Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Log In to post a reply

80 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Hob
Hob
4033 posts

Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
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.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index