OT Is animal testing right?

I'd like to agree, years ago I would have.
But life is life, what right do we have to inflict these test on any other human or animal?
If the people that wronged society chose to have drugs tested on them that's their call but we do not have the right to force the test on them.
`****'s` are usually victims themselves, Murderers have many different reason for murdering. Rapists should be left to rot

 

Are you suggesting that we don't test medicine on animals at all? In the short term it seems a green and compassionate view, but in the long term I'm pretty sure you're allowing people to die who could otherwise be cured.

 

SaintsFanAlex

Please answer the question:

If you were driving along in your car and an animal ran into the road and the only thing to do to avoid running over the animal would be a head on collision with another car what would you do?

 

Well this could run and run couldn't it. A controversial issue where different rights compete with each other. Also an opportunity for beer-soaked folk to go over the top and get the thread closed. Please play nicely!

For what it's worth, my view is that animal experiments are a necessary evil. I cannot understand someone who would rather that initial testing on drugs would be done on a human rather that an animal. Perhaps that's the beer talking?

 

I haven't touched a drop of beer and what does play nicely mean?

Besides the poll question does not make sense.

I think it should be "Is medicine testing on animals right?" to which the answer is it depends and cannot be either yes or no.

Also I have asked an important philisophical question:

If you were driving along in your car and an animal ran into the road and the only thing to do to avoid running over the animal would be a head on collision with another car what would you do?

and I deserve an answer.

What would other posters do?

This whole question is very important as it is about whether you value a human life over an animal's life.

 

You are a bit demanding about answering your question. No beer, but I see you didn't mention spirits!

For the record, your question is hardly a difficult one to answer. Rather the animal gets it than I do.

 

You hit the animal, obviously, but you do present an impossible hypothetical situation whereby the person involved is capable of knowing for sure that these are the only two possible outcomes. A person could never know that for sure.

 

I agree that the circumstance is artificial as in an emergency situation, I suppose it depends upon you being able to see the two choices in the same split second. I am sure that people have died whilst trying to avoid animals on the road, but not as a choice, rather as a reflex change of path to avoid hitting the animal and ending up in the opposite carriageway. Perhaps a more interesting scenario might be, banning animal experiments would cost an extra 10 years of research before we found a cure for, say, cancer but we would get the cure in the end. Would it be better to just accept that many, many more people would die because we wanted to respect animal rights? My choice would be no, let's get the cure as soon as possible. Just my opinion, but once we have the cure we could save millions of human lives for the sake of a few dozen animals. No contest.

 

I shall be tucking into an animal sandwich for lunch and for dinner roasted animal with vegetables.

Whilst we continue to kill animals for food I have no issue with us using animals to make advances in medicine and science.

 

I once ran over a wild rabbit that jumed out into the road and it left me feeling bad for days. I am a compassionate man and wouldn't want to hurt any animal or person.

I totally disapprove of animal testing associated with the cosmetics industry but do approve of testing medicines that may mean we sacrifice a few animals for the sake of many human lives.

 

In the benefit of mankind overall I have voted yes.

 

No. The only species which can reliably mimic the human response to a medicine, cosmetic, cigarette, or anything else, is a human. I have been a paid volunteer testing the safety of new medicines, and this is the only ethical and scientific way.

 

If you are so concerned about animal welfare perhaps you should focus your energy on the shooting industry in this country.

I stopped the other day for a pheasant while driving in north Hampshire and as it walked away I thought I stopped to save it's life as I am caring and compassionate and no doubt in a few days time someone with loads of money and no brains is going to blast it out of the sky with shotgun pellets where the chance of a clean kill is remote.

So if you need a cause there is one for you.

I will still defend medical research involving animals if it leads to saving human life.

We will just have to agree to differ.

 

i just dont agree with testing for **** like cosmetics, which is pointless. But other things are wrong too. I remember hearing of one where they had a kind of ring round this monkeys head and it slowly drilled nails into the monkeys skull, was a horrible image

 

Most people will usually say fellow man over animal in this context, however it gets more complex when we say human over ecosystem. For example, some of the poorest people on the planet are at constant war with nature. Few would be begrudge them a living but as their populations explode the local ecosystem degrades under the strain. This is happening around the world in mangroves/rainforests etc. many of these places have incredible biodiversity and many people believe that many of the plants and animals found here could provide drugs and medicines to cure many more than the local population.

 

True. There are projects that help to empower people in certain areas where they work with scientists (helping with there extensive local knowledge of plants and animal species) whilst simultaneously helping to protect areas very rich in Biodiversity. Mixed in with this I beleive are quotas, that enable indigenous people to also live off the forest in a sustainable way. These are however complex, and involve a lot of stakeholders. I know these exist in Nicaragua and the Amazon region, of which there was a good example in the excellent Bruce Parry series (Amazon?). Interesting stuff ecology, its all such an intricate web. Gotta try and keep the lungs of the earth in as good order as possible.

 

Sorry Godders after posting my thoughts I went out to indulge in far to many beers.

In answer to your question of course I would hit the animal over the human but this is because if a human is walking the streets generally I think they would be a decent law abiding citizen.

But given the choice on testing on a innocent animal or some of the scum who are leading a cushty life in prison after committing awful crimes I would chose them any day.

 

I can understand it and think it is justified for medicinal benefits.

Cosmetics? No, not right at all.

 

Yes but that medicine has firstly been tested on animals. The medicine has to be proved to a standard were they feel it is safe for human testing. It is many months if not years of testing on animals before companies are allowed to test on humans.

Obviously in many cases they aren't and symptoms can occur, maybe even death. But that's because the companies wouldn't know how the medicine would 100% work on humans . Then you have the different factors of allergies etc then can also course reactions.

 

Is there a medicine that can cure a sick skate?