No Animal Testing:Relinquishing your right to have care aided by animal testing.

Given a form would you sign it ?.

Antibiotics, anaesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukaemia and high blood pressure... these are just some of the major medical advances that have depended on the use of animals in medical research and testing.


The medical benefits of animal research are a good starting point for the public debate about the use of animals in research and testing. RDS is the UK organisation which represents doctors and scientists in this debate. The information in RDS Online is based on very thorough research and understanding of the facts, historical and scientific. In this debate there are many single issue pressure groups seeking to abolish animal research completely and immediately. But it would be extremely difficult to develop new medical treatments and cures without the use of animals. So animal research must continue if we are to solve serious medical problems like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and malaria. Not all medical research needs to use live animals - useful results are also obtained by using computers, studying cells and tissues, and some studies that are done on patients and human populations. RDS Online puts the research processes in context, to explain when animals need to be used.

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_ToolbarID=8&i_PageID=94

 

Human problems are human problems, period. No matter how "useful" animals are, it isn't our right to use them like that.
So no matter how beneficial you arguue animal testing to be, it doesn't make a difference. You could argue that rape is "beneficial" for procreation, but it's not going to make it ethically okay to do.

 

almost all of those problems are caused by a poor diet and people having polluted overly toxic malfunctioning bodies... they could all be solved easily with a simple live foods diet. were so in denial and were paying for it so much...i used to wonder if meat eaters ever payed for their bad karma cuz it never seemed like it... then after fasting and eating raw foods, interacting with meat eaters gave whole new meaning to the words "living hell" and totally answered that question for me.

 

Do you guys realize how this sanctimonious, holier-than-thou stuff reads for non-veggies?

 

I am not 'argueing' anything i am asking a question

I am a vegeterian by the way, i was just asking a question that neither of you two have answered yet.

'Given a choice [and a form to fill in] would you relinquish your right to have aid [i.e medicines or medical procedures ] that have been tested/tried on animals' .. is that a bit clearer.

 

That would mean pretty much all modern medical care, wouldn't it?

 

I can't comment at this time

 

Yes. Do you realise how your insulting, patronising, arrogant twatishness reads for veggies?

 

It's an entirely pointless question. I could test the cucumber on bunny rabbits to prove that it's safe. Sheould people opposed to animal testing then refrain from eating cucumbers? A much more sensible and pertinent question would be "If you were dying of cancer and your only hope of a cure lay with animal experimentation, would you still oppose vivisection?". To which my personal answer would be a clear "yes". I'd rather slit my wrists than have animals tortured in my name. Of course this entire argument hangs on the rather dubious belief that animal testing actually has any significant scientific value, which of course it doesn't.

 

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. If it bothers you that much, you could always fuck off.

 

No. But am I allowed to answer this? I am not a vegetarian.

 

Your e.g is a little facile Dok', you are missing the point purposely i would imagine.

'Why 'if your dying...' I am talking about any medicines or treatments experimented/tested on animals, no 'life or death' scenarios; just anything medical.

You are more inteligent and logical to dismiss countless papers on the subject to say 'this entire argument hangs on the rather dubious belief that animal testing actually has any significant scientific value, which of course it doesn't'. This is conveniant for your point and it is a cop out. The point of it having any value is not the issue anyway, as the medicine/medical procedure would be 'tainted' by animal experimentation anyway.

I have never read or heard of anti vivsectionists wishing for labels to be slapped on medical equipment or medicines stating 'not tested on animals' .. enlighten me if they have [and i am not being glib].

I don't [even though i am] wish to argue anyway, i was just wondering what peoples thoughts on the matter would be.. I think '"yes". I'd rather slit my wrists than have animals tortured in my name' is quite a strong indication of your POV...thanks

 

Yeah.. you can, if your against vivesection. I thought being in the vegetarian forum, would get more of a response than say in 'america attacks' .

 

We're not back to this old shit are we, Matthew? Where I give an answer that you don't like or doesn't fit with your preconceptions so you accuse me of purposefully missing your point? I think your question is based on a false pretext. It's as simple as that. I'm not 'purposefully missing your point': I'm disagreeing with the logic behind it.

But it's an irrelevant and misleading question. If someone answers "no, I wouldn't use those substances", then they immediately sound like a fanatic or a liar. If someone says "yes, I would" then they sound like a hypocrite. It's just as facile as the old "what if it was your baby or your dog" line of reasoning.

Patronising bullshit. I'm quite widely read on the topic, and I sincerely believe that animal testing has little or no scientific value. Especially in the way it's currently practiced. Which is another reason why I think the original question is misleading and pointless. I really can't be arsed trawling over all the arguments and science behind this, but there are many people who share this view. For example:

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Licensing Board for the State of Illinios, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine: "The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that."

