OT Is animal testing right?

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?

 

Medicine - yes, most of the time.
Shampoo - **** no.

 

medical yes, cosmetics and commercial no

 

Most of the time?

Also the only person to vote so far has gone with "no it's not right" but they've yet to comment?

 

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.

 

In what circumstance would you not agree with it for medical reasons?

 

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.

 

Basically, what Joe 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.

 

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!

 

That's a very good point, so you'd be in favour?

 

The common cold kills people, does it not?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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?

 

Name such a disease that cannot kill.

 

That's not important, it's a question of ethics.

 

All diseases can kill you tho, it all depends on the pontency of the strain and the health of the individual.