Animal testing

[Adam]

When the fuck is this ever ok?

And yeh you can say testing for life-saving drugs etc makes it justifiable, but that is BULLSHIT! there are plenty of human subjects to test on, either willing ones or child-abusing scum who have forfeited their rights anyway. And these guinea pigs are going to offer much more accurate results, as they are human, therefore how can the suffering and deaths of other animals ever be justified ?

also sign this petition

http://nocruelcosmetics.org/

[Osensitive1]

there are plenty of human subjects to test on

That's true.

Seems odd. Thought testing of cosmetics was, for the most part, of the past. There's enough existing data on enough ingredients, it's not considered needed. Then looked and this says it's been banned there for some time, except for botox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals
Also looked up the site for the organizaiton presenting the petition, and their numbers of millions just makes me wonder how it matches up. http://www.eceae.org/

[Osensitive1]

Looked at their site more and those numbers aren't about cosmetics but they still don't add up, unless just missing something.
 http://www.eceae.org/en/the-truth-about-animal-testing/key-facts

[Adam]

what numbers?

[Osensitive1]

The last link says over 12 million. Click the read more on statistics.

[Adam]

that's not just cosmetics tho, that's all experiments

[Osensitive1]

Don't think it's cosmetics at all, since testing has been banned there for some time and import and sale of tested cosmetics banned for the last couple of years. Was just noticing numbers in their statistics don't add up to 12 million and wonder from where that number comes.

[Semicolon]

When the fuck is this ever ok?

And yeh you can say testing for life-saving drugs etc makes it justifiable, but that is BULLSHIT! there are plenty of human subjects to test on, either willing ones or child-abusing scum who have forfeited their rights anyway. And these guinea pigs are going to offer much more accurate results, as they are human, therefore how can the suffering and deaths of other animals ever be justified ?

also sign this petition

http://nocruelcosmetics.org/

Experimental drugs can easily kill people or lead to devastating long-term effects. Even if they consented, testing unknown drugs on human subjects would be unethical. Testing on unwilling prisoners would also be wrong. Prisoners don't forfeit their rights; those rights are denied by the state in the interest of justice and the safety of the populace. They still exist.

[Adam]

Yes I know they don't actually forfeit their rights

I also know drugs can kill

Testing on consenting humans is only unethical in your opinion

Are the current subjects consenting?

[Semicolon]

Yes I know they don't actually forfeit their rights

I also know drugs can kill

Testing on consenting humans is only unethical in your opinion

Are the current subjects consenting?

Can human subjects actually make an informed decision? Most subjects of drug trials aren't doctors; they are people who happen to have a particular condition. I doubt that many of them truly understand how that drug works. Many of them may have incurable diseases, and an experimental drug may be seen as a life raft. They may underestimate the risks in their own minds; offering that life raft may be coercive. Furthermore, because of ethical concerns, a drug company may have to pay for medical treatment of anyone enrolled in a drug trial who gets sick. This can add up to a lot of money quickly. In the current system, animal lives are being used in place of human lives in the early stages of development. This is not perfect; animals do not consent to be subjects. In the end, it's an issue of acceptable losses: is it better to kill animals without consent or humans with consent?

Also, your argument is hypocritical if you eat meat. Drugs and food are both critical for human survival. There are even people who survive without eating meat; some drugs are necessary for certain people to survive. I could argue that eating meat is a selfish luxury.

[renaeden]

I am reading a lot about experiments on animals in my biological psych textbook. Rats, hamsters, cats, monkeys, mice have all been experimented on. They do stuff like remove parts of the brain, stimulate parts of the brain, cause brain damage, get animals addicted to drugs, sever the spinal cord and so on.

Important discoveries have been made but yet I think it is cruel, too.

[midlifeaspie]

Nobody loves animals and defends their rights more than veterinarians, right?

Did you know that it is mandatory in most vet schools to perform at least one surgery for practice on a dog that will not survive.  They do a couple of procedures then euthanize them without waking them up.  This is how every advancement in medicine (both veterinary and human) has come about. 

Do you feed your pets prepackaged food?  To determine that the food has the appropriate ingredients to keep a pet healthy they will feed that food to a sample group of dogs or cats for a few months and then kill them and cut them apart looking for signs of malnutrition, etc.

Humanity exists in its present form for no other reason that its ability to manipulate its environment and use resources to its advantage.  Animals have always been one of the most important resources available.  Animal testing on cosmetics is disgusting because a creature is suffering for somebody's vanity.  Animal testing to discover new surgical techniques, replacement heart valves, life saving drugs, stem cell therapy, etc is crucial to our current way of life.  The alternative is settling for lives filled with pain that end in your mid-forties.

You probably don't even want to consider how many animals died for your headache pills to gain approval.  Before any drug can be tested on people it must first go through at least two rounds of animal testing and all those animals are killed and dissected and analyzed.

[Adam]

Those headache pills can be tested on humans

[Callaway]

Those headache pills can be tested on humans

They are tested on humans, but only after they have been tested on animals first.

[Adam]

I know that

I mean instead