The ethics of animal testing.

[Animavore]

I get the impression that anti-vivisectionists still believe we rub bleach into rabbits eyes, make chimps smoke Bensons & force beagles to eat Mars Bars until their teeth rot. For kicks.

I'd rather not die in agony from some germs, i'd rather trail some medicines on Mr Flopsy.

Funny spelling error is funny

[Ironclad]

When I say, Mr Flopsy, I am not talking about my lunch-box. Just to clear that up.

[Ironclad]

I get the impression that anti-vivisectionists still believe we rub bleach into rabbits eyes, make chimps smoke Bensons & force beagles to eat Mars Bars until their teeth rot. For kicks.

I'd rather not die in agony from some germs, i'd rather trail trial some medicines on Mr Flopsy.

Funny spelling error is funny

Get bent..

[Cunt]

Test whatever we want on animals, and lets keep a bit of an eye on our neighbours. I can't put general rules out (except that terrorists like ALF should be treated as such) but I can describe specifics.

Our town has an SPCA trying to build a facility to shelter strays. They fought for, and won 300,000 bucks from a promotion and celebrated.
The city gave them a sweetheart deal on land.
More good news.

They now need over 800,000 bucks to build what they 'need'. I have every confidence that the amount will keep growing until 'donor fatigue' is reached.

But they are not talking about how many animals they will kill, and how they are going to do it.

A disgusting, difficult job around caring for animals is sometimes killing them. When this fact is not acknowledged rationally, you know you have an important lack present.

As it is, they will build a larger and larger shelter, and it will (of course) fill up and stay filled as long as there are loving, wide-eyed employees and volunteers who just couldn't stand to see a stray suffer without shelter and food.

I would prefer some farm ethics appear in that organization before I would support it.

[Atheist-Lite]

I can't say much having eaten mr floppy on occasion. Nice as a stew with mushrooms. Ask Frodo?

[normal]

I mostly think that testing should be done on animals that aren't cute

[Animavore]

I mostly think that testing should be done on animals that aren't cute

Into the ravine ravine with them

[Warren Dew]

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF.

I agree.

Cats, on the other hand, should be sacrosanct.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We have to test on animals cos we're not allowed to test on Jews anymore.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's obvious that animals aren't passing tests mainly because the tests are species-biased.

[hadespussercats]

Sometimes the most honest thing to say is I am uncertain. I am with this issue. The thought of any unnecessary suffering for animals turns my stomach, but then so does the thought of a child suffering and being killed by leukaemia for which a cure might be found by testing it on animals. At one time I would have said the cost was easily worth it. Now I am not so sure.

The anti-testers do say that the vast majority of testing can be done without the use of animals. I don't know if that is the case as I have not read the arguments in detail, however if that is the case then surely we should put as much effort as possible into developing those systems and testing regimes.

+1

I'm also wondering, since we can grow tissues and meat in labs, if we can grow stuff to test on. Grow stuff that can't feel pain.

But then, we won't learn much about pain if we do that. And some might say, "Why not just breed animals and then damage the pain centers in their brains before testing? Wouldn't that be cheaper, and lead to a more thorough, relible experiment, what with all the unknown variables of interacting systems and tissues that we can't necessarily simulate well in virtual form..."

And I don't know what to say, other than the woodgie answer that it makes me uncomfortable, but less uncomfortable than testing on humans, or just resigning ourselves to not developing new treatments, because they're dangerous when they aren't thoroughly tested...

Wodgie woodge woodge...

[Cunt]

Why the hell NOT test on humans? At least humans can consent (Marie FUCKING Curie bitches!) to testing.

What kind of world would this be if we only exploited non-human animals?

[Animavore]

We already test on humans.

[Pappa]

Your views on ethics of animal testing simply come down to the ethical dilemma that Ani outlined, just a value judgement.

Personally, I don't think any form of testing that causes suffering to an animal is ever right, even to test drugs that may save millions of lives or reduce pain and suffering in millions of humans. I don't think the simple act of balancing the suffering of the humans against the suffering of the animals is the correct way of looking at it. Every creature dies. Every creature experiences pain, suffering and discomfort from illness and injury. We except death as an inevitable part of life, yet are willing to subject non-human animals to suffering in order to extend our own lives (or just prettify ourselves). I don't think extending a person's life by one year (or five years or ten years) is valid justification for breeding animals to be kept in labs and used to test experimental drugs.

How about if we could rid humans permanently of all disease, but only if every mammal on the planet were subject to lifelong torture? A ridiculous hypothetical, I know, but the same principle is involved.

I could be accused of hypocrisy because I have used (and continue to use) drugs that have saved my life that were tested on animals... but I had no choice in whether they were tested on animals and I can't see my self turning down a drug that exists if the testing was done because it was required by law. I'd still take it if it hadn't been tested on animals.

I could also be accused of hypocrisy because I eat meat. I don't have to. I could be happy and healthy without it. I choose to eat meat and I try to only consume meat that comes from animals that were treated humanely in life and were subjected to minimal suffering at the point of death. I do however forget all of this when I walk into KFC and order some chicken, etc.. That's due to laxness on my part.

Most of the alternatives to animal testing are currently not that great, but then so are a lot of animal tests too (to a lesser extent). Alternatives tend to test for specific reactions, like effects on liver tissue, etc., rather than effects on the whole organism. They are improving though. I would prefer to see no testing done on animals, and alternatives used exclusively. If this means drugs take 5 times longer to come to market or occasionally have unexpected side-effects when tested on humans, then I think that's a fair trade off.

[Animavore]

It should be noted that animal testing is decreasing anyway due to modern methods. It sometimes looks like some of these animal rights people, especially the lunatic fringes, think that scientists test on animals for fun but the reality is it's scientists who are doing the most to lessen animal suffering by developing humane approaches while activists go out and protest which is akin to doing nothing (or praying) and go home feeling smug and happy believing they have furthered their 'cause'.
And I wouldn't worry about hypocrisy. PETA is rife with it. Even the silly cow who runs it uses insulin tested on animals. Her excuse - "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals. " LOL!