turrifield Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 In the light of the recent news about the 6 men who are seriously ill after taking part in a drugs test does this show that we need to test more on animals or less? Given that these drugs had been extensively tested on animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I am all for animal testing, anythiing that can help humans. Also think they could makey test some of this stuff on life prisoners, it could be a way for them to pay back society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I think this give the animal rights people a good weapon. If the drug was tested on animals and the nearly kills....and may yet have killed.....the human guinea pigs then I am sure they will be saying animal tests are not valid and should stop. As for my own view.....any animal testing for cosmetics etc. is completely wrong and should stop worldwide. Animal testing of drugs after the drug has been tested on cells (human and animal) is ok if there are going to be big benefits from the drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I think this is so blown out of proportion.. if the animal activist start to use this as a reason.. this is one major occasion out of how many million trials? Law of averages would lead to think that Its amazing something like this hasnt happened a lot sooner. If anythign it proves that animals should be used more.. when you see the uproar that humans almost died. if it wasnt tested on animals you would see alot more of these stories in the press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 What about testing people on death row? I against it, though I'm not a vegitarian or an animal activist or anything. I guess it may come down to religion. Christians, for example, believe that animals do not have souls, so I guess that they might think its ok to do stuff to animals. I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 We are at the top of the food chain so we in theory should be able to exploit any animal we want for our own needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Also think they could makey test some of this stuff on life prisoners, it could be a way for them to pay back society. Why is our society so full of bleeding heart liberals and wishey washey rights campaigners anyway? Would you sway towards a bill that decreed you lose your "human rights" if you were say, convicted of murder or rape or somesuch, and then the doctors could get down to some serious human testing? See how far we progressed scientifically after Nazi Germany in the middle of the last century! Where did these doctors and their papers end up? - as patriated members of society in the United States and Russia mostly where their results continued into the space race programs. Of course there would have to be appeal processes etc. to ensure you were rightfully guilty! but if you sit a while and think about it at the other end of the stick ... sometimes, as has bene proven recently with so many "old" apparently cut and dried cases being overturned, the British justice system isn't always right!! It's an argument that you could tire yourself out thinking about ... but I do wonder why say ... if you were in prison for any sort of misdeamour, rather as experiments that might kill, why say they couldn't slap some lipstick and crap on you and see whether you end up permanently disfigured of not .... okay maybe just burnt a little bit! Anyway .. would it really be more of a deterrant to not commit acts of crime? Hmm.... probably not as there are socialogical papers detailing the institutionalisation of criminality becoming acutely accentuated with the harsher the conditions of that institution! Maybe not such a good idea after all!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I think that it would be ethicaly wrong to experiment on any prisoner though I have heard of an early release scheme somewhere (USA?) which gives the option of participation in medical trials to get time off. I have to say that I am against the death penalty when the burden of proof is required to be "beyond reasonable doubt". No way has yet been found to bring executed people back to life if new evidence comes to light. Not sure what I would want as "proof without doubt" but right now I do not have confidence in the latest dna tests to be infallible and until I am convinced of infallibility I will be anti death sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I think the future of testing lies in the implementation of the mapped human genome. One idyllicy day it may be possible to calculate drug effects from genetic info. The lead in to this could see testing done on laboratory grown pieces of human tissue. Much better than on animals. This does, however, run into sticky ethical ground as artificially grown tissue samples will, after some point in development, gain rights of their own perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 ...after some point in development, gain rights of their own perhaps. Probably only if they were to become sentient ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 Here's one for all you anti-vivisectionists out there: How can you justify this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2416467.stm When this: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/moisturisers-raise-skin-cancer-risk-894517.html ... was discovered completely by accident while scientists were looking for something completely different. Surely this is a convincing argument that all cosmetics should undergo comprehensive testing (on animals) before going on sale to the public. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0012.gif [mod]Merged with an existing thread. Previous title generalised.[/mod] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brink Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 Ah....hem...no. First off, I would say that as cosmetics are not an absolute necessity of human life, I am unimpressed that they need to be tested on animals at all. And, well, the key words in the latter article are “....MAY be increasing the risk of common skin cancers..†and “ The significance of the findings for humans has still to be established....â€That is not proof, it is barely a hypothesis. And even if it were a “factâ€, surely that is an argument against using moisturisers, rather then allowing further vivisection. Yes, I use moisturisers and make up and bubble bath etc...I make sure (well, at least I certainly do my best) that I buy products that are not tested on animals. And if that puts my health at risk, well, heck, at least I had a choice in whether I stick this stuff on myself, so more fool me. Do I want an animal to suffer so I can wear the new bare rose lipstick? Would that make any sense? In other words, I do not believe that human rights and animal rights are mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 Animals already have the wit to stay away from dangerous substances. The sooner humans regain that wit the better. Untill then, my rather imploite reply has to be, hell follow them. If anything the above just strenthens the case against testing on animals. By the way - i'm about as far from an (uncooked) animal lover as you can get, but have serious issues with people who feel the need to smother themselves in chemicals and paint in order to look, feel and smell "beautiful" or "natural" /rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khitajrah Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 This reminds me of: http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/misc/polyp_cartoon_Animal_Testing_Cosmetics_Rabbit.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassermaet Posted August 19, 2008 Report Share Posted August 19, 2008 ^^^ That's just so true in so many ways though. My opinion is this: if a product is not going to be used on an animal, it should not be tested on an animal - surely that's common sense?! And besides, just because it's reacted one way with an animal that surely doesn't mean it'll react another way with a human being? I also disagree that these things should be tested on death row inmates as I am also opposed to the death penalty. I'm also going to start trying to stick with products that aren't tested on animals in future - I'm not a vegetarian, and I'm not overly fond of animals, but that doesn't mean I think they should be tortured in the name of beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.