You are raising a very important and real point that people over look. Where do you draw the line? Is it a miracle cure? or animal cruelty.
Sad but true, humans are disgusting by the fact that we do horrible acts in full conscious capacity.
My position I hate it. But if that lab test saves my little girl's life I'm for it.
This is a horrible assumption. More horrible so due to the fact that I know I'm using an innocent life in order to save one of my own. More disgusted knowing that I might take even more than one in the process.
But, unfortunately I happen to be human, unfair and immoral by nature
Does been human justify this cruel acts? NO by no means, and I hope some day something can raise up and fight us back, we kind off deserve it by now.
I'm curious how many great treatments they've found accidentally, FOR animals, testing products that were originally meant for humans?
no-one ever talks about that.
Though that by no means is a reason to test on animals, but the overall goal IS so that we see positive results in these test subjects.
I am vehemently for animal rights, but I mean, if they can cure cancer in cats by not humans, and you have enough money and love your pets very much, it benefits future generations of cats as well.
however the comments above are purely speculation without actual research. I hope not but there is a possibility that said cures they find for animals that aren't useful in humans are thrown out altogether and not even used in animals.
that is/would be sad, and if that is the case I'm against it because that's what makes it cruel.
needless to say though I still think the whole thing is cruel regardless, and as soon as we find viable alternatives switch to those immediately.
tough question. I have to say it is the way forward. We are lucky that rats and mice mimic humans in their biology so well because they reproduce and age much quicker and we can see results or consequences faster in them then in most other animals. It would take many generations to do the same thing testing humans, and it would be a much smaller sample of test subjects.
This is just in relation to testing human made products on animals. Or testing procedures on them.
As much as I feel really bad for the animals, we would not have the medical or biochemical knowledge we have today if not for testing. I may think it gross and sometimes cruel, but I know that if I were to go into a biological field (which I very well might, I am very interested biochemistry and biotechnology), I would not hesitate to test animals (however i would not test primates, or other endangered animals unless we were trying to find out how to help them and not us).
As there is no practicable method of acquiring large numbers of disposable human test subjects, lesser animals are the closest approximation, and completely indisposable for medical and cosmetic research. The suffering of these animals is of no consequence to us, and by using them as test subjects, we benefit from advances in medical science and ensuring medicine and cosmetics are safe to use. Any person who does not support animal testing is allowing their emotions to cloud their judgement, as they would sacrifice advances in medical science for the wellbeing of animals, which cannot affect them in any way.
Good. Cold practicality is good it does not sway in the sometimes threat of emotion but I guess there is always the way to reduce the pain and suffering of every animal since it is in our capable grasp
Why would you want to reduce the pain and suffering of animals? It is of no consequence to us. As a human, I'm only concerned with the general wellbeing of humans, and see no reason to concern myself with other animals, unless they are of some use to us.
Well we must not act rutheless to other species if they were in our place I would not wish ruthelessness to my own. Above all else these creatures have given us their lives for our happiness the least we can do is lessen or numb their pain.
The least we could do is nothing at all. There is no need to lessen or numb their pain. Their suffering cannot affect us in the slightest, and what you're suggesting is nothing but a waste of anasthetics.
Well, this is a eat-or-be-eaten world. I think it's justified to do animal testing, but for the safety of the species, which indirectly leads to our own safety, we shouldn't be wiping out species. Animal testing is an unnecessary evil, but it does help us. I don't condone animal cruelty though, that should be minimized.
Depends on what they're testing. My opinion on animal testing is completely different when it comes to medicine than when it comes to cosmetics (not sure of any other major examples). With medicine, I'm for it, especially if it's for something major or something that doesn't yet have a cure. However, I'm not sure about any kind of medicine for smaller, everyday sicknesses, like a cold or the flu. I think that for those there should be more than one product on the market, but having 52 different ones just sounds like overkill. Sure, if you're allergic to one kind, then you should be able to get something that will make you less miserable. However, in most cases, a cold won't kill you. Although you might be pretty miserable, a bit of extra vitamin C is usually all you need. With cosmetics, I'm against it, and I think things like that should be tested on humans. Most people wouldn't like having things like shampoo squirted into their eye, and it's more than just cruel to do it to something that can't really defend itself. If it might make someone's eyes bleed, then REPLACE THE FUCKING CHEMICALS WITH SOMETHING THAT WON'T.
