Should we be able to use animals in Pharmaceutical reasearch

[Ihoe]

Should we be able to use animals in Pharmaceutical reasearch

yes...

and no.

 

Yes because there is a high chance that millions of lives can be spared, theories made (BS) and some other things...(sorry, no cure for cancer yet...)

 

 

 

No because there is a high chance that:

 

1- the animal curses you, and you go to hell.

 

of course if you are the torturer... I mean researcher.

 

2- you mis-spell, mis-place, mis-(insert word) something and half the human **cking race dies,

 

holding you responsible, god sends you to hell.

 

3- you accidentally make a chimera that kills half the human **cking race,

 

the result is the same as above.

 

4- n/a

 

5- Q :why use animals when you can use humans?

A:because of several reasons humans can't be used:

 

#no human has a low enough IQ to get him/her self in such situation

#no human, even the so called animal lovers, could accept being experimented on, like the animal.

#they have better things to do.(i don't know 'bout animals...)

 

 

many controversies evolve around these medical searches, researchers and providers... rumor has it, HIV was made by them to earn profit by making a vaccine for it, I say why try to cure, cure-less illnesses this way? take cancer for example, how on earth is cancer supposed to be "cured" by researching on one of these poor basterds?

 

I've seen pictures of hundreds of beagle dogs with their vocal cords severed so they can't bark

 

this animal cruelty thing is getting serious (and animal rights organizations only make short work of donations), i can't imagine that done to a human, too bad these dogs can't think, the only thing that makes me feel good, is knowing that God is watching them testers, so for everything they do, the same is done to them.(Redneck accent)

 

 

*PS

this text is written in plain English so that all people of all ages, taking into account that they have educated to fifth grade, can read.

[Kendo 2]

There is a very simple solution to this. If you oppose pharmaceutical research on animals then you need to step up and volunteer to be a test subject yourself. That would save a lot of lab animals, RIGHT?

[myrmaad]

A better solution is to boycott products that utilize animal testing, including medicines. While you're at it, stop eating meat and wearing leather.

[Pushkatu]

Most of you still don´t get it.

Man is not superior to animals, we just treat them like that, and in a bad way.

 

Lol, I understood that since I was a child. The problem is that some just can't seem to respect this fact.

[Kendo 2]

Well I guess this is bad news for diabetics, as insulin is made from and tested on sheep.

 

Says the doctor, "Sorry Mr. Jones, your child will die from diabetic shock because the sheep have just as many rights as humans do, even though all they have are instincts and no tangible concept of today, tomorrow, yesterday, love, a sense of self, or anything else that would qualify them as being on par with humans. I'm sure it makes you feel better knowing that diabetics are less valuable than the rights of ovines."

 

;)

[ginnyfizz]

It is always a difficult subject, but where do you draw the line? Some of the animal rights campaigners here in the UK have done some truly terrifying and gross things which cannot be justified...like bombs under scientists cars, threats to their families, digging up the corpse of an old lady whose family bred lab guinea pigs and holding it to ransom. Some might say THEY have their priorities wrong.

[myrmaad]

I would draw the line at the boycott.

 

I choose to sometimes eat meat.

 

I choose to wear leather.

 

I choose to make informed decisions about the products I use.

 

I draw the line at common sense.

 

 

Each person should make their own choices, but I'm 100% certain that there are alternatives to business as usual in every case, especially as technology continues to advance and humans supposedly continue to evolve.

[JimboUK]

Well I guess this is bad news for diabetics, as insulin is made from and tested on sheep.

 

Says the doctor, "Sorry Mr. Jones, your child will die from diabetic shock because the sheep have just as many rights as humans do, even though all they have are instincts and no tangible concept of today, tomorrow, yesterday, love, a sense of self, or anything else that would qualify them as being on par with humans. I'm sure it makes you feel better knowing that diabetics are less valuable than the rights of ovines."

 

;)

 

Interesting that you bring up insulin, if we relied on animal testing there would be no insulin because it can cause birth defects in animals. This is the problem with animal testing, we are not the same species and less than 2% of human diseases can be seen in animals. The manufactures of Thalidomide were acquitted in court because experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for humans. Surely we are at a stage now where these barbaric and unscientific practices can be replaced by computer models and tissues grown in labs.

[AlienSlof]

There is a very simple solution to this. If you oppose pharmaceutical research on animals then you need to step up and volunteer to be a test subject yourself. That would save a lot of lab animals, RIGHT?

 

Yes I would, and indeed have done. I've been participating in research on strokes. So yeah. I would.

[ginnyfizz]

Well I guess this is bad news for diabetics, as insulin is made from and tested on sheep.

 

Says the doctor, "Sorry Mr. Jones, your child will die from diabetic shock because the sheep have just as many rights as humans do, even though all they have are instincts and no tangible concept of today, tomorrow, yesterday, love, a sense of self, or anything else that would qualify them as being on par with humans. I'm sure it makes you feel better knowing that diabetics are less valuable than the rights of ovines."

 

;)

 

Interesting that you bring up insulin, if we relied on animal testing there would be no insulin because it can cause birth defects in animals. This is the problem with animal testing, we are not the same species and less than 2% of human diseases can be seen in animals. The manufactures of Thalidomide were acquitted in court because experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for humans. Surely we are at a stage now where these barbaric and unscientific practices can be replaced by computer models and tissues grown in labs.

 

Sorry, it is wrong to say that there would be no insulin if we relied on animal testing. Banting and Best copped Nobel Prizes for their research...on dogs

 

Discovery of Insulin

 

When I was doing my Law Degree, my thesis was on the legal aspects of birth defects in children, so I am well aware of the Thalidomide issue as it was one of my main sources for said thesis. And I am therefore well aware that the results of animal testing are not always 100% reliable. But you can say the same for computer models and tissue cultures. I'm sorry, but it's true, I looked at that as well.

 

It's very easy to condemn ALL animal testing, until either you or someone close to you has to use certain drugs to survive or to make their life worth living. My Dad had throat cancer and during his laryngectomy they found the thyroid was affected and took that away too. So should he just go away and die because the thyroxine he takes is animal derived? I have to take meds to survive, and I have to admit, I don't ask how they were tested. But at the same time, I would refuse to take HRT for menopausal symptoms (yes I am getting to be that age....) unless it was plant derived - as it's non-essential. I long ago refused to use cosmetics and detergents tested on animals.

 

It's all a question of balance.