Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine if a superior alien race decided they wanted to test their medicine and cosmetics and picked humans as their "lab rats", we wouldn't like that would we?

    I understand we need to know
    Whether a new medicine is safe for humans but is it right to test it on animals first given some of the nasty side effects?

    And cosmetics surely that can't be ethical..?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I am very much against unnecessary cruelty and suffering to animals. Testing cosmetics on animals I am 100% against.

    As for testing medicines, perhaps there is a tiny need for it (and I HATE to admit that). But it should be with minimal suffering, with alternatives being used if possible.


    IMO the best solution would be to test on child killers and such filth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Dreaming*)
    I am very much against unnecessary cruelty and suffering to animals. Testing cosmetics on animals I am 100% against.

    As for testing medicines, perhaps there is a tiny need for it (and I HATE to admit that). But it should be with minimal suffering, with alternatives being used if possible.


    IMO the best solution would be to test on child killers and such filth.
    Agree, but not so much the last statement, of course a very good idea, however you do have the guevna convention which stops behaviour like that existing. The best thing for them is to actually be forced into army, on front line, this would be a discperplinery army in which its sepperated from the normal, but they get put on bomb duty, made to walk around on the desert looking for bombs, aka made to wake in the desert until they hit a bomb and explode.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Animal testing for cosmetics is disgusting

    (Warning, spoiler contains alarming pictures of a human undergoing the same treatment as animals do)
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Vanity should not be paid for with untold suffering.


    (Original post by *Dreaming*)


    IMO the best solution would be to test on child killers and such filth.

    That is sick and amoral for anybody who would call themselves civilised.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No no no :fuhrer:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Transformational)



    That is sick and amoral for anybody who would call themselves civilised.
    I was not being completely 100% serious about it being an alternative, obviously with our human rights laws it wouldn't be. But then again are those criminals civilised?

    And why do it to animals, who are innocent, and not to human filth who commit the worst crimes imaginable?

    Is someone who carries out animal testing civilised?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As long as the animals don't suffer needlessly, I'm not against it. I don't condone cruelty to animals but I believe animal testing is a good thing
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daniel_bryden)
    Imagine if a superior alien race decided they wanted to test their medicine and cosmetics and picked humans as their "lab rats", we wouldn't like that would we?

    I understand we need to know
    Whether a new medicine is safe for humans but is it right to test it on animals first given some of the nasty side effects?

    And cosmetics surely that can't be ethical..?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Are you vegetarian or vegan? If not you're a hypocrite.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    My first reaction was 'NO!' but then I thought 'but we eat them for our own personal benefit so it's kinda hypocritical'... so I vote yes BUT ONLY IF there is no suffering for the animal. If it's ok to carry out the testing on humans then it's ok for animals too.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by *Dreaming*)
    I was not being completely 100% serious about it being an alternative, obviously with our human rights laws it wouldn't be. But then again are those criminals civilised?

    And why do it to animals, who are innocent, and not to human filth who commit the worst crimes imaginable?

    Is someone who carries out animal testing civilised?
    Why does it follow that someone who does a bad thing must then have a bad thing done to them simply for the sake of it? Sure, society should be protected from them and that means incarceration. But there is no further benefit to be gained by legitimising cruelty because it seems justified apart from a smug sense of justice that will never ever replace the life of a lost child. Human filth is still human.

    Somebody who carries out animal testing is either amoral or stuck between a rock and a hard place. The people who run the big pharmaceuticals likely don't have to encounter the testing at the ground level, it is easy for them to sign pieces of paper that warrants this suffering without having first been exposed to it. The people who carry out the testing could just be working folk who have no alternative, its do this or have their family starve. Morality isn't so black and white now is it? The consumer is arguably equally as responsible, if they didn't pay money for these products, there would be no testing for cosmetics. There would be no market.

    There is no one person to blame for this. All of society is to blame, for allowing this cruelty and injustice to arise and persist for so long without preventing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingKumar)
    Are you vegetarian or vegan? If not you're a hypocrite.
    Lol it's often the first thing I think too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    If they can justify it i.e. it's imperative to the well being of humans, then yes. We need to avoid thalidomide-like cases and try the drugs properly before giving it to people.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by KingKumar)
    Are you vegetarian or vegan? If not you're a hypocrite.
    Torture/Drawn out suffering =/= Existing/Painless execution

    The animal wouldn't exist without the meat industry. If the meat industry was ethical (it largely isn't) then the animal gets to live out a life in comfort where it would not exist at all and does not suffer for it. A net positive utility gain.

