out, there are no alternative treatments not tested on animals.
If there was I expect he/she would use it instead.
He/she did not ask for all drugs to be tested on animals- it's not their fault.
It would be pointless for them to do as you and lightning are suggested ie refuse treatment, as this is effectively to commit suicide.
In fact (and without wishing to presuppose their point of view) to do so would be to play right into the hands of those who insist all drugs be tested on animals, by effectivly ensuring a cull of anti-testers who have life threatening illnesses.
Written by: Pele
Well, evidentally even the Vice President of PETA is for drug testing since she knowingly takes an animal tested drug for her diabetes.
And if PETA supports it, well then.....
.....I also agree that people who vehemently oppose it, especially those such as PETA, should stand by their convictions and find alternatives.
As lightning has pointed out, there are no alternative treatments not tested on animals.
If there was I expect he/she would use it instead.
He/she did not ask for all drugs to be tested on animals- it's not their fault.
It would be pointless for them to do as you and lightning are suggested ie refuse treatment, as this is effectively to commit suicide.
In fact (and without wishing to presuppose their point of view) to do so would be to play right into the hands of those who insist all drugs be tested on animals, by effectivly ensuring a cull of anti-testers who have life threatening illnesses.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
If u were going to say that, u might as well say, lets use stemcell babies (clones or whateva) to experiment our drugs.
No! I hear u cry! Human rights!
Exactly... u cannot force a person to test drugs, especially if they r drugs that have unknown effects...
Anyway.. whose to say animals are innocent?
Written by: dirty little rat
I do have a better solution. Testing should be done on convicts. They are not innocent like the animals are. I am not an expert, but it seems reasonable to think that the testing would be more effective if it was actually done on people instead of other animals.
If u were going to say that, u might as well say, lets use stemcell babies (clones or whateva) to experiment our drugs.
No! I hear u cry! Human rights!
Exactly... u cannot force a person to test drugs, especially if they r drugs that have unknown effects...
Anyway.. whose to say animals are innocent?
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Yup... can't tell other countries what to do though, see CO2 emissions etc.
I wouldn't know, it's just the example people have given me in the past for companies that sell non-animal-testing products. Maybe they test for some, but sell animal-testing free ones as well... I wasn't trying to attack the Body Shop though, just using it as an example to point out that no cosmetic products are sold legally in the EU without having their ingredients tested beforehand, so people who don't test just make use of the experiments others have performed beforehand, so whoever buys cosmetics, washes their hair etc uses animal-tested products.
Using old and already-tested materials is not a bad idea, mind you, but then boasting with them not being animal-tested is a bit silly.
Written by: flid
My view as a vegan of 5 years: Animal testing for any reason other than non commercial medical isn't acceptable. I don't think the UK legistlation goes far enough. There's nothing stopping companies having products tested outside the EU and selling them here, where animal care standards are even lower. There's no law against selling such products.
Yup... can't tell other countries what to do though, see CO2 emissions etc.
Written by: flidWritten by: Birgit
The only reason shops like the Body Shop can sell non-animal tested products is that other companies have tested all the components previously.
Does the body shop actually not perform any animal testing? As far as I'm aware they've only ever said that they're against it. I remember on the tour of their factory the guide was very uneasy about answering the direction question "does bodyshop test on animals". Being against something isn't quite the same isn't quite the same as not practising it. Goerge Bush is against terrorism......
I wouldn't know, it's just the example people have given me in the past for companies that sell non-animal-testing products. Maybe they test for some, but sell animal-testing free ones as well... I wasn't trying to attack the Body Shop though, just using it as an example to point out that no cosmetic products are sold legally in the EU without having their ingredients tested beforehand, so people who don't test just make use of the experiments others have performed beforehand, so whoever buys cosmetics, washes their hair etc uses animal-tested products.
Using old and already-tested materials is not a bad idea, mind you, but then boasting with them not being animal-tested is a bit silly.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Well, first of all, I'm not sure there are enough. But ALL such subjects would have to have death sentences.
And how do you feel about the death penalty?
Written by: dirty little rat
I do have a better solution. Testing should be done on convicts. They are not innocent like the animals are. I am not an expert, but it seems reasonable to think that the testing would be more effective if it was actually done on people instead of other animals.
Well, first of all, I'm not sure there are enough. But ALL such subjects would have to have death sentences.
And how do you feel about the death penalty?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
*shrug* the taking of a live is wrong. Shudnt be done. But as ghandi said "An Eye For An Eye Will Make The Whole World Blind" *bows*
The death sentance just shows up the fact that the human race still has flaws. Vengance is a stoopid emotion
*shrug* the taking of a live is wrong. Shudnt be done. But as ghandi said "An Eye For An Eye Will Make The Whole World Blind" *bows*
The death sentance just shows up the fact that the human race still has flaws. Vengance is a stoopid emotion
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
if u wanna talk bout the death sentence go the the justice system, more appropriate
and started by me im so vain
if u wanna talk bout the death sentence go the the justice system, more appropriate
and started by me im so vain Are you that clever that you smile forever? 
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I personally think it's the logical conclusiont.
1) there are no alternatives to animal testing for novel pharmaceuticals.
2) All pharmaceuticals must be tested on animals secondary to point (1).
3) If you oppose animal testing, then you, by extension, oppose medical research.
4) If you oppose medical research then you oppose medical therapy as these two are interlinked.
So if you are anti-animal research, if you truly want to stand by your convictions, you should avoid doctors at all costs.
Folks who are anti-animal research don't like this argument. I don't blame them. But I haven't heard a convincing argument around it. After all if "the damage is done" is valid, then why not eat meat? After all, the cow's dead. Refusing to eat it won't bring it back to life...
(And, for the record, I am a vegetarian...but I ate meat for six months when I was anemic.)
Written by:
It would be pointless for them to do as you and lightning are suggested ie refuse treatment, as this is effectively to commit suicide.
I personally think it's the logical conclusiont.
1) there are no alternatives to animal testing for novel pharmaceuticals.
2) All pharmaceuticals must be tested on animals secondary to point (1).
3) If you oppose animal testing, then you, by extension, oppose medical research.
4) If you oppose medical research then you oppose medical therapy as these two are interlinked.
So if you are anti-animal research, if you truly want to stand by your convictions, you should avoid doctors at all costs.
Folks who are anti-animal research don't like this argument. I don't blame them. But I haven't heard a convincing argument around it. After all if "the damage is done" is valid, then why not eat meat? After all, the cow's dead. Refusing to eat it won't bring it back to life...
(And, for the record, I am a vegetarian...but I ate meat for six months when I was anemic.)
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
old hand
1,024 posts
Location: london
1,024 posts
Location: london
Posted:
okay i love animals and i do believe their rights as beings are important, should be repesented and protected.... however
The question basically boils down too ..
do you value the life of a mouse over the the life of a loved one?
do you value the life of 100 mice over the the life of a loved one?
if put into a situation where you would have to kill 1 000 mice to save the live of a loved one would you do it?
Understand that its not only the drugs that treat rare illnesses that are tested on animals and have been developed, vaccines that have saved millions and millions of lives such as the measles mumps and rhubella have probly already saved a large persent of the people you love, remember measiles once apon a time killed 1 in 3 people that contracted it (how many people do you know that of had it?)
Those that are against animal testing, im intrested, do you boycot all drugs? including vacinations anti-biotics for you and your children? and also the type that are produced for recreational uses (because i assure they have been tested on animals)
But for the people that said no to this topic i take my hat off to you, it takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, i respect you for that, and if it was not for people like you conditions for these animals would be much worse.
okay i love animals and i do believe their rights as beings are important, should be repesented and protected.... however
The question basically boils down too ..
do you value the life of a mouse over the the life of a loved one?
do you value the life of 100 mice over the the life of a loved one?
if put into a situation where you would have to kill 1 000 mice to save the live of a loved one would you do it?
Understand that its not only the drugs that treat rare illnesses that are tested on animals and have been developed, vaccines that have saved millions and millions of lives such as the measles mumps and rhubella have probly already saved a large persent of the people you love, remember measiles once apon a time killed 1 in 3 people that contracted it (how many people do you know that of had it?)
Those that are against animal testing, im intrested, do you boycot all drugs? including vacinations anti-biotics for you and your children? and also the type that are produced for recreational uses (because i assure they have been tested on animals)
But for the people that said no to this topic i take my hat off to you, it takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, i respect you for that, and if it was not for people like you conditions for these animals would be much worse.
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
yes yes (-edit- i meam no, no and yes Cheers brigit ) and yes. Even if it was a complete stranger. I value a human beings life more than an animal.
EDITED_BY: Fine_Rabid_Dog (1111318882)
Written by: brodieman
do you value the life of a mouse over the the life of a loved one?
do you value the life of 100 mice over the the life of a loved one?
if put into a situation where you would have to kill 1 000 mice to save the live of a loved one would you do it?
yes yes (-edit- i meam no, no and yes Cheers brigit
) and yes. Even if it was a complete stranger. I value a human beings life more than an animal.EDITED_BY: Fine_Rabid_Dog (1111318882)
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
ummm... you mean no, no and yes?
Anyways I agree with Brodieman, I'm sure that lots of the regulations on animal testing and the reduction of animal suffering would have never been passed into force without people who stood up for the animals in the first place
Though I hope that everyone here will agree that things like putting bombs under the cars of people working with animals, or "freeing" exotic animals from a research unit in the middle of winter (as happened in an institute I had some undergrad lectures in...) doesn't help anyone!
I think just like unnecessary research by some people, stupidity like this on the opposite side gives animal activists a very bad reputation I can see that it's a very emotional topic and I'm really glad that everyone here seems to be able to talk about it without having a go at people with a different opinion Didn't really expect that, thumbs up to all of you!
ummm... you mean no, no and yes?
Anyways I agree with Brodieman, I'm sure that lots of the regulations on animal testing and the reduction of animal suffering would have never been passed into force without people who stood up for the animals in the first place
Though I hope that everyone here will agree that things like putting bombs under the cars of people working with animals, or "freeing" exotic animals from a research unit in the middle of winter (as happened in an institute I had some undergrad lectures in...) doesn't help anyone!
I think just like unnecessary research by some people, stupidity like this on the opposite side gives animal activists a very bad reputation
I can see that it's a very emotional topic and I'm really glad that everyone here seems to be able to talk about it without having a go at people with a different opinion Didn't really expect that, thumbs up to all of you! "vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
You may maintain there is no alternative, but those who oppose animal experiments generally maintain that there are alternatives.
I'm suggesting that drugs are made available that have been tested using the alternative methods.
Then the anti-testing lobby have an alternative.
If that alternative isn't available then you can hardly expect them to agree to die.
They're basically asking for an alternative, so let them have it.
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
I personally think it's the logical conclusiont.
1) there are no alternatives to animal testing for novel pharmaceuticals.
You may maintain there is no alternative, but those who oppose animal experiments generally maintain that there are alternatives.
I'm suggesting that drugs are made available that have been tested using the alternative methods.
Then the anti-testing lobby have an alternative.
If that alternative isn't available then you can hardly expect them to agree to die.
They're basically asking for an alternative, so let them have it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
What alternatives? There aren't any. Believe me, if someone wants to recommend one, I'm more than willing to listen. We all are. But it needs to be phrased in detail. Not just "in vitro" or "simulation" but precisely what in vitro test or precisely how we are to simulate that which we incompletely understand. Get it?
There are no alternatives and that is why a 100% anti-drug-testing stance is incompatible with accepting any pharmaceutical product.
Fish oil, for example, is a valuable anti-hyperlipidemic drug. We use it therapeutically for patients with hypertriglyceridemia (high triglycerides). If a vegan refuses it, how is that different than an anti-animal-testing person refusing antibiotics? Or what have you?
Written by:
You may maintain there is no alternative, but those who oppose animal experiments generally maintain that there are alternatives.
What alternatives? There aren't any. Believe me, if someone wants to recommend one, I'm more than willing to listen. We all are. But it needs to be phrased in detail. Not just "in vitro" or "simulation" but precisely what in vitro test or precisely how we are to simulate that which we incompletely understand. Get it?
There are no alternatives and that is why a 100% anti-drug-testing stance is incompatible with accepting any pharmaceutical product.
