Animal Medical Trials?

Comet,

I respect your view that animal testing is not perfect and it does not always deliver on its promises, no system works flawlessly.

But there have been many medical advances that have been delivered due to animal testing. An example would be asthma treatment.

Drugs that treat asthma include steriods and other chemicals that are muscle relaxants and anti-inflamitory. In a study of the effects of snake venom on mice, the venom contained a strong muscle relaxant, which allowed scientists to develop new and more effective drugs that save thousands of lives.

I think that we all agree that nobel prize winning scientists know what they are talking about? After all if they do not, then who does? In a survey of nobel prize winning scientists, 100% said that animal testing was neccessary for scientific advancement.

I would also like to ask you some questions regarding your points:

1: Do you eat meat? If yes then you concede that you are willing for animals to die for your benefit.

2: Do you agree with certain regimes that have existed in history and today that make use of torture? If no, then what do you think your proposal of testing drugs on prisoners ammounts to, if not torture?

I would also like to ask if you would be willing to make use of animal tested drugs for yourself or a loved one in order to save their life?

Regards
Jordan

well its rather easy to say that ban the animal testing when the issue isent relevant to you. none of your loved ones isent dying to a deiciese that could be only cured by some new drug that still needs testing wheter its safe. Its easy to rally for animal rigths when your doing OK by yourself and no real proplems are bothering. all animal rigth BS is just enterteiment to rich brats out of better doing than weeping after cute furry animals. if the testing would be made to pythons, snails, slugs or sewer vermits, I think the reactions would be lot mellower than it is now whit dogs, rabbits or mouses that can be found on normal homes as well.

And all the real questions behind this issue should be the determing of animal value.

And as for what we should use instead of animals, there are plenty of murderers, rapists, muggers, paedophiles, robbers, joy riders, drunk drivers, burglars, terrorists and all round general scum in our jails to keep the medical research industry going for a few years yet without having to murder one single animal

and then we have obinions like this one to completely fuzzing the issue…but at the same time tooking it back to its roots. So I have a question to you, what makes that single animals life more ‘valuable’ than human life?

Do you personally feel it good, when busted on driwing only little drunken to be tornmented by varios drug tests?

Louise.

Some interesting points spoiled, as ever, by your crusade against anyone who doesn’t meet your own rigid, if diffuse, standards. You have also avoided the issue by not answering Jo’s final question.

“Have you any idea how many drugs have reacted differently in animal tests to what they have on humans?”

No, Louise, I don’t. You have cited one example. Now let’s flip the coin shall we? How many drugs have been tested on animals with no ill effects which have later been found to be beneficial to humans?

“Did the drug cause problems on the various animals it was tested on? No it did not.”

Exactly. With all due respect these men signed consent forms to be part of the experiment. An experiment which they were paid to take part in, therefore I don’t really see your point.

“What about penicillin? If that had been tested on guinea pigs we would never have used it on humans, as it is fatal to guinea pigs.”

But it wasn’t was it? And it has saved millions of lives.

“Insulin produces deformities in mice, rabbits and chickens.”

But it keeps me and thousands of others alive.

“How many potential cures have been lost owing to misleading results of animal experiments.”

Again, how many cures have been found because of animal experimentation? It’s not all about cures anyway. It’s at least partly about developing methods of alleviating symptoms, symptom control and, in some cases, palliative use of drugs.

“How many people have been maimed or killed because of drugs which passed animal “safety” tests?”

Again, by the very same token, how many people have been cured or their conditions, and therefore their lives, made more manageable because of drugs which passed animal testing?

If animals are used in limited numbers for the purpose of providing health benefits for humans, then, much as I dislike it, I accept it. The question you have to ask is whether or not you would rather have animals die and see your loved one live. Personally, I would.

If it is testing on animals for the sake of vanity, cosmetics, animal skins etc, then that should be stopped immediately.

regards
kev35

What with the issue of testing drugs and research on animals is in the news here in the UK at the moment, I was wondering what public opinion was on this? This isn’t just a matter for the UK, so anyone should feel welcome to contribute.

So, is it right to test new drugs on animals?
Is it right to use animals are research tools for the advancement of science?

Now, for my two cents…

I take no personal joy from seeing an animal suffer, and I would like to avoid this if it is at all possible. I think that most people would share this view.

But I must also say that I would be willing to let testing to continue unhindered to prevent human beings from suffering. Animal testing is regarded by scientists as a vital tool that allows new treatments that save peoples lives. How many rabbits or mice is a human life worth?

There is also one last thing I would like to ask anyone who may disagree with animal testing: If your child was terminally ill and only a drug tested on animals could save them, would you be willing to administer it to save your child despite your principles?

You do not know what you are talking about.

Have you any idea how many drugs have reacted differently in animal tests to what they have on humans? Would you encourage a pregnant woman to take Thalidomide? If not, why not? It’s safe on animals so therefore it must be safe on humans, right?

Wrong!! Thalidomide causes severe disabilities in the developing human foetus, but it does no such thing to animals.

What about the recent drug trial in London where several previously healthy men ended up on life support machines. Did the drug cause problems on the various animals it was tested on? No it did not.

What about penicillin? If that had been tested on guinea pigs we would never have used it on humans, as it is fatal to guinea pigs.

Aspirin can be fatal to cats.

Arsenic is poisonous to people but not to rats, mice or sheep.

Insulin produces deformities in mice, rabbits and chickens.

How many potential cures have been lost owing to misleading results of animal experiments.

How many people have been maimed or killed because of drugs which passed animal “safety” tests?

The anti-vivisection movement has by far the strongest argument, they should push it alot more.

(And as for what we should use instead of animals, there are plenty of murderers, rapists, muggers, paedophiles, robbers, joy riders, drunk drivers, burglars, terrorists and all round general scum in our jails to keep the medical research industry going for a few years yet without having to murder one single animal).

You make a fair point there gnome, and I agree that human beings are arrogant creatures and that we should take care of the natural world around us.

But I do believe that human lives should be valued above that of animals.

BuffPuff, I agree 100% with your assertion. If someone is so strongly against animal testing then they would not use products tested on animals. For example, I will not buy the products of firms that I believe conduct their business in an immoral way.

And yet still an ‘animal rights’ spokespaerson on Rado 5 