    I suppose the philosophical question is.

    Is it better to live a happy life and die or to never have existed at all?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As a staunch supporter of animal rights this is always a very difficult question for me. My heart tells me no, its never justified and its barbaric. My head tells me that in some cases though, it is needed. The thought of the actual process though makes me feel ill. I don't really know what I think.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Transformational)
    Torture/Drawn out suffering =/= Existing/Painless execution

    The animal wouldn't exist without the meat industry. If the meat industry was ethical (it largely isn't) then the animal gets to live out a life in comfort where it would not exist at all and does not suffer for it. A net positive utility gain.
    Not all animal experiments include torture/drawn out suffering. Many animals are never tested on while alive and undergo more humane deaths than in the meat industry.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Vousden)
    Not all animal experiments include torture/drawn out suffering. Many animals are never tested on while alive and undergo more humane deaths than in the meat industry.
    Any experimentation has a chance of going wrong and therefore causing undue suffering upon animals. Even if it is administered in a clean and safe way that does not disturb or distress the animal there is still a risk it will do damage. That is why the experimentation happens in the first place.

    As far as I am concerned experimenting on corpses is not animal testing. Its testing on dead bodies that happen to be animals. So long as the animal didn't suffer in life I don't really see the big deal.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    I think any proposed animal testing ought to meet a rigorous standard of understood necessity before being permitted. If the case for animal testing would not likewise persuade us to test on orphaned babies, we should not be entertaining its use on other animals.

    There seems to me to be nothing inherently superior about the human condition capable of marking a moral distinction between these two practices, except humans' greater capacity to suffer, an issue not present until later in infancy. If the idea of making an innocent baby suffer as consequence for our desire is enough to stay our enthusiasm for it, then it ought likewise to do so for a cat, a dog, a pig or any other creature cognisant enough to deplore the suffering we place them into. If this is not the case then I view it as a moral failing - a lack of empathy and as certain an abuse of power as any other.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Transformational)
    Any experimentation has a chance of going wrong and therefore causing undue suffering upon animals. Even if it is administered in a clean and safe way that does not disturb or distress the animal there is still a risk it will do damage. That is why the experimentation happens in the first place.

    As far as I am concerned experimenting on corpses is not animal testing. Its testing on dead bodies that happen to be animals. So long as the animal didn't suffer in life I don't really see the big deal.
    It's important to remember that animal testing isn't just testing the safety of new drugs - not all research aims to investigate the toxicity/potential for harm of something.

    For example, a researcher might be interested in the effects of beta-blockers on expression of some protein in the liver (first thing I thought of). The beta-blockers & dose will have been tested previously, and should not produce any adverse effects.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I have no issue with it. For what I would deem to be unnecessary (cosmetics, beauty treatments) I believe they shouldn't be carried out, or if needed it should be on human volunteers. Though it amuses me greatly when companies act ethical by saying it isn't tested on animals, yeah...because they don't need to as every ingredient already has been.

    As for life saving medical research, I believe it is necessary. Yeah okay it isn't nice, and some experiments are going to cause the animal suffering, but realistically there isn't an alternative to find treatments for a myriad of diseases.

    If you are against animal testing in all forms I understand it, as long as if you suffer from a condition who's treatment was based on animal research (...pretty much everything), you will refuse the treatment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone harping on about how they hate animal testing would sing a very different tune if their mum got cancer and couldn't get treatment because the drugs had been tested on animals. It is necessary for human soceity. The same situation arises when your pet dog Floppy gets ill and goes to the vets. Where do you think the drugs were tested? Will you refuse to treat your puppy because the drug was developed using animal testing?

    Unless you would refuse treatment in both of the above cases then you're an unrealistic idealist and your opinion means nothing.

    As for the frankly ridiculously strict regulations that researchers in this field have to deal with in this country, the end result is the companies move their testing east where the restrictions are much more lax and animal suffering is increased. What a sucess for the animal rights crowds eh? They got what they wanted and now the animals are worse off.
 
 
 

2,610

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.