Fish oil, for example, is a valuable anti-hyperlipidemic drug. We use it therapeutically for patients with hypertriglyceridemia (high triglycerides). If a vegan refuses it, how is that different than an anti-animal-testing person refusing antibiotics? Or what have you?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Let's just assume that someone decides to allow in vitro testing as an alternative. You'll get:
- information about the direct effects of the drug on one cell type you are using; there are, however, many different cell types in the human body
- if you're lucky and can use stuff like homogenated liver and kidney from humans who have donated their bodies to science you may get some of the metabolites
You'll NOT get:
- any unexpected effects of the substance cause you're only testing for very very specific and few parameters
- the effects of the substance on the whole system
- the effects of the metabolites the body produces - in lots of cases, these are what makes the drug effective, or toxic
- the amount of substance that is metabolised and excreted through the liver before it can even reach the system - for orally given drugs that can be up to 90 % and some drugs can kill people with weak livers, often old people, because they suddenly get the triple dose of a more healthy person
- what happens if the drug is given to pregnant women
- etc etc etc, I could continue for half an hour!
So, if drugs tested like this WERE allowed on the market, what would happen would be:
1. People opposing animal experiments strongly would take them. At their own risk. Fair enough. (Imagine the leaflets: "This drug has not been sufficiently tested. Use at own risk!")
2. People slightly opposing animal experiments would probably take them, too, because they'd consider them "nicer" and "friendlier" drugs, but they would probably not be fully informed about the higher risks involved with taking them
3. The production costs for such a relatively poorly tested drug would be very low. It could be sold cheaply. So poor people or those with a bad health insurance, depending on the country and what they get paid for medicines by the social system, would buy them for themselves and probably their children!
Fortunately, there's no way drugs tested like this could get on the market now. And even if you test in vitro, cells are usually grown in a medium containing serum taken from calfs or piglets, and there is currently no alternative for using that, either.
Written by: onewheeldave
You may maintain there is no alternative, but those who oppose animal experiments generally maintain that there are alternatives.
I'm suggesting that drugs are made available that have been tested using the alternative methods.
Let's just assume that someone decides to allow in vitro testing as an alternative. You'll get:
- information about the direct effects of the drug on one cell type you are using; there are, however, many different cell types in the human body
- if you're lucky and can use stuff like homogenated liver and kidney from humans who have donated their bodies to science you may get some of the metabolites
You'll NOT get:
- any unexpected effects of the substance cause you're only testing for very very specific and few parameters
- the effects of the substance on the whole system
- the effects of the metabolites the body produces - in lots of cases, these are what makes the drug effective, or toxic
- the amount of substance that is metabolised and excreted through the liver before it can even reach the system - for orally given drugs that can be up to 90 % and some drugs can kill people with weak livers, often old people, because they suddenly get the triple dose of a more healthy person
- what happens if the drug is given to pregnant women
- etc etc etc, I could continue for half an hour!
So, if drugs tested like this WERE allowed on the market, what would happen would be:
1. People opposing animal experiments strongly would take them. At their own risk. Fair enough. (Imagine the leaflets: "This drug has not been sufficiently tested. Use at own risk!")
2. People slightly opposing animal experiments would probably take them, too, because they'd consider them "nicer" and "friendlier" drugs, but they would probably not be fully informed about the higher risks involved with taking them
3. The production costs for such a relatively poorly tested drug would be very low. It could be sold cheaply. So poor people or those with a bad health insurance, depending on the country and what they get paid for medicines by the social system, would buy them for themselves and probably their children!
Fortunately, there's no way drugs tested like this could get on the market now. And even if you test in vitro, cells are usually grown in a medium containing serum taken from calfs or piglets, and there is currently no alternative for using that, either.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
IMO, that would only be justified in a situation where a choice of drugs is available- some tested on animals, some not.
In that case, if one who opposes animal testing nevertheless uses the animal-tested alternative then there may, be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
If the choice is the current one- which is to accept the product tested on animals or, die, then. IMO there are no grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
I'll try to make this clearer using an analogy: -
In the UK, in many areas, all tap drinking water is fluoridated, supposedly on the grounds that it is the best way to prevent tooth decay amongst children. Those who disagree are either stuck with it, or have to spend large sums of money on bottled water, or move town.
Let's imagine a scenario where the fluoridation companies have been so successful in their marketing, that all drinking water, by law, is fluoridated (including bottled water).
In this world, those who oppose fluoridation are seen as deluded and dangerous, the alternatives they offer to fluoridated water are considered either impractical or inneffective (eg restricting sugar intake, using fluoridated tooth paste).
The vocal minority who oppose compulsory fluoridation are seen in much the same way. by the establishment, as those who propose alternatives to animal testing are in ours.
Let's imagine that a member of the medical establishment [we'll call him 'Thunder'], to strengthen their case, puts forward the propostion that, not only are the anti-fluoridationists wrong, they are also hypocrites because, if they stood by the courage of their convictions, they would surely be obliged to refuse to drink water! (as all water is flouridated).
I think it's clear, in that scenario, that the accusation is nonsense.
-------------------------
To call anti-animal testers hypocrites, can only be justified if they have a real choice, and I don't believe that 'take this drug tested on animals, or die', is a real choice.
Now I fully appreciate that many here believe that putting drugs not tested on animals, onto the market, is not practical.
Please note that I'm not at all commenting (yet) on that issue; at this point I am simply trying to show that the 'hypocrite' accusation is invalid.
That applies regardless of whether the majority consider alternative (non-animal) testing to be practical or not.
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
So if you are anti-animal research, if you truly want to stand by your convictions, you should avoid doctors at all costs.
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
IMO, that would only be justified in a situation where a choice of drugs is available- some tested on animals, some not.
In that case, if one who opposes animal testing nevertheless uses the animal-tested alternative then there may, be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
If the choice is the current one- which is to accept the product tested on animals or, die, then. IMO there are no grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
I'll try to make this clearer using an analogy: -
In the UK, in many areas, all tap drinking water is fluoridated, supposedly on the grounds that it is the best way to prevent tooth decay amongst children. Those who disagree are either stuck with it, or have to spend large sums of money on bottled water, or move town.
Let's imagine a scenario where the fluoridation companies have been so successful in their marketing, that all drinking water, by law, is fluoridated (including bottled water).
In this world, those who oppose fluoridation are seen as deluded and dangerous, the alternatives they offer to fluoridated water are considered either impractical or inneffective (eg restricting sugar intake, using fluoridated tooth paste).