You might want to eliminate meat consumption altogether...
While I do have a side for the animals' feelings, I think that if positive human feelings are present, go forward. Animal testing has taken us very far, from vaccines and antidotes to testing new medicines before ready on humans. And most of the conditions that the animals meet aren't cruel, they sedate them before doing operations and cetera. Humans would be terrible primary test subjects. I can just picture the news reporting someone died after being tested on medical grounds.
Meat consumption is, at least for me, something different. Although the animals on farms are horribly treated, wild animals have to be killed, from what I've heard. If some animals hadn't gone extinct in some areas, it wouldn't be a problem, but when natural predators die out, their prey can freely grow as they want. On top of that, non-indigenous species can do the same because of the lack of natural predators. In turn, they can kill out other animals by robbing them of things like food, or cause things like soil erosion.
When it comes to things like sedation, if the medicine industry is anything like what I've heard about the meat industry (at least in America), they probably still aren't being correctly handled. For instance, too small doses of sedatives might be used to save costs, so the animals are still conscious.
I've heard some rumors of animal torture and rights from KFC, but nothing more than that. Whether those rumors be true, medical treatment is FAR from that. Surely the animals are wounded to later receive experimental treatment, and maybe the sedatives applied aren't always enough, but it's far from those rumors. I'm talking about the treatment of mostly lab rats in Brasil, I haven't a clue how it works in the US.
Cosmetic? No Medical? Yes. I don't know a single person or their pets who haven't benefited from it. It's part of the reason rats have such high surgery survival rates in comparison to other small animals. We need some major overhauls in how it's done though. Efforts need to be made to ensure that the animal is being made as comfortable as possible and getting an enriched environment.
like ~Black-Allison said, you could pay volunteers. Animals are kept in captivity their whole lives and cannot defend themselves or choose not to participate. I am 100% against animal testing and do all I can to buy from companies that don't test on animals.
Tell a poor mother unable to feed her children to 'just walk away', when 'just walking away' means her children are going to starve.
Taking advantage of person's poverty is manipulative. It's like dangling something in front of someone to lead them off of a cliff.
This is especially troublesome in America, where you don't have free healthcare. So you're not only manipulating them, but after everything said is done, you're left with poor people who can have long term, negative side effects, that may cost extravagant amounts to treat, or impair their ability to work, not only harming the people, but the economy as well.
There is also the chance that people will lie and try to volunteer for more than one test, and fuck up the results, which really fucks up the results, which means something dangerous could slip through, or we'd stop researching something life saving, which means that we could ignore the cure of an dangerous disease, or killing a lot of people inadvertently
But who cares if we are manipulating poor people, fucking the economy, fucking up medical research and killing sick people so long as the animals are okay
I would say that it is better to use animals. What if there is a test that requires newborn subjects? I would rather use ratlings then our own its more ethical and anyway animal testing has stopped reactions like the Thermadomite dilema.
I'm no biologist, but animals have different DNA and reactions to external sensations, substances, etc. than a human does. Wouldn't the results be slightly off, even if something was tested on a chimpanzee?
That said, I think it's a bit counterproductive to test something on different animals if it was intended for humans.
Vaccines work the same for animals as they do people. A weakened or dead version of the virus is inserted into you and your body creates antibodies. There's often extra chemicals inside to preserve the vaccine and help the process.
Reactions to chemicals aren't as different as you might think. If you give a dog, cat, human, or just about any other animal Ketamine in a high enough dose they will all be anesthetized. We choose certain animals over others because we have similar components in us that'll give the same result. I'd also assume they'd test one medication on multiple types of animals before letting in human (paid) volunteers take small amounts.
For medication? Yes. I find it extremely hypocritical that there are people out there who support the bombing of research labs when in reality, they take medication brought on by animal testing. I don't think they realize how much information and health movements we would loose if we stopped all medical animal tests.
There are a lot of rules and regulations in the animal testing sphere, I would know because I did a report on it, thinking that it was so cruel, and now I realize that was in the past when they had no rights. Now, its mainly for medicine which is a good thing!!