Turn on thread page Beta

Animal testing debate, for or against? watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Also encourage people to read up on leptin trials in mice and the disappointing results in human trials as a comparison
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Browniee_00)
    I am against animal testing, but I would love to hear people's different points of views on the subject.
    For.
    Evil or not, i don't care; since most of us eat them, so we also have the right kill them - whichever way we want.

    It's not like people are gona willing step up on to the chopping block, even if there are, they're in the minority - who by all means are suicidal. So animals are the best alternative (unless y'all want another Auschwitz; filled with prisoners of war, political enemies and religious believers as well as suicidal maniacs. Just for the purpose of no more animal testing)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Browniee_00)
    I am against animal testing, but I would love to hear people's different points of views on the subject.
    We should test on criminals instead
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:

    Wtf...obviously, unethical practices and unnecessary cruelty to animal test-subjects should be punished. That’s common sense.

    But do you all realize most medicines / syrups / tablets you ingest were once tested on mice / primates to accurately study it's efficiency, toxicity or feasibility?

    All you moral horse riders advocating banning animal testing are basically calling for, largely, untested medicines to flood the counters and have it approved by the FDA. That's literally millions if not billions of human lives at stake.

    As we speak, scientists in Ottawa are experimenting on mice to study breast cancer and believe it or not are close to discovering a cure. So because mice can't give consent we should consider dropping this whole research?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    For because if it was tested on humans and killed them it would be a bigger issue than some animal dying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST!! I dislike the idea of animal testing. plus, the results aren't always relevant - they react different to us anyways. most of the time theyre hurt too - I hate that!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rabbit2)
    That's easy to answer. Example: You are developing a new drug. It shows prospects (in lab trials) for reducing the deaths from one form of childhood cancer by 80%. There is one catch. There seems to be some involvement with patient paralysis and loss of motor control - particularly with young patients.

    You have the option of testing on human children or on animals [normally you do NOT, until you have successfully passed lab tests on animals - but i'm being theoretical here]. You have NO idea what the risk is. The paralysis and loss of control appears to be permanent. You are put in the position of telling parents of prospective patients (and their parents) : "We have this new drug. It shows great promise, but we are not permitted to test on animals. We have to test on humans "right out of the box". If the drug is successful, it will kill the cancer 80% of the time. There appears to be a problem with paralysis. It 'may' occur in up to 45% of the cases, whether or not the cancer is 'cured'. If it occurs, it may be permanent. Additionally, it may disrupt the neural functioning of the brain, so that the patient may be unconscious, or at least may not be able to communicate with anyone. Your child may not be able to even blink to communicate with you. The cancer that your child has, usually turns out to be incurable [over a 7 to 8 year period]. The fatality rate over this time is virtually 100%. If paralyzed, your child will probably have nearly a normal lifespan. That is, he/she will be in a bed, in intensive care facilities, for another 60 or 70 years. As i said, we don't know if paralyzed patients are conscious of their surroundings, we know they cannot communicate or move.

    Would you like to try the drug as a 'guinea pig'??

    This is basically the problem. Do you want to try your drug on animals, or 8 to 10 yr old human children?? And this problem is being faced today by most medical researchers. I used to have a friend who worked at "National Institutes of Health" in Bethesda, Maryland [just outside D.C.] He was an electrical engineer (like me), but he was faced with these sort of problems every day - along with the medical researchers that he worked with, and supported technically.

    Do you think that a 10 yr old human can 'give consent' in this sort of case???? By law, they cannot 'give consent' to sex. Sex has a much much lower risk [IMHO] to their physical well-being than this sort of situation. How about the 'rents'??? What sort of position does this put them in?? How would you like to make this decision, and have it turn out badly for YOUR child???? There is risk in ALL medical procedures. Hospitals bend over backwards [at least they do here] in getting 'consent' for a simple blood draw on a juvenile. Blood draws DO have risk - blood clots, hitting a nerve and causing temporary paralysis, etc. Whilst i was at uni, i became involved in doing a project for NIH, where we needed fresh (and preserved) blood. Naturally, being the oldest researcher on the project, i was tapped to provide the blood. I ended up walking over to the 'chem lab' on campus, and drawing and giving them a blood sample several times. Drawing your own blood is difficult, because you have only one hand to work with! ;o) A couple of the co-eds turned white when i filled a syringe and handed it to them.

    I was an adult. How about if i had been 10 yrs old at the time???