The vocal minority who oppose compulsory fluoridation are seen in much the same way. by the establishment, as those who propose alternatives to animal testing are in ours.
Let's imagine that a member of the medical establishment [we'll call him 'Thunder'
], to strengthen their case, puts forward the propostion that, not only are the anti-fluoridationists wrong, they are also hypocrites because, if they stood by the courage of their convictions, they would surely be obliged to refuse to drink water! (as all water is flouridated).I think it's clear, in that scenario, that the accusation is nonsense.
-------------------------
To call anti-animal testers hypocrites, can only be justified if they have a real choice, and I don't believe that 'take this drug tested on animals, or die', is a real choice.
Now I fully appreciate that many here believe that putting drugs not tested on animals, onto the market, is not practical.
Please note that I'm not at all commenting (yet) on that issue; at this point I am simply trying to show that the 'hypocrite' accusation is invalid.
That applies regardless of whether the majority consider alternative (non-animal) testing to be practical or not.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Dave, I don't think anyone would call a person who opposes animal testing but accepts it's necessary for having medicines a hypocrit if he went for medical treatment.
But there are people who say humans lives are not more important than animal lives, and who basically hit me in the face by telling me my life isn't worth being saved by animal testing, or say Lightning shouldn't have treatment for arthritis, or worse, let all the kids he treats in hospital die, because their lives aren't worth more than rats' or mice's. Now, of course they are entitled to their opinion and can stand by it, but then I would expect them to not use medicine for themselves, and if they did I'd call them hypocrits. Though whenever that happens maybe people just realise for the first time in their lives what it's like to really need treatment, and they may change their minds about other people, too? People I've spoken to who absolutely resent animal testing for any cause usually turn out to not have been very sick themselves, or had sick relatives, so it may just be ignorance.
Dave, I don't think anyone would call a person who opposes animal testing but accepts it's necessary for having medicines a hypocrit if he went for medical treatment.
But there are people who say humans lives are not more important than animal lives, and who basically hit me in the face by telling me my life isn't worth being saved by animal testing, or say Lightning shouldn't have treatment for arthritis, or worse, let all the kids he treats in hospital die, because their lives aren't worth more than rats' or mice's. Now, of course they are entitled to their opinion and can stand by it, but then I would expect them to not use medicine for themselves, and if they did I'd call them hypocrits. Though whenever that happens maybe people just realise for the first time in their lives what it's like to really need treatment, and they may change their minds about other people, too? People I've spoken to who absolutely resent animal testing for any cause usually turn out to not have been very sick themselves, or had sick relatives, so it may just be ignorance.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm talking mainly about those who oppose animal testing, many of whom don't accept that it's necessary for having medicines.
I appreciate what you're saying; I'll just point out that my above posts aren't commenting on any of that- they're simply trying to show that people who oppose animal testing are perfectly entitled to use medical treatments, and that they are not going against their principles by doing so.
Written by: Birgit
Dave, I don't think anyone would call a person who opposes animal testing but accepts it's necessary for having medicines a hypocrit if he went for medical treatment.
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
To those who oppose all testing for drugs on animals, I ask you to please stand by your principles and refuse all medical therapy. Why? Every drug out there (And I mean EVERY drug out there) has been tested on animals.
I'm talking mainly about those who oppose animal testing, many of whom don't accept that it's necessary for having medicines.
Written by: Birgit
But there are people who say humans lives are not more important than animal lives, and who basically hit me in the face by telling me my life isn't worth being saved by animal testing, or say Lightning shouldn't have treatment for arthritis, or worse, let all the kids he treats in hospital die, because their lives aren't worth more than rats' or mice's. Now, of course they are entitled to their opinion and can stand by it, but then I would expect them to not use medicine for themselves, and if they did I'd call them hypocrits.
I appreciate what you're saying; I'll just point out that my above posts aren't commenting on any of that- they're simply trying to show that people who oppose animal testing are perfectly entitled to use medical treatments, and that they are not going against their principles by doing so.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Why not, there are plenty of people who are willing to suffer for similiar principles.
Blood transfusions for example.
Written by: onewheeldave
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
In that case, if one who opposes animal testing nevertheless uses the animal-tested alternative then there may, be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
If the choice is the current one- which is to accept the product tested on animals or, die, then. IMO there are no grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
Why not, there are plenty of people who are willing to suffer for similiar principles.
Blood transfusions for example.
Love is the law.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I think I get you now
still disagreeing though, but I don't think I'll manage to put it into words why
I think I get you now
still disagreeing though, but I don't think I'll manage to put it into words why
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
One wheel dave - the more sound analogy is not "you have to die of thirst because some mega corporation fluridized all the water", but rather something more like, "if you don't want to drink contaminated water which might kill you and your mother and all your friends, then you are going to filter, boil, or iodize iodize it somehow before you drink it."
It isn't like anyone has taken away something you previously had free access to by testing a new medical drug on animals.
Not that I am taking any sort of stance about people being hypocrites about being anti-animal testing using life saving drugs. Very few people are absolutely non-hypocritical in the end anyway, so no reason I can see to get pedantic about wanting to save your own life, even if it violates your stance on animal testing.
But basically the alternative to testing on animals is testing on humans. but you sure as hell can't force inmates or anyone else to be the guinee pigs without making an even bigger hypocrite out of your non-animal testing self, so basically that means the only true alternative is to test all drugs on you yourself.
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
The only other alternative you have is to go discover and rigerously prove the complete and total effictiveness of an alternative method to animal testing yourself.
If there were a reasonable alternative to animal testing to save human (and animal!) lives, then it would be used - Animal testing is no walk in the park, and I have never met someone who works with test animals that wouldn't rather be able to use something else.
I oppose testing of all luxery items on animals - cosmetics, perfumes (which I detest anyway), recreational, etc.
Note that D-LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE-25 was tested on humans first. testing on animals came only after extensive testing on people subjects... so basically all anti-animal drug testing advocates should feel free to take LSD without guilt.
One wheel dave - the more sound analogy is not "you have to die of thirst because some mega corporation fluridized all the water", but rather something more like, "if you don't want to drink contaminated water which might kill you and your mother and all your friends, then you are going to filter, boil, or iodize iodize it somehow before you drink it."
