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.
"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!
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.
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."
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.
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......
"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
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.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
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."
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
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.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
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?
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."
"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
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
I personally think it's the logical conclusiont.
1) there are no alternatives to animal testing for novel pharmaceuticals.
"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!
Written by:
You may maintain there is no alternative, but those who oppose animal experiments generally maintain that there are alternatives.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
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.
"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
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.
"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!
"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
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.
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.
"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!
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.
Love is the law.
"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
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
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
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.
"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!
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."
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.
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,
"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!
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?
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.
Written by: vanize
If there were a reasonable alternative to animal testing to save human (and animal!) lives, then it would be used -
"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!
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.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
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.
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?
"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
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 see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura