animal testing wrong or not

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

what do you think of animal testing

wrong
14
74%
fine
5
26%
 
Total votes : 19

Postby happy_go_lucky » Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:51 pm

im alright with animal testing in certain areas medicine thats about it i dont like it for things like cosmetics purley corporate stuff the medical benefits out way the moral problems with it for me we have to test drugs somewhere and the glow in the dark pig was to test genetic engineering it was incorporating phloresent jelly fish genes into the pig its to futher things like advancments in genetic cures and ways to manipulate and incoporate genes
happy_go_lucky
Super Poster
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:39 am

Postby C » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:00 pm

I agree with Vicky.

While I don't like the thought of animal testing for cosmetic purposes I believe it is fine - if not good - to use it for medical reasons.

Like it or lump it we are not all equal. There are quite a few people who could easily kill or throw out the window a spider sitting in their bath tub, only a sick few who would do that to a baby.

Vicky is right, people who believe animal testing is wrong in all cases are valuing the life of animals over humans. In fact, people who do work in animal testing - some of whom are potentially trying to save millions of human lives have been verbally and physically abused by so called 'animal rights' protestors.

Most people eat meat and/or wear leather, and/or have vaccinees and take medicine that has previously been tested on animals. How many people reading this can honestly say that they do none of the above? One would hope that any person, if they had to make a choice, would rather see a rat die than a child. One would hope...
C
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 11:21 am
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Postby invisifish » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:04 pm

i think animal testing is wrong, it is crul and has inacured results.
invisifish
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: East Sussex

Postby parnassus » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:16 pm

Amy, not all animal testing is invasive. Some of it involves building tree-houses in the jungle and just watching orang-utans going about their business. How is that cruel?

There are much more invasive procedures than that being used, but unpleasant as they are, they do produce accurate results. As I have already said, the shelves in the chemists' shops would be empty if they didn't.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:46 am

parnassus wrote:
Has anyone listened to the news reacently?

These 6 men were given this drug that was being tested.
This Drug Has been tested on animals. all the animals are fine.
Two of the men that were given this drug are now in a critical condition and the other 4 are seriously ill, as a result of the drug.

Animals are not people - What is the point of animal testing if when they finally find something that cures the animals but then makes people critically ill??


Sorry, ChocFC; I didn't see this post. But I have already responded to this idea. Next time you go into your local pharmacy, take a look at all the thousands of different kinds of medicine that it stocks. The vast bulk of those will have been tested on animals and then checked against people. All of them - all those thousands of medicines - have been proven safe. Now, no one has ever claimed animal testing to be foolproof. Occasionally a scientist may discover a drug that cures a sheep but doesn't cure a human being. But that is one drug out of literally thousands of drugs. Such cases are extremely rare. If they were common, we wouldn't have thousands of medicines on the pharmacy shelves. We would have about six, if that.

Secondly, I have found the news article that you're referring to...and there is no mention of animals anywhere in the report. By the sounds of things, that drug was tested directly on the people.


No. It is illegal to test on people without testing on animals first. There were a great many articles on the subject in the papers, and I found one which outlined the normal process which all drugs must go through begfore they can be released. First they are tested on animals, then healthy volunteers, then they are given in trials to people who have whatever disease the drugs are supposed to treat. Then the National Institute for Clinical Institute (NICE) decides whether or not to approve the drug. I can't find this article.

However, incidents like this are very rare. Thousands of drugs are tested each year, and this is the first time there ahs been severe, unpredicted reaction in humans which didn't occur in animals. It may not even have been because of the drug itself - some people have suggested it was because the wrong dose was administered. Nobody quite know what happenned.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby Goldenhamster » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:14 am

My Dad or my sister could be dead if it weren't for animal testing, as my Dad has to take asthma medicine daily, and my sister must always carry an inhaler in case of an asthma attack. Asthma drugs were tested on animals.

I think that medical testing, however unpleasant, is necessary, but would agree that alternative measures should be found to test cosmetics.
You don't have to be dyspraxic to be exeptional

But it helps!
Goldenhamster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby Goldenhamster » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:16 am

the only mention of animal testing I found about the incident in which 6 men became seriously ill as a result of drug testing, was the news that one dog who had been given it had died, but the scientists had written it off as a freak result and went ahead with testing the drug on humans.
You don't have to be dyspraxic to be exeptional

But it helps!
Goldenhamster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:38 pm

Postby Katielauren2001 » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:40 pm

I'm disgusted that some people thought it was fine it is absolutley horrific to do this to animals
Katielauren2001
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Scotland

Previous

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron