OT Is animal testing right?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Is animal testing on medicine right?

  • Yes I believe it is.

  • No I do not believe it is.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThatThereSaintsFan

ThatThereSaintsFan

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,510
33
48
Southampton
Is animal testing for medical reasons ethical?

On the one hand you have the idea of speeding up the testing process which could potentially save human lives.

While on the other you've got the harming of innocent animals.

I'm undecided but I think I may be leaning on the side of animal testing, i'd kill any animal to save a member of my family.

Its a tough one, what say you forum?
 
I'm the one person who answered the poll (at the time of writing this reply) having answered before I read the question and assumed you meant for cosmetics.

For medicine, it depends how the animal in question is treated, although I wouldn't be totally favour of it but I suppose it could be beneficial from a medical perspective.
 
PompeyLapras said:
I'm the one person who answered the poll (at the time of writing this reply) having answered before I read the question and assumed you meant for cosmetics.

For medicine, it depends how the animal in question is treated, although I wouldn't be totally favour of it but I suppose it could be beneficial from a medical perspective.
Click to expand...

In what circumstance would you not agree with it for medical reasons?
 
ThatThereSaintsFan said:
Most of the time?
Click to expand...

Well it's all about weighing up the potential usefulness of the medicine vs harm done to the animal. Some life-saving advances in medicine have undoubtedly been made thanks to animal testing, and often the animals aren't really harmed, but if you're putting a bunch of animals through hell just to come up with a new nasal spray to combat hay fever, then that's different.
 
ThatThereSaintsFan said:
Is animal testing for medical reasons ethical?

On the one hand you have the idea of speeding up the testing process which could potentially save human lives.

While on the other you've got the harming of innocent animals.

I'm undecided but I think I may be leaning on the side of animal testing, i'd kill any animal to save a member of my family.

Its a tough one, what say you forum?
Click to expand...

I think you have been watching Judge Deed........An emotive subject as with out experiments on animals there would not of been nearly as many cures for a variety of things including the original penicillin.........no easy answer. It should also be remembered that drugs for curing animals themselves are also discovered this way.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Well it's all about weighing up the potential usefulness of the medicine vs harm done to the animal. Some life-saving advances in medicine have undoubtedly been made thanks to animal testing, and often the animals aren't really harmed, but if you're putting a bunch of animals through hell just to come up with a new nasal spray to combat hay fever, then that's different.
Click to expand...

So does the disease have to be life saving to be worth the death of animals? Or can it be a cure for something like the common cold? Not just you Joe I'm not picking on you just trying to get this thread up and running!
 
Beddytare said:
I think you have been watching Judge Deed........An emotive subject as with out experiments on animals there would not of been nearly as many cures for a variety of things including the original penicillin.........no easy answer. It should also be remembered that drugs for curing animals themselves are also discovered this way.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, so you'd be in favour?
 
ThatThereSaintsFan said:
So does the disease have to be life saving to be worth the death of animals? Or can it be a cure for something like the common cold? Not just you Joe I'm not picking on you just trying to get this thread up and running!
Click to expand...

The common cold kills people, does it not?
 
Joe Steinberg said:
The common cold kills people, does it not?
Click to expand...

Thought you'd say that its probably a bad example! But in most 1st world countries you have an extremely high chance of surviving with little more than a sniffle to show for it. So would the death of animals be a fair price to pay for the total eradication of the common cold?
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Medicine - yes, most of the time.
Shampoo - **** no.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Beauty and Hygiene products - NO; Medicine - YES. Also, on the medicine front, it has to be shown that only an animal can effectively test a substance, and I would be extremely opposed to testing on animals purely because it was cheaper than doing it another way. In the event of an epidemic, if speed and cost were substantially lowered, and effectiveness raised, then that could change my mind. Under normal circumstances though, my objections would stand.
 
TheSecondStain said:
Agreed. Beauty and Hygiene products - NO; Medicine - YES. Also, on the medicine front, it has to be shown that only an animal can effectively test a substance, and I would be extremely opposed to testing on animals purely because it was cheaper than doing it another way. In the event of an epidemic, if speed and cost were substantially lowered, and effectiveness raised, then that could change my mind. Under normal circumstances though, my objections would stand.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

We've another who has voted for "No it isn't" speak up give us you're two cents if you wouldn't mind!
 
ThatThereSaintsFan said:
Thought you'd say that its probably a bad example! But in most 1st world countries you have an extremely high chance of surviving with little more than a sniffle to show for it. So would the death of animals be a fair price to pay for the total eradication of the common cold?
Click to expand...

Anyone with a poor immune system (the elderly, babies, people with certain disorders/deficiencies) has a chance of being killed by the common cold. Furthermore, a cure discovered in this country would immediately catch on worldwide, saving millions of lives in poorer countries.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Anyone with a poor immune system (the elderly, babies, people with certain disorders/deficiencies) has a chance of being killed by the common cold. Furthermore, a cure discovered in this country would immediately catch on worldwide, saving millions of lives in poorer countries.
Click to expand...

I think most diseases can kill you so this discussion is sort of irrelevant although you are right.

The question I'm posing to you and EVERYONE READING THIS is would the death of animals through animal testing be worth the eradication of a disease that is very common world wide and can make you ill but does not kill you?
 
ThatThereSaintsFan said:
I think most diseases can kill you so this discussion is sort of irrelevant although you are right.

The question I'm posing to you and EVERYONE READING THIS is would the death of animals through animal testing be worth the eradication of a disease that is very common world wide and can make you ill but does not kill you?
Click to expand...

Name such a disease that cannot kill.
 
All diseases can kill you tho, it all depends on the pontency of the strain and the health of the individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back