It isn't like anyone has taken away something you previously had free access to by testing a new medical drug on animals.
Not that I am taking any sort of stance about people being hypocrites about being anti-animal testing using life saving drugs. Very few people are absolutely non-hypocritical in the end anyway, so no reason I can see to get pedantic about wanting to save your own life, even if it violates your stance on animal testing.
But basically the alternative to testing on animals is testing on humans. but you sure as hell can't force inmates or anyone else to be the guinee pigs without making an even bigger hypocrite out of your non-animal testing self, so basically that means the only true alternative is to test all drugs on you yourself.
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
The only other alternative you have is to go discover and rigerously prove the complete and total effictiveness of an alternative method to animal testing yourself.
If there were a reasonable alternative to animal testing to save human (and animal!) lives, then it would be used - Animal testing is no walk in the park, and I have never met someone who works with test animals that wouldn't rather be able to use something else.
I oppose testing of all luxery items on animals - cosmetics, perfumes (which I detest anyway), recreational, etc.
Note that D-LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE-25 was tested on humans first. testing on animals came only after extensive testing on people subjects... so basically all anti-animal drug testing advocates should feel free to take LSD without guilt.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
GOLD Member
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posted:
Written by: vanize
Note that D-LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE-25 was tested on humans first. testing on animals came only after extensive testing on people subjects... so basically all anti-animal drug testing advocates should feel free to take LSD without guilt.
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm going to assume you mean people who refuse blood transfusions, maybe for religious reasons?
ie they choose to die rather than go against their belief that their deity considers blood transfusions to be immoral.
------------------
It's an interesting suggestion.
I consider the two cases to be different: -
With those who refuse transfusions for religious reasons, they do so because they consider it a sin; an immoral act.
Those who oppose medical testing do not consider receiving medical treatment itself to be immoral.
They belive that medical treatment without animal testing is possible, and they beliive that that option should exist.
historically of course, medical treatment existed well before the legal requirement for animal testing of all drugs.
Herbal medicine, for example, is, and has always been around.
I'm not sure whether it's a legal requirement for herbal medication to be tested on animals these days, but, if it is, then that's the choice of the medical establishment- most users of herbal medicines would not want such testing.
So that's the difference- those who refuse blood do so on their concept of God's law, which, in their eyes, is absolute- their is no alternative (other than death).
Whereas, to those who oppose animal testing; in their eyes there is an alternative, which is basically to not test drugs on animals.
And of course, the medical establishment is going to maintain that it isn't a viable alternative, that to do so will cost human lives, that medical research will be destroyed.
Those who oppose animal testing will reply 'OK, that's your opinion, we happen to disagree- we disagree with the animal testers monopoly on research, we believe that, certainly for those who choose it, there should be the option of drugs not tested on animals. The current situation was not one we chose, we disagree strongly with it etc, etc'
In their eyes, there is an alternative, and it is denied to them by the current establishment.
------------
Does that make sense?
I'll also add that, even if there were grounds for accustaions of hypocisy on this issue (and, for the reasons given in my above posts, I strongly feel that there aren't); then it can be argued that those who oppose testing would in fact be morally obliged to accept medical treatment on the grounds that, to do otherwise, would strengthen the pro-testing establishment by leading to the deaths of those who oppose it.
So, though it may seem initially a somewhat noble sacrifice to make, treatment refusal would actually be playing right into the hands of those who support animal testing.
Written by: ado-pWritten by: onewheeldave
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
In that case, if one who opposes animal testing nevertheless uses the animal-tested alternative then there may, be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
If the choice is the current one- which is to accept the product tested on animals or, die, then. IMO there are no grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
Why not, there are plenty of people who are willing to suffer for similiar principles.
Blood transfusions for example.
I'm going to assume you mean people who refuse blood transfusions, maybe for religious reasons?
ie they choose to die rather than go against their belief that their deity considers blood transfusions to be immoral.
------------------
It's an interesting suggestion.
I consider the two cases to be different: -
With those who refuse transfusions for religious reasons, they do so because they consider it a sin; an immoral act.
Those who oppose medical testing do not consider receiving medical treatment itself to be immoral.
They belive that medical treatment without animal testing is possible, and they beliive that that option should exist.
historically of course, medical treatment existed well before the legal requirement for animal testing of all drugs.
Herbal medicine, for example, is, and has always been around.
I'm not sure whether it's a legal requirement for herbal medication to be tested on animals these days, but, if it is, then that's the choice of the medical establishment- most users of herbal medicines would not want such testing.
So that's the difference- those who refuse blood do so on their concept of God's law, which, in their eyes, is absolute- their is no alternative (other than death).
Whereas, to those who oppose animal testing; in their eyes there is an alternative, which is basically to not test drugs on animals.
And of course, the medical establishment is going to maintain that it isn't a viable alternative, that to do so will cost human lives, that medical research will be destroyed.
Those who oppose animal testing will reply 'OK, that's your opinion, we happen to disagree- we disagree with the animal testers monopoly on research, we believe that, certainly for those who choose it, there should be the option of drugs not tested on animals. The current situation was not one we chose, we disagree strongly with it etc, etc'
In their eyes, there is an alternative, and it is denied to them by the current establishment.
------------
Does that make sense?
I'll also add that, even if there were grounds for accustaions of hypocisy on this issue (and, for the reasons given in my above posts, I strongly feel that there aren't); then it can be argued that those who oppose testing would in fact be morally obliged to accept medical treatment on the grounds that, to do otherwise, would strengthen the pro-testing establishment by leading to the deaths of those who oppose it.
So, though it may seem initially a somewhat noble sacrifice to make, treatment refusal would actually be playing right into the hands of those who support animal testing.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
No, I'm sticking to my original analogy- we can suppose that, in that world, flouridisation is legally compulsory, so, in effect, to filter or otherwise remove the fluoride would be a criminal act; in the same way that anyone who today offered medicine not tested on animals would be prosecuted.
The establishment has barred something (treatments not tested on animals, which, in the opinion of many of those who oppose animal testing) is a vaible and morally preferable option.