So perhaps now you could stop trying to pass my point of view of as an unintelligent, convenient cop-out just because you don't agree with it.

It's entirely the issue. If a medicine could have been derived through a number of ethical paths of discovery, what would be the point in declining it just because scientists had chosen to test it on animals? Which is another interesting point.... these medicines usually exist already, but are then toxicity tested on animals. So they're arguably already viable before the testing is even undertaken.

That's because there's no such thing as medicines that aren't tested on animals (at least in the UK). All new medicines are legally required to be tested on animals before moving on to human clinical trials.

 

Your not back to making facile points and questioning when some one says so are you.. ?.

I am not trying to catch anybody out .. if it is a misleading irrelevant question, why bother answering it.. ? Thanks for doing so though .

It was not patronising at all.. you said

... Of course this entire argument hangs on the rather dubious belief that animal testing actually has any significant scientific value, which of course it doesn't.

Go read the link and find dozens of doctors who think otherwise.. i was saying your more inteligent [ok reasonable-well i thought i had come to believe so anyway] than to dismiss the facts and say 'wich of course it doesn't'

http://www.abpi.org.uk/press/press_releases_05/050823.asp

Are these delusional fools then ?... If you think otherwise fair enough.

It is only a hypothectical question in the first place... i appreciate the point that medicines are tested for toxicity, you are not forced to take these medicines or undertake these procedures if you don't wish. I am just asking given the oportunity would you choose not too.. thats all.

 

That sentence doesn't make sense. But regardless - you asked a querstion, and I answered it sincerely (all be it in a way that you appear not to like), and then you accuse me of purposefully missing the point. Why can't you just accept that I was attempting to answer your question in my own way without some bizarre ulterior motive? If you don't want answers that you don't agree with, then don't ask the question.

There are plenty of people who find it ridiculous that vivisection should be considered serious science. This is a valid point of view that can be backed up with facts and data. Threfore there's nothing 'unintelligent' about my position - especially since it is one I hold in common with a number of well educated and intelligent people. And let's not forget that you accused my argument of being a 'convenient cop-out', implying that it had no rational basis. It's beyond me why you feel the need to resort to personal insults and jibes in these threads. Why not try and respect other people's point of view? As soon as someone departs from your world-view, you immediately seem to assume that they're being stupid or awkward - just because they don't see things in the same way as you. I responded to your original question politely and clearly. It would be nice if you could show me the same courtesy.

No. They're people with a vested interest in the status quo.

A question that I answered clearly in my own way. But let me clarify further, even though I think the logic behind the question is flawed: it would be foolish to decline a medicine on the basis that it was tested on animals, when it could equally have been arrived at by another means. For example, if a medicine was tested on animals, and a person was to decline it on that basis, if the same medicine was then tested in another way, would the same person then be willing to use it - even though the chemical was in fact identical? Like I said - it's a pointless question. If the medicine involved an ongoing abuse of animals, then that would be another issue. But once a substance exists, it exists, regardless of how it's been tested.

 

oohhh.....my brain hurts now....good points everyone!!!

 

Well calling my thread topic pointless then going on to call it irrelevant and meaningless, kinda hurt my feelings *sniff*. I am not suggesting ulterior motives, merely responding so dismisively. Your actual answer i am not questioning.. Just everything else around it.

I was a little brash i admit.

?? Of course they are

Signatories of the declaration include 3 Nobel laureates, 190 Fellows of the Royal Society and the Medical Royal Colleges and over 250 academic Professors. A further 100 scientists from overseas have signed as well as nearly 100 scientists from industry, bringing the total to over 700, the RDS said in a statement issued today.


This is what i mean Dok' your being unreasonable, just to validate your POV.. i am sorry but you are.

Ok let me clear up a flaw [just for you].. Hypotheticaly speaking, The medicines and medical procedures have been developed as a direct result of testing on animals not tested for toxicity [this will teach me for posting late at night].

 

In fairness, I didn't call your thread pointless. I said I felt the question was pointless. And given that it's a question that I've heard posed many times before by many people (althoug usually vivisectionists I have to say), it certainly wasn't intended as a dig at you. It was an exploration of the thinking behind the question.

What's unreasonable about assuming that people involved in animal experimentation have a vested interest in defending it? That's pretty obvious, surely? But once more, rather than discussing the issue and attempting to understand the other point of view (even if you disagree with it), you resort to being insulting. My point of view is different to yours - that does not make it 'unreasonable'.

But again, these are (hypothetically) substances that could have been discovered any number of ways. Wouldn't it be a bit pointless in this incredibly hypothetical scenario to pretend that they didn't exist?

Let me put the question back to you another way. Say back in the mists of time someone had developed a cure for cancer by torturing little children. Would you suppose we should never use that cure because of the way it had been discovered?