Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should animal rights activists be denied medical treatment developed using animals? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    I think you're confusing doctors (medical) and research scientists (some of who may hold doctorates)
    I stand corrected!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee86)
    If there that botherd why dont the protesters fund alternative means then?????
    Because I'm certainly not paying for it with my taxes
    They are that bothered, and that is why many give a lot of their money to charities. Unfortunately, those who believe animals shouldnt be subject to such testing arent often backed up with the financial resources to make significant alterations in the methods of testing, unlike those sitting at the top of large pharmaceutical firms, or the State. The only exception I can think of is the owner of the Body Shop, who gives a great deal of money to the cause and the research into alternatives.

    And if you believe you have any control over what your taxes are spent on, then you are very much deluded my friend.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    The majority of animal rights protesters dont resort to sending death threats. Go away and do some research on the people who actually believe in the cause, then come back without the prejudiced bullsh*t that you've read in the Daily Mail or Sun.

    When animal protesters see animals being inflicted with pain and sometimes even death for the development of cosmetic products, I'm sure they dont give a toss about whether you like them or not.
    I went to a lecture by Robert Winston a few years back on ethics.

    He showed us 5 websites, all claiming different attrotious acts against our animal counterparts. Guess what - they all used the very same pictures claiming they were different tests, at different companies in different countries. As soon as they stop with ******** propaganda, I will listen... They are weakening their own cause.

    That said, I do think we use too many animals. I developed a animal free chemical test system while on my industrial year, that's being taken up my most of the major pharma companies after full validation Should save a few rats.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How about informing them of the would be treatment and say if there is an alternative or not?

    I don't know why people hate animal activists so much. All I hear is human rights all the time. We think of ourselves too much.

    Apparently it is against human rights if you are in prison and you are not entitled to a porn mag. How sad.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    I went to a lecture by Robert Winston a few years back on ethics.

    He showed us 5 websites, all claiming different attrotious acts against our animal counterparts. Guess what - they all used the very same pictures claiming they were different tests, at different companies in different countries. As soon as they stop with ******** propaganda, I will listen... They are weakening their own cause.

    That said, I do think we use too many animals. I developed a animal free chemical test system while on my industrial year, that's being taken up my most of the major pharma companies after full validation Should save a few rats.
    I cant speak for the techniques used by the animal-rights protesters (as I am not one), but I can speak for the justness of their cause, and can certainly empaphise with what they believe in.

    However, I'm a very dissapointed that a respected scientist like Robert Winston exploited a lecture about ethics in order to criticise the techniques of promoting a cause, rather than discussing the cause itself. The methods that animal rights protesters use to promote there message is absolutely nothing to do with the ethical implications of animal testing - and I'm surprised Winston seemed to exploit this unconnected issue to propagate what may be his viewpoint.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    However, I'm a very dissapointed that a respected scientist like Robert Winston exploited a lecture about ethics in order to criticise the techniques of promoting a cause, rather than discussing the cause itself. The methods that animal rights protesters use to promote there message is absolutely nothing to do with the ethical implications of animal testing - and I'm surprised Winston seemed to exploit this unconnected issue to propagate what may be his viewpoint.
    Ohh! Were you at the lecture? As you seem to have presumed to know it's content!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    Ohh! Were you at the lecture? As you seem to have presumed to know it's content!
    I may be wrong, but you did just tell me its content...

    (Original post by Fluffy)
    He showed us 5 websites, all claiming different attrotious acts against our animal counterparts. Guess what - they all used the very same pictures claiming they were different tests, at different companies in different countries. As soon as they stop with ******** propaganda, I will listen... They are weakening their own cause.
    That sounds suspiciously like content to me!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    I may be wrong, but you did just tell me its content...
    No i didn't - I said he showed 5 websites using the same pictures. I didn't tell you the context in which he presented them...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    No i didn't - I said he showed 5 websites using the same pictures. I didn't tell you the context in which he presented them...
    Context and content are two different things.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Context and content are two different things.
    Indeed they are!

    look before you leap and all that!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fluffy)
    Indeed they are!

    look before you leap and all that!
    Precisely!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    The majority of animal rights protesters dont resort to sending death threats. Go away and do some research on the people who actually believe in the cause, then come back without the prejudiced bullsh*t that you've read in the Daily Mail or Sun.

    When animal protesters see animals being inflicted with pain and sometimes even death for the development of cosmetic products, I'm sure they dont give a toss about whether you like them or not.
    Ha ha ha - like I'd ever read the mail or the sun. Most animal rights activists are just a waste of space - all they do is moan. If they actually spent their time putting forward sensible alternatives to the current systems, then I would listen to them, and probably support them. As it is though, they often resort to intimidation and I think this is inexcusable.

    I'm not trying to justify animal testing in any way, and I'm 100% against testing cosmetic products on animals, but when it comes to life threatening illnesses, I'd be prepared to sacrifice a few animals for the cause.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theoffender)
    I say they should be denied it. All those people who rant and rave about animal cruelty in labs researching diseases should be denied treatment when they get such a disease.
    This thread is as rediculous as the idea that one should obandon animal testing, and cosequently send millions of people to their grave. All decisions have a trade off, and quite honestly I dont see why it is so bad to kill a few rats if it can save several million people. What I do have problems with, however, is animal testing of makeup and eyeliner. Those are redundant.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theoffender)
    I say they should be denied it. All those people who rant and rave about animal cruelty in labs researching diseases should be denied treatment when they get such a disease.
    No I don't think so. At this current point in time I think it is still necissary to do some experiments on animals for medical purposes only. However too much is being done as it is. I don't think people should be punished for a view point they hold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    This thread is as rediculous as the idea that one should obandon animal testing, and cosequently send millions of people to their grave. All decisions have a trade off, and quite honestly I dont see why it is so bad to kill a few rats if it can save several million people. What I do have problems with, however, is animal testing of makeup and eyeliner. Those are redundant.

    i agree, what has the rat done wrong to die because humans are vain creatures and worry about cosmetics whereas the rat's life is at stake on the other side. Humans only ever think about themselves and how pretty they look and think it is fine to test products on animals and even kill them. I am completely against animal testing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why attack the arguer rather than the argument? (ad hominem argument )

    That is absolutely ridiculous and missing the point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neha p)
    i agree, what has the rat done wrong to die because humans are vain creatures and worry about cosmetics whereas the rat's life is at stake on the other side. Humans only ever think about themselves and how pretty they look and think it is fine to test products on animals and even kill them. I am completely against animal testing.
    I think it is to harcsh to be completely against it. Without the testing essential medecines which anually save thousands of lives would never have been developed. It is a moral dilemma where you can chose between killing a few rats and saving several humans, or leaving the rats and end up with a less efficient medical research program which will not be able to provide the same high quality drugs. Animal testing should be allowed, but one should try to minimize it. In my opinion testing a new kind of lipstick on rabbits only to have them put to sleep afterwards is redundant, but checkingessential drugs for side effects is necessary. Perhaps cloning techniques will make animal testing redundtant some time in the future ( allowing doctors to test the medecines on spare organs grown for the purpose ) but until then there is little choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theoffender)
    I say they should be denied it. All those people who rant and rave about animal cruelty in labs researching diseases should be denied treatment when they get such a disease.
    Should all those who rant and rave about the war in Iraq be denied from living in the UK?
    Should all those who rant and rave about George Bush be denied using any products made by American companies?

    Your logic is flawed. When research has led to an adequate conlusion being made, no further research needs to be conducted. It would be a waste of time to further conduct duplicate research that does not make use of animal cruelty, when it would only show what previous research has shown. Thus it is too late to prevent the research conducted to develop current treatments, hence the concentration of animal rights activist's efforts on research for future treatments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Should all those who rant and rave about the war in Iraq be denied from living in the UK?
    Should all those who rant and rave about George Bush be denied using any products made by American companies?

    Your logic is flawed. When research has led to an adequate conlusion being made, no further research needs to be conducted. It would be a waste of time to further conduct duplicate research that does not make use of animal cruelty, when it would only show what previous research has shown. Thus it is too late to prevent the research conducted to develop current treatments, hence the concentration of animal rights activist's efforts on research for future treatments.
    I think you have to make a distinction between animal rights activists and animal rights activists. I can understand, and agree, that people want animals to be treated in a humane way and that animal testing should be limited to what is necessary, cutting down on redundant testing. However, I have little sympathy with those who actively try to prevent animal research without any consideration of the consequences. As always some people in an interest group are moderate and reasonable while others are close to fanatic. Regardless it would be unacceptable to make the healthcare conditional to not being a member in a given organisation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Test on Convicts not on innocent animals


    ALF!!!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.