The ethics of animal testing.

[maiforpeace]

If the criteria for choosing animals suitable for testing is based around sentience and the ability to feel pain or suffering, could animals be replaced with people in a permanent vegetative state, people who are brain dead but kept "alive" to be test subjects, or cloned humans genetically modified to never be conscious?

The permanent vegetative state subjects are possibilities, but I imagine they'd be far too rare to cover a significant portion of experimental needs.

Turns out people in a vegetative state can actually sense stimuli; they just can't respond to it:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/1 ... ive-state/

Not all people in a vegetative case...some. And, since we do have this testing equipment, it makes Pappa's question even more relevant...why not extend this testing to humans in a vegetative state?

[Drewish]

I approve of testing on an animal not on the endangered species list. I also approve of testing human subjects though too.

[Cunt]

How could one oppose testing on any voluntary subject?

[Drewish]

How could one oppose testing on any voluntary subject?

Who said anything about voluntary?

[Schneibster]

How should brain surgeons learn their skills?

I don't support torturing anything. But I eat meat. OTOH, I eat free range chicken mostly. And I support laws that regulate the treatment of meat animals; I'm particularly disgusted with the pork industry, and buy from a butcher who buys from a local farm that does the slaughtering themselves and humanely. Not only that but it's better pork than from the grocery store.

Cosmetic testing? I'm uncomfortable with it, but then again I don't use cosmetics. I'd advocate anyone who does insisting that all testing be humane. I'm not in favor of flat-out no animal testing, it's extremism without justification AFAICT, but if it can be done without, why take on the moral hazard?

[Cunt]

How should brain surgeons learn their skills?

I don't support torturing anything. But I eat meat. OTOH, I eat free range chicken mostly. And I support laws that regulate the treatment of meat animals; I'm particularly disgusted with the pork industry, and buy from a butcher who buys from a local farm that does the slaughtering themselves and humanely. Not only that but it's better pork than from the grocery store.

I worked at a facility where in each 7.5h shift, we would kill and slaughter 6500 - 7000 pigs. I worked on 'the fat stand', standing there with three other fellows, ripping the fat from inside the chest wall with my hands (and sometimes with a silk glove). The pigs went by on an overhead rail, freshly split, warm with tastiness, and if one of my mates needed to stretch or something, I would have to pull faster.
Then I switched jobs and turned stomachs. A conveyer would bring all the stomachs to us, we would grab one, hang it on a nail projecting from a board, slice a certain bit of fat off it, and turn it inside-out. This ejected the contents (I think into recovery of some kind) and got the inside out to where the washer could clean the bile, grain and hay off it. Along with the stomachs, the conveyor brought us the only wasted bit of pig - the asshole. Along with a few centimeters of intestine, it was one of the only things which was wasted out of the animals. In fact, during the interview, the chap said "we kill pigs here, and a lot of them. We save everything but the asshole and the squeal."
I used to put some on each finger like morbid puppets and make jokes to my colleagues, or sing songs (see - Adam Sandler - At A Medium Pace). Good times.
Another job I had was to push bins of face meat from the folks trimming them to the packaging room.


What specifically is so bad? I went all through that place and found it to be, generally, much better than 'common wisdom' would have had me believe.

Cosmetic testing? I'm uncomfortable with it, but then again I don't use cosmetics. I'd advocate anyone who does insisting that all testing be humane. I'm not in favor of flat-out no animal testing, it's extremism without justification AFAICT, but if it can be done without, why take on the moral hazard?

One of my daughters is against animal testing. I asked her if she was against ALL animal testing.
She said yes.
I asked her if she was against animal testing for ALL products.
She said yes.
I asked her put herself into the position of a dog product manufacturer. Where should she test her new doggie shampoo?

I am against unnecessary cruelty in general, but I don't expect to be able to paint that line for others.

[Audley Strange]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

Never or whenever we feel like it. Any other standpoint I think is a hypocrisy. You either have issues with the needless suffering of animals or you don't.

Should all new products that come in contact with humans be tested on animals to screen for carcinogens, allergens, etc.?

Yes or no. See above. However On a related point, would you rather the products were tested on the rare great apes or say some thick third generation parasite whose family tree has had dutch elm disease since the 12th Century? If it's the choice between my cat and the 14th starving child of some pig ignorant african teenager, I know what I would choose.

Should there be restrictions on the types of animals used in testing, even if this limits the usefulness of results?

Again either yes or no. Have at it with all our genius and brutality and damn the squeamish, or stop it right now and either abandon it and damn the rapidity of progress, or use prisoners, enemy combatants, radicals and the great unnecessary without pretending they are somehow of a differing order than other animal species.