I know you're not implying this Vanize, but, for anyone else reading this thread, I'll make clear I haven't, at any point, suggested the testing of drugs on inmates and convicts
Written by: vanize
One wheel dave - the more sound analogy is not "you have to die of thirst because some mega corporation fluridized all the water", but rather something more like, "if you don't want to drink contaminated water which might kill you and your mother and all your friends, then you are going to filter, boil, or iodize iodize it somehow before you drink it."
No, I'm sticking to my original analogy- we can suppose that, in that world, flouridisation is legally compulsory, so, in effect, to filter or otherwise remove the fluoride would be a criminal act; in the same way that anyone who today offered medicine not tested on animals would be prosecuted.
Written by: vanize
It isn't like anyone has taken away something you previously had free access to by testing a new medical drug on animals.
The establishment has barred something (treatments not tested on animals, which, in the opinion of many of those who oppose animal testing) is a vaible and morally preferable option.
Written by: vanize
inmates or anyone else to be the guinee pigs without making an even bigger hypocrite out of your non-animal testing self,
I know you're not implying this Vanize, but, for anyone else reading this thread, I'll make clear I haven't, at any point, suggested the testing of drugs on inmates and convicts
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's not 'a mouse' though is it? It's millions of mice, rabbits, apes etc, many of whom die horribly.
I'm just pointing out here the use of flippant language to attempt to dismiss a point of view (the POV of those who oppose animal testing) by means, not of reason or constructive argument, but, instead by distorting and trivialising, to create an emotional response.
No. Many of those who oppose animal testing would claim that the insistence on attempting complete and total proof of safety is part of the problem. It means that testing is very, very, very expensive, creating huge financial incentives to maintain the current status quo.
(Also, let's also reflect on the fact that animal testing in no way ensures total proof- remember the thousands left deformed by thalidamide).
Let's remember that, in our world, many people are prepared to take risks.
For example, if animal testing was abolished, and the medical establishment was forced to use the alternative methods of testing that it currently totally dismisses; do you really think that the consequent fatalities/harm would approach even 5% of the current 4,000,000 deaths/year caused by smoking, which is totally legal and an activity which many 'choose' to partake in?
There's many, many bad things in this world which have excellent alternatives, yet continue to occur for other reasons.
War, violence, drug abuse etc etc.
Medical research involves HUGE sums of money- for that reason alone, there's going to be a lot of biased propaganda put in motion against alternatives, and it's highly feasible that animal testing would continue even if there are practical alternatives.
Written by: vanize
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
It's not 'a mouse' though is it? It's millions of mice, rabbits, apes etc, many of whom die horribly.
I'm just pointing out here the use of flippant language to attempt to dismiss a point of view (the POV of those who oppose animal testing) by means, not of reason or constructive argument, but, instead by distorting and trivialising, to create an emotional response.
Written by: vanize
The only other alternative you have is to go discover and rigerously prove the complete and total effictiveness of an alternative method to animal testing yourself.
No. Many of those who oppose animal testing would claim that the insistence on attempting complete and total proof of safety is part of the problem. It means that testing is very, very, very expensive, creating huge financial incentives to maintain the current status quo.
(Also, let's also reflect on the fact that animal testing in no way ensures total proof- remember the thousands left deformed by thalidamide).
Let's remember that, in our world, many people are prepared to take risks.
For example, if animal testing was abolished, and the medical establishment was forced to use the alternative methods of testing that it currently totally dismisses; do you really think that the consequent fatalities/harm would approach even 5% of the current 4,000,000 deaths/year caused by smoking, which is totally legal and an activity which many 'choose' to partake in?
Written by: vanize
If there were a reasonable alternative to animal testing to save human (and animal!) lives, then it would be used -
There's many, many bad things in this world which have excellent alternatives, yet continue to occur for other reasons.
War, violence, drug abuse etc etc.
Medical research involves HUGE sums of money- for that reason alone, there's going to be a lot of biased propaganda put in motion against alternatives, and it's highly feasible that animal testing would continue even if there are practical alternatives.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
and we are talking about billions of people.
look basically I don't care for the general idea of animal testing, but really few people do. But when it comes to a basic choice as to wether or not some lab animals or some humans get first run at potentially hazardous stuff, I'm going to pick to protect the humans, even if there are already too many of us.
the mega-business squashing new technology conspiracy theory does have validity in some aspects of human behaviour, but not neccisarily all of them. and IF there was a viable alternative (which I seriously doubt in this case), it is either much more expensive and therefor increases development costs (and drugs are already prohibitly expensive for many), or it is cheaper, in which case it would be used already, since cheaper drug development means more profits. So even if we accept that there are alternative methods available (which no one has presented a single shred of evidence to support the supposition of), they are clearly more expensive to use, and making drugs more expensive is also an ethical problem. How can we justify letting more people (and animals) die when we already have cheaper methods of drug testing available.
a sure case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. and again, I'll pick the welfare of people over lab animals. I may not (probably wouldn't in fact) pick the welfare of people over a wild population of animals though.
anyway, I'm not trying to damn one wheel dave's or anyone else's opinion here, I'm just giving my views as a scientist who is just as happy he doesn't have to work with lab animals.
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: vanize
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
It's not 'a mouse' though is it? It's millions of mice, rabbits, apes etc, many of whom die horribly.
I'm just pointing out here the use of flippant language to attempt to dismiss a point of view (the POV of those who oppose animal testing) by means, not of reason or constructive argument, but, instead by distorting and trivialising, to create an emotional response.
and we are talking about billions of people.
look basically I don't care for the general idea of animal testing, but really few people do. But when it comes to a basic choice as to wether or not some lab animals or some humans get first run at potentially hazardous stuff, I'm going to pick to protect the humans, even if there are already too many of us.
the mega-business squashing new technology conspiracy theory does have validity in some aspects of human behaviour, but not neccisarily all of them. and IF there was a viable alternative (which I seriously doubt in this case), it is either much more expensive and therefor increases development costs (and drugs are already prohibitly expensive for many), or it is cheaper, in which case it would be used already, since cheaper drug development means more profits. So even if we accept that there are alternative methods available (which no one has presented a single shred of evidence to support the supposition of), they are clearly more expensive to use, and making drugs more expensive is also an ethical problem. How can we justify letting more people (and animals) die when we already have cheaper methods of drug testing available.
a sure case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. and again, I'll pick the welfare of people over lab animals. I may not (probably wouldn't in fact) pick the welfare of people over a wild population of animals though.
anyway, I'm not trying to damn one wheel dave's or anyone else's opinion here, I'm just giving my views as a scientist who is just as happy he doesn't have to work with lab animals.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Actually, a "cure" or drug is tried on one mouse first. If that mouse dies, then things are done to determine why the mouse died. If it is determined that it was just a fluke mouse (i.e. it would have died if you hadn't given it the drug), then the drug will be administered to more mice. If it was the drug that was the fatal cause, then it will be reworked.