    Think about these sort of things that occur in real life - not the ivory tower of academia - which you are used to inhabiting. I don't have any 'easy, fast answers' like some younger students, but i'm pretty sure that i would rather kill a few dozen rabbits than a 10 yr old. Cheers.
    Brilliant response. The life of a child with cancer is far more valuable than a bunch of rats' lives, especially if it was their child. And I'm sure that there will be some commenters on here who are completely against animal testing yet are conveniently okay with animals being tortured and killed so they can eat their meat...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeiraG)
    AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST!! I dislike the idea of animal testing. plus, the results aren't always relevant - they react different to us anyways. most of the time theyre hurt too - I hate that!
    stop using medicine then - boycott the pharma industry and see where life takes you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Browniee_00)
    I am against animal testing, but I would love to hear people's different points of views on the subject.
    I don't really have an opinion on this. On the one hand, animal experimentation is essential and logical for the advancement of science, especially in medical cures and drug testing, and if it wasn't for animal testing, there would be a lot of people not in the world right now.
    On the other hand, I know most people are ridiculous over sensitive about the thought of blood and surgery, but although I have very different views about that, every organism that feels pain will not be willing to take part in anything that will cause it pain, and some of the things done to/tested on lab animals would be exceptionally painful indeed. An organism is born to live, not to be caged up for an experiment. I have no absolute viewpoint here, interesting thread though.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Browniee_00)
    I am against animal testing, but I would love to hear people's different points of views on the subject.
    Ideally against but I do understand the reasons for animal testing. I think that cosmetic testing should be illegal because it does more harm than good though. With drugs I find it harder to say.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by angelike1)
    stop using medicine then - boycott the pharma industry and see where life takes you
    before I buy medicine and/or beauty products etc. I'll check whether they use animal testing. I tend to stick to asda own brand for pharmaceuticals, and body shop/lush for cosmetics as these are all against animal testing and such.

    it's banned in the EU, we should take that ban further.

    animal testing is against my morals seeing as we don't test on humans as often, however humans are still animals. what makes it right for us to test on them? just because they can't communicate with us?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by KeiraG)
    I tend to stick to asda own brand for pharmaceuticals... as these are all against animal testing and such.
    :confused: Asda doesn't invent its own pharmaceuticals. It uses drugs originally tested on animals - like paracetamol, ibuprofen etc - just like everyone else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeiraG)
    before I buy medicine and/or beauty products etc. I'll check whether they use animal testing. I tend to stick to asda own brand for pharmaceuticals, and body shop/lush for cosmetics as these are all against animal testing and such.

    it's banned in the EU, we should take that ban further.
    The only reason the EU is in a position to ban it is that the tests have already been carried out for pretty much all chemicals used in cosmetics. It's not as if they stop a cosmetic tested on animals in 2012 from being sold, it is only NEW cosmetics being produced after 2013. The work to prove safety on the cosmetics you use, by testing them on animals, has already been done, they're basically banning wasteful re-testing.

    Lush and the Body shop are being disingenuous, It's easy for those companies to claim they're against animal testing now, because as said the chemicals have already been tested on animals, they're formulations don't require testing because they're using individual chemicals which have been proven safe.

    ASDA wise...got to tell you every pharmaceutical will have been tested for it's safety via animal trials at some sort, again in the past generally as there's no point doing it again for no reason. ASDA also do not manufacture pharmaceuticals, they just design the packets...the supplier will supply hundreds of brands.

    By the by, the EU says ingredients for cosmetics tested on animals are banned, but if a company sells 49% of it's chemical as a cosmetic but 51% to say agriculture, they do not have to declare if it was in fact tested on animals when sold as a cosmetic as that's not its primary usage. Easy way around the rules.

    It's a bit like how people attack Nazi scientists so much for using Jews as test subjects(rightly), yet our nations were very happy to trade the results of their research for their freedom, advances in the treatment of hypothermia for instance..which we use today.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Against. I'm not a utilitarian.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeiraG)
    before I buy medicine and/or beauty products etc. I'll check whether they use animal testing. I tend to stick to asda own brand for pharmaceuticals, and body shop/lush for cosmetics as these are all against animal testing and such.

    it's banned in the EU, we should take that ban further.

    animal testing is against my morals seeing as we don't test on humans as often, however humans are still animals. what makes it right for us to test on them? just because they can't communicate with us?
    What they said.

    Now you know you can't buy medicine anymore.

    I'm also against testing for cosmetics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack22031994)
    We should test on criminals instead
    If you're for torture/corporal/capital punishment (like Saudi Arabia) then sure.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Against. If you can clone sheep and monkeys (see latest news), then surely you can reproduce some skin samples to test make-up on?

    For medicine on the other hand, maybe there is no other alternative. Because for some reason we are prioritising the well-being and citizenship of robots instead.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    Against. I'm not a utilitarian.
    do you think the utilitarian approach is always bad?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I am personally on the fence with this one. :indiff:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Surprisingly, I am going to have to say that I am for animal testing. It has been known to be animal cruelty in the past and even has shown to be brutalizing. I most certainly do not agree with the more brutal methods. I believe that such testing should have more civilized and humane standards so as to not hurt the animal and it should be heavily monitored as well to avoid any animal cruelty. That being said, animal testing should undergo a reform of their past methods to fit today's ethically advanced society.

    I only agree with the idea of using animal testing because it has been known to further research for curing diseases, ailments, and other health-related problems that, if not for animal testing, you could have been suffering from at this very moment. I am all for humane animal testing.

    I hope that I was of some service!
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.