If the criteria for choosing animals suitable for testing is based around sentience and the ability to feel pain or suffering, could animals be replaced with people in a permanent vegetative state, people who are brain dead but kept "alive" to be test subjects, or cloned humans genetically modified to never be conscious?

A brilliant but elaborate solution. When we have parents selling children to paedophiles or criminal organisations to torture, rape, kill, or cripple to use as beggars, perhaps we should be just be buying up our spares. When we have unrepentant, unstable, violent recidivists and people who ruin economies for their own short term gain, why not leave the animals alone?

If animal testing is acceptable in some or all circumstances, what is the rationale for ranking a human's life/health/beauty above that of an animal?

[/quote]

Ego and vanity mainly, but who's to stop us? Are dogs going to form pressure groups? Are Chimpanzee's going to go to the U.N. to ask for aid? Are rabbits going to mobilise against us?

[Schneibster]

How should brain surgeons learn their skills?

I don't support torturing anything. But I eat meat. OTOH, I eat free range chicken mostly. And I support laws that regulate the treatment of meat animals; I'm particularly disgusted with the pork industry, and buy from a butcher who buys from a local farm that does the slaughtering themselves and humanely. Not only that but it's better pork than from the grocery store.

I worked at a facility where in each 7.5h shift, we would kill and slaughter 6500 - 7000 pigs. I worked on 'the fat stand', standing there with three other fellows, ripping the fat from inside the chest wall with my hands (and sometimes with a silk glove). The pigs went by on an overhead rail, freshly split, warm with tastiness, and if one of my mates needed to stretch or something, I would have to pull faster.
Then I switched jobs and turned stomachs. A conveyer would bring all the stomachs to us, we would grab one, hang it on a nail projecting from a board, slice a certain bit of fat off it, and turn it inside-out. This ejected the contents (I think into recovery of some kind) and got the inside out to where the washer could clean the bile, grain and hay off it. Along with the stomachs, the conveyor brought us the only wasted bit of pig - the asshole. Along with a few centimeters of intestine, it was one of the only things which was wasted out of the animals. In fact, during the interview, the chap said "we kill pigs here, and a lot of them. We save everything but the asshole and the squeal."
I used to put some on each finger like morbid puppets and make jokes to my colleagues, or sing songs (see - Adam Sandler - At A Medium Pace). Good times.
Another job I had was to push bins of face meat from the folks trimming them to the packaging room.


What specifically is so bad? I went all through that place and found it to be, generally, much better than 'common wisdom' would have had me believe.

The problems are before that. Both Hormel and Smithfield, the two largest operations, have been fined for mistreatment in the last five years. Some farms are run factory-style, with the animals not allowed freedom. This is against the law in the US, and they get around it by moving their farms to Mexico.

There are additional problems with the way the waste from the farms is handled, but this thread is about animal cruelty.

I am against unnecessary cruelty in general, but I don't expect to be able to paint that line for others.

Yep. That's the difference between morals and ethics.

[Schneibster]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

Never or whenever we feel like it. Any other standpoint I think is a hypocrisy. You either have issues with the needless suffering of animals or you don't.

You haven't thought it through. What should dog shampoo be tested on?

Think more clearly.

Excellent point, Cunt.

[Cunt]

Dogmas are for sissies

[Schneibster]

Ethics are for adults, he agreed.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I used to deliver lab animals for a firm called Charles River for a living. Thousands and thousands of them. Mostly mice and rats, a good number of rabbits and some guinea pigs (- I wouldn't deliver dogs, cats or monkeys).
I did the job for a few years (having to negotiate crowds of angry protesters outside labs occasionally) and during that time I never managed to come to any definite conclusion as to whether vivisection was right or wrong. - Though it did cause me a certain amount of guilt and regret.
The only aspect I could say was wrong with certainty in my own mind would be the use of animals to test cosmetics, etc.

[Cunt]

Is that because cosmetics are used for helping burn victims to feel less deformed?

None of it is simple...I just try to make good decisions when they are mine to make. I think this is good enough (even if it is 'some scientist' doing it)

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Is that because cosmetics are used for helping burn victims to feel less deformed?

None of it is simple...I just try to make good decisions when they are mine to make. I think this is good enough (even if it is 'some scientist' doing it)

That's not actually an aspect that I'd considered before.
I guess what I was referring to was the beauty/vanity industry which has demonstrated the ability to develop so-called cruelty free cosmetics - even if it is done on the back of previous animal research.

And no, none of it is simple. It's something we each have to deal with in our own minds.

[Schneibster]

That's two good schneibs on the same thread, Cunt. You're having a good day.