|
U-Know! Forum » anti-vivisectionists on medication? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Sep 07, 2005, 14:34
|
||
Erm, based on the research I've read about, and on the testimonies of people who've workied in animal labs, I'm not convinced that statement was as sweeping as some of us would like to believe. If anyone can prove me wrong, though, I'm happy to listen.
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Sep 07, 2005, 22:53
|
||
|
I never understand the logic behind this question. As has been stated, all pharmaceuticals are tested on animals, whether we like it or not. Then they are tested on humans. Do you avoid all medicines that have been tested on humans? What about all of the experiments, and testing of drugs, which have been done on humans without their consent? Presumably, you believe we should shun any knowledge obtained that way. If not, then why not?
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Sep 07, 2005, 23:02
|
||
|
>Then they are tested on humans Humans are animals too... (Sorry, I know, that's pedantry overload...) If you find drug testing on non-humans distasteful, where do you draw the line? Is testing on vat-grown tissue distasteful? Is testing on invertebrates distasteful? There's a whole spectrum of shades of grey, not just B&W
|
|||
|
Hob 4033 posts |
Sep 07, 2005, 23:17
|
||
|
'Ello BSSMS, Are you drawing a distinction between vivisection and dissection? 'Cos the former seems far nastier than the latter, and in my ideal world, would not be required at all, at least not without consent. I'm a fairly lefty-liberal veggie type of fella, and am not fantastically keen on the idea of un-necessary suffering, be it by human or animal. So it's got to depend on the amount of suffering involved. I'd hope there could be some kind of balance struck, where the over-riding intention of those doing the research/vivisection is to minimise suffering, not to maximise profit. To illustrate: I don't think it's too hard to sympathise with parents who are happy to have anti-epileptic drugs used on their kids,despite the fact that the testing of these drugs will have required a fair few animals to suffer, hopefully so that a greater number of humans will not. However, does erectile dysfunction in human males result in a degree of suffering so great that it warrants the consequent suffering of the number of animals that will have died to 'prove' that Viagra is safe? Or to put it another way, is the amount of profit gleaned from the cumulative suffering of all the animals used to test anti-epileptics made more palatable by the number of fits that are avoided as a result? Hope that tries to answer your question in some manner, however vague. Regards, Hob PS: Nationalise the pharmaceutical industries and turn the profits over to the NHS.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 00:18
|
||
|
>> PS: Nationalise the pharmaceutical industries and turn the profits over to the NHS. Nah. Nationalise the pharmaceutical industry and make it profit free!!!!!!!! As for the original question: I used to be a big AV protestor, but one major thing made me think again. The death of my wife in her early 30s. Perspective. I still try to use products that have not been tested on animals and desperately try not to use those that are still being tested. Like Hob said, I now believe there are levels. Drugs such as viagra do not warrant the pain and suffering. It's a case of weighing up whether the ends justify the means and that certainly isn't a B&W issue.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 00:22
|
||
In all my years of ... erm ... visiting such establishments I never saw one that treated its animals 'properly'.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 07:01
|
||
|
"It's a case of weighing up whether the ends justify the means and that certainly isn't a B&W issue." Exactly. And no, BSSM Steiner, you're not in the wrong place to discuss it. But any of us stating it in black and white terms isn't helpful. "All animal testing is wrong, end of story" is a personal choice, not something that the rest of society "ought" to believe or need feel guilty about not living by. A line has to be drawn between "useful" and "revolting". But where? Personal choice I'm afraid. I'm alive because of animal testing - and damn grateful and not guilty (though I might be if i knew the details - but would I have refused treatment if I'd known them? I doubt it.) Strict controls to restrict suffering to the minimum necessary, yes. Whatever that means. But wrong? Who has the right to say that? If people are going to say SOCIETY as a whole shouldn't benefit from testing they oughtn't to make reference to what THEIR choice is, but should apply the "child test": me, I'd happily club a million bunnies to save my child. The law should proscribe my clubbing to the least revolting possible, but prohibit me? Naah.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 08:13
|
||
|
"I'd happily club a million bunnies to save my child." Whatabout juvenile chimps? Would ya club a million of them? Only semi-joking Nigel. And I do too believe it all comes down to personal choice. I used an anti-inflammatory drug for 2 years because I couldn't walk without it, and I could see that if I used it then I would be able to restore my ability and maybe see the other side of the pain. This was in tandem with a host of natural treatments and diet, but not one thing alone could hve been as effective as all combined. The point is, would I have chosen differently if I'd known they'd kneecapped chimpanzees to test? Answer - I can't say with certainty. I think I would have tried everything else (being a human testing zone meself) and found something natural that worked - and then campaigned against testing diclofenac on animals. Then promote the natural remedy. Every case is different I know. If we could find a drug that would cure my wife and then found it was tested on dogs, she says she wouldn't take it. I can only admire such integrity. I would of course slip pills in her mouth as she slept. Its a sticky issue for sure.
|
|||
|
cammyb 62 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 08:17
|
||
Like nigelswift, I'm also here thanks to the wonders of animal tested drugs. Do I feel guilty? Not one bit.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2005, 08:33
|
||
|
Whatabout juvenile chimps? Would ya club a million of them? Actually, probably not. My genes wouldn't let me. Us and ours first, others later. I'm pre-programmed to recognise baby chimps as us and ours I spose. I'd kick dolphins though, which is wierd, as they're just as smart. Let's face it, we're all just a pre-programmed mess, quite unfitted to make moral or logical choices...
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