And no, at least in medical universities, testing is not done on millions of mice. It is maybe done on 10-12 and then things are studied from there. The funding simply isn't there to test on millions of mice in a university setting.
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: vanize
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
It's not 'a mouse' though is it? It's millions of mice, rabbits, apes etc, many of whom die horribly.
Actually, a "cure" or drug is tried on one mouse first. If that mouse dies, then things are done to determine why the mouse died. If it is determined that it was just a fluke mouse (i.e. it would have died if you hadn't given it the drug), then the drug will be administered to more mice. If it was the drug that was the fatal cause, then it will be reworked.
And no, at least in medical universities, testing is not done on millions of mice. It is maybe done on 10-12 and then things are studied from there. The funding simply isn't there to test on millions of mice in a university setting.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
It would probably affect more people than you think, not millions, but... if 1 out of 100 drugs makes it past animal testing, that's a lot. You'd have to test all of them nearly blindly, trying to find out if any of them help at all, at what doses, which doses start being harmful etc. The ones that don't immediately kill people could still give them cancer after years or decades, or liver cirrhosis etc. So you'd have to either wait for 30-40 years after testing to confirm that the medicine's ready to use, or you'd have to kill the "test humans" off and dissect them. That's your human alternative.
You may just find enough people who want to do that testing if you pay them enough money, though probably not in the First World countries... you'd also want humans with certain diseases to test cures. It's relatively easy to make genetically modified mice and rats (apes are rarely used for medical research by the way) that don't produce a certain substance and therefore are sick and treatment can be tested on them. I doubt many people would donate their sperms/eggs for making knockout-babies though.
And about herbal medicines not being tested on animals when they were first used: That's definitely true, but I think if people at that point in time had had the methods to test them on animals they'd been much less worried about the animals than we are now.
Written by: onewheeldave
For example, if animal testing was abolished, and the medical establishment was forced to use the alternative methods of testing that it currently totally dismisses; do you really think that the consequent fatalities/harm would approach even 5% of the current 4,000,000 deaths/year caused by smoking, which is totally legal and an activity which many 'choose' to partake in?
It would probably affect more people than you think, not millions, but... if 1 out of 100 drugs makes it past animal testing, that's a lot. You'd have to test all of them nearly blindly, trying to find out if any of them help at all, at what doses, which doses start being harmful etc. The ones that don't immediately kill people could still give them cancer after years or decades, or liver cirrhosis etc. So you'd have to either wait for 30-40 years after testing to confirm that the medicine's ready to use, or you'd have to kill the "test humans" off and dissect them. That's your human alternative.
You may just find enough people who want to do that testing if you pay them enough money, though probably not in the First World countries... you'd also want humans with certain diseases to test cures. It's relatively easy to make genetically modified mice and rats (apes are rarely used for medical research by the way) that don't produce a certain substance and therefore are sick and treatment can be tested on them. I doubt many people would donate their sperms/eggs for making knockout-babies though.
And about herbal medicines not being tested on animals when they were first used: That's definitely true, but I think if people at that point in time had had the methods to test them on animals they'd been much less worried about the animals than we are now.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i don't see how this analogy works...?
in one case you have a dangerous substance that is subsequently proved to be safe by testing on animals. once it is proved safe, people then object to the methods used to prove it's safety.
on the other hand you have a safe substance that has additives because it is made a legal requirement. people then object to the advantages of the addition. plus, why in the world would filtering after purchase be illegal?
the situations are very different and from this point of view especially, the analogy hardly stands up.
i think that if you believe anmial testing on medicine is wrong, you should refuse the treatments that have been developed in that fashion.
its like lightning said - all of the anti-viv arguments are sound until you say "provide another option", at which point it becomes obvious that there really aren't any viable alternatives.
and even if there were, most pharma's would keep using vivisection as long as they were allowed simply because the drug testing process has been established for many years and proved to be very reliable.
they would not move away from aniumal testing, even if the alternative was *cheaper*, for fear of being sued by someone that is not adverse to vivisection who receives a treatment that has not been tested on animals which subsequently produces a serious side effect.
i think a better analogy is:
"imagine there are no such thing as vegetables. now imagine someone who is against the killing of animals for food and demands that it be stopped. obviously they still eat meat at the moment to keep themselves alive, but as soon as there is an alternative, they will take it. but they want all killing of animals to stop now."
the only problem of course is that there are no viable alternatives and if the production of meat was stopped, that would be the end of the food supply.
is this person a hippocrite or are they moral crusaders forced to go against their own will due to the absence of an alternative?
looking at the analogy next to our actual topic, in the case of drugs, if vivisection was banned, since there are currently no alternatives, all drug development would cease.
finally, i don't see how standing by your moral beliefs is any different from standing by religious beliefs - to me they are one and the same.
granted, if you show your religious beliefs to be open to compromise (even if its only in the extreme of keeping yourself alive), you will be punished for it in the afterlife.
so, the only difference i can see is that non-religious beliefs are more easily bent to your own will since there is no fear of punishment by a higher power - that doesn't sound like a belief to me, that sounds like a preference.
cole. x
Written by: onewheeldave
No, I'm sticking to my original analogy- we can suppose that, in that world, flouridisation is legally compulsory, so, in effect, to filter or otherwise remove the fluoride would be a criminal act; in the same way that anyone who today offered medicine not tested on animals would be prosecuted.
i don't see how this analogy works...?in one case you have a dangerous substance that is subsequently proved to be safe by testing on animals. once it is proved safe, people then object to the methods used to prove it's safety.
on the other hand you have a safe substance that has additives because it is made a legal requirement. people then object to the advantages of the addition. plus, why in the world would filtering after purchase be illegal?
the situations are very different and from this point of view especially, the analogy hardly stands up.
i think that if you believe anmial testing on medicine is wrong, you should refuse the treatments that have been developed in that fashion.
its like lightning said - all of the anti-viv arguments are sound until you say "provide another option", at which point it becomes obvious that there really aren't any viable alternatives.
and even if there were, most pharma's would keep using vivisection as long as they were allowed simply because the drug testing process has been established for many years and proved to be very reliable.
they would not move away from aniumal testing, even if the alternative was *cheaper*, for fear of being sued by someone that is not adverse to vivisection who receives a treatment that has not been tested on animals which subsequently produces a serious side effect.
i think a better analogy is:
"imagine there are no such thing as vegetables. now imagine someone who is against the killing of animals for food and demands that it be stopped. obviously they still eat meat at the moment to keep themselves alive, but as soon as there is an alternative, they will take it. but they want all killing of animals to stop now."
the only problem of course is that there are no viable alternatives and if the production of meat was stopped, that would be the end of the food supply.
is this person a hippocrite or are they moral crusaders forced to go against their own will due to the absence of an alternative?
looking at the analogy next to our actual topic, in the case of drugs, if vivisection was banned, since there are currently no alternatives, all drug development would cease.
finally, i don't see how standing by your moral beliefs is any different from standing by religious beliefs - to me they are one and the same.
granted, if you show your religious beliefs to be open to compromise (even if its only in the extreme of keeping yourself alive), you will be punished for it in the afterlife.
so, the only difference i can see is that non-religious beliefs are more easily bent to your own will since there is no fear of punishment by a higher power - that doesn't sound like a belief to me, that sounds like a preference.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Not all recognised religions have higher powers or punishment. To me the word preference implies that you don't mind the other options, as opposed to choice which can be more black and white.
On what do you base this? If you are basing your comment on the fact that generally people had lower standards of living/rights than they do now then I can understand, I've worked with many non vegetarian human rights activists from around the world who either don't have the time or have never had the motivation to get into animal rights given the amount of human suffering in their countries. If your comment is that people in the past have cared less about animal rights, I'm not sure this is a fair comment. From my point of view, animal standards are far worse these days than they were 200 years ago. There was no such thing as battery (boiler) hens/factory farming then, nor were they able to afford the amount of wasteage that goes on today. I'm not saying that everyone had a deep respect for animals or that animals were only killed when absolutely nesecary and every part used, but it's nothing like what we have today. It's very easy to become completely mindnumbed and accepting in the way animals are treated today, but coming from an outside stance i'm not sure so many people would be so ready to accept. This is of course completely my opinion
Written by: Coleman
so, the only difference i can see is that non-religious beliefs are more easily bent to your own will since there is no fear of punishment by a higher power - that doesn't sound like a belief to me, that sounds like a preference.
Not all recognised religions have higher powers or punishment. To me the word preference implies that you don't mind the other options, as opposed to choice which can be more black and white.
Written by: Birgit
And about herbal medicines not being tested on animals when they were first used: That's definitely true, but I think if people at that point in time had had the methods to test them on animals they'd been much less worried about the animals than we are now.
On what do you base this? If you are basing your comment on the fact that generally people had lower standards of living/rights than they do now then I can understand, I've worked with many non vegetarian human rights activists from around the world who either don't have the time or have never had the motivation to get into animal rights given the amount of human suffering in their countries. If your comment is that people in the past have cared less about animal rights, I'm not sure this is a fair comment. From my point of view, animal standards are far worse these days than they were 200 years ago. There was no such thing as battery (boiler) hens/factory farming then, nor were they able to afford the amount of wasteage that goes on today. I'm not saying that everyone had a deep respect for animals or that animals were only killed when absolutely nesecary and every part used, but it's nothing like what we have today. It's very easy to become completely mindnumbed and accepting in the way animals are treated today, but coming from an outside stance i'm not sure so many people would be so ready to accept. This is of course completely my opinion
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well we're talking about animal testing which has caused the deaths of millions of animals and will likely cause the death of millions more.
I'm not under the impression that each university kills millions of mice per test, I'm talking about all the testing place.
Written by: spritieWritten by: onewheeldaveWritten by: vanize
So the question anyone opposed to testing drugs on animals has to ask is really this - am I willing to let people test potentially fatal or severly dehibilitating drugs directly on me strait out of the lab, or would I rather see if a mouse goes toes up first?
It's not 'a mouse' though is it? It's millions of mice, rabbits, apes etc, many of whom die horribly.
Actually, a "cure" or drug is tried on one mouse first. If that mouse dies, then things are done to determine why the mouse died............................
And no, at least in medical universities, testing is not done on millions of mice. It is maybe done on 10-12 and then things are studied from there. The funding simply isn't there to test on millions of mice in a university setting.
Well we're talking about animal testing which has caused the deaths of millions of animals and will likely cause the death of millions more.
I'm not under the impression that each university kills millions of mice per test, I'm talking about all the testing place.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Ok. We're going around in circles here. Then again, you do have one wheel...
Let me see if I can rephrase this. You're saying that it's OK for people who oppose animal testing to make use of life-saving therapies because they don't have a choice.
I'm saying that it is PRECISELY because there's no alternative that an anti-animal testing position is incompatible with using these drugs. See, being anti-animal testing means that you have to accept that there are no alternatives. If you truly believe that animal testing should not be done, that it should all stop RIGHT NOW, even on pharmaceuticals, then it stands to reason that you do not want medical research to progress. Since medical therapy and medical advancement are interlocked, you can't separate the two.
Is that helping? Or are we just saying the same thing back and forth?
Written by: onewheeldave
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
IMO, that would only be justified in a situation where a choice of drugs is available- some tested on animals, some not.
Ok. We're going around in circles here. Then again, you do have one wheel...
Let me see if I can rephrase this. You're saying that it's OK for people who oppose animal testing to make use of life-saving therapies because they don't have a choice.
I'm saying that it is PRECISELY because there's no alternative that an anti-animal testing position is incompatible with using these drugs. See, being anti-animal testing means that you have to accept that there are no alternatives. If you truly believe that animal testing should not be done, that it should all stop RIGHT NOW, even on pharmaceuticals, then it stands to reason that you do not want medical research to progress. Since medical therapy and medical advancement are interlocked, you can't separate the two.
Is that helping? Or are we just saying the same thing back and forth?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com