Political Crossfire Forums

[Stygma]

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: Wolverine wrote: revolution_reversal wrote: some concerns:

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/AnimalModels_SCI.html
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Comment%20NRC.html
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/2042302.htm
http://www.stopeuchemicaltests.com/sci.html
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/eands.html#2.
You will have to summarize those. :wink:

Then explain how a ban on animal testing won't cripple the medical fields.

Has banning drug testing on criminals crippled the medical fields? What about banning human testing in psychology? Has the field of psychology seen irreversible damage?

We banned testing that on people, not animals. People have rights, remember. People can reason.

[Pzatchok]

Actually the psycological testing on humans has not been outlawed.

But it is VERY hard to do properly because the patients/subjects often find out and then that ruins the test.

[Kumar]

revolution_reversal wrote:
Did the person give their consent?
If a person would like to be exposed to an untested drug, I certainly have no problem with it. I just don't expect to pay for any of the ensuing medical complications. But even then, that's a hypothetical. The fact is that the vast majority of people do not like to take untested pharmaceuticals, and if you want to honor their wishes then testing is necessary anyways. I mean jeez, these substances are developed from theory only. You would not believe how much these drugs are modified based on how animals react to them. Trust me, if these substances were not tested on animals before reaching the market, you would have many, many dead people on your hands.

It is downright irresponsible and dangerous to even consider halting this practice.

Quote: Most of western medicine isn't as effective as advanced sanitation systems, proper hygeine and a balanced diet, and sex education. Have increased funding for all of those and we wouldn't get sick in the first place.
That's completely untrue. These things are certainly vital, but for the purposes of curbing the spread of pathogens. There is no way that these measures will prevent us from becoming ill. And don't forget the diseases with a genetic component, which have nothing to do with the environment.

[Kumar]

revolution_reversal wrote:
Has banning drug testing on criminals crippled the medical fields?
Of course not, because as Wolverine pointed out, this has been substituted with animal testing. Remove that, and perhaps the medical field won't be crippled. Pharmaceutical researchers and doctors will still develop drugs. The change will be that regulation practices will have to be changed and you will have potentially devastating drugs prescribed to you.

Quote: What about banning human testing in psychology? Has the field of psychology seen irreversible damage?
It is still allowed.

Quote: The answers are NO. We can and will find another way. You really think that all these people are just going to give up on curing diseases that can make them billions of dollars? HELL NO!
So what is this other way? What method have you devised to substitute observing effects on actual organisms?

[ieatfood]

I think we should just test on animal rights activists. Why don't they put their body where their mouth is.

i've got a question for all you hippies.

if you had a life threatening disease, would you refuse treatment because the drugs had been tested on animals?

If you wouldn't, then your position is full of sh*t and there's nothing left to discuss.

[Kumar]

ieatfood wrote: I think we should just test on animal rights activists. Why don't they put their body where their mouth is.

i've got a question for all you hippies.

if you had a life threatening disease, would you refuse treatment because the drugs had been tested on animals?

If you wouldn't, then your position is full of sh*t and there's nothing left to discuss.
I agree. I personally think that Ingrid whatever person from PETA would make an excellent lab rat. Easy to feed too--just shove some water and lettuce into her cage thrice a day and all is well.

[jasonireland]

i think its a pointless arguement that people against animal testing should not be allowed to use life saving drugs, or if they do then they are "full of s**t " as Kumar poetically stated. its similar to saying you either be 100% unetical or 100 % ethical ,or like saying you either give to all charities or to none? i mean, can you see the stupidity of his remark?

why do people get so offended when others try to do good for animals?why are people who are fighting for the rights of animals continually persecuted and cross referrenced?why do people react so vehemently when they see others try to do good? is it because they realise their own unethical position? I am asking questions everyone should ask of themselves.

some points i'd like to add....

Cosmetics testing is now banned in the UK and Holland, but continues throughout the rest of the world. Every year, millions of animals are subjected to the most horrifically painful experiments just so people can have a new brand of shampoo or a differently scented perfume.


Tests carried out on animals include:
Eye Irritancy tests - commonly called the Draize test. A substance is applied to the eye of a rabbit to see if irritation or damage ensues. During the test, the animals are given no pain relief, they are held in stocks to prevent them from touching their eyes and the test may last for several days causing great pain and suffering. Rabbits are used because they have very poor tear ducts in their eyes so they cannot wash away the substance.
Skin irritancy test - involves shaving the fur off an animal and applying the test substance to their skin. The skin is then observed for signs of irritation e.g. swelling, reddening, bleeding, cracking or ulceration.
Toxicity tests - such as the LD-50 (Lethal Dose 50%). Substances are fed to the animal and they are observed for signs of poisoning e.g. tremors, bleeding, vomiting or loss of balance. The test may last for several days causing great suffering. Those animals that do not die during the experiment are killed at the end for autopsy.
Many products sold in the UK continue to be tested on animals elsewhere.


Alternative Non-Animal Testing Techniques
Animal testing of cosmetics is entirely unnecessary. Over 8,000 ingredients have already been established as safe and there is no reason why manufacturers need to use any new substances. Where new ingredients are used, the law requires them to be safety tested - this need not involve animal testing. Cruelty-free alternatives such as testing on reconstructed human skin, using computer modelling and enlisting human volunteers are often more reliable than using a different species, with a different biology to test products for human use.

[ieatfood]

jasonireland wrote: i think its a pointless arguement that people against animal testing should not be allowed to use life saving drugs, or if they do then they are "full of s**t " as Kumar poetically stated. its similar to saying you either be 100% unetical or 100 % ethical ,or like saying you either give to all charities or to none? i mean, can you see the stupidity of his remark?


It has to do with hypocrisy--that you claim to have the moral high ground in saying you want to stop testing on animals of drugs that can save other people. But when it comes to your own health, you are glad that we came up with the drug to save your own life.

It's selfish, egotistic, and hypocritical. And anyone who would use a life-saving drug while opposing animal testing of lifesaving drugs is simply a joke. I am glad that no one really takes these people seriously.

[thefranzkafkafront]

If you don't support animal testing, stop using all drugs.

There is no way they could have come into existance without the use of animal models.

[jasonireland]

Quote
jasonireland wrote:
i think its a pointless arguement that people against animal testing should not be allowed to use life saving drugs, or if they do then they are "full of s**t " as Kumar poetically stated. its similar to saying you either be 100% unetical or 100 % ethical ,or like saying you either give to all charities or to none? i mean, can you see the stupidity of his remark?


ieatfood wrote
It has to do with hypocrisy--that you claim to have the moral high ground in saying you want to stop testing on animals of drugs that can save other people. But when it comes to your own health, you are glad that we came up with the drug to save your own life.

It's selfish, egotistic, and hypocritical. And anyone who would use a life-saving drug while opposing animal testing of lifesaving drugs is simply a joke. I am glad that no one really takes these people seriously

Listen, i never claimed to have any moral highground!!!!(is it you that is defending your seemingly moral lowground?) And how can you say when it comes to a personal issue like my own health i would be so blinded , for gods sake i am a vegan , which makes life a little more than inconvienient and i didnt do it just for my own good. Animals are tested on a whole lot of other things other than drugs for life saving procedures. The point i was making ( sorry i was not coherant enough)
is that you CAN be against animal testing in a range of areas , like foods and cosmetics but still think it is needed for life saving situations. sorry i didnt say it properly the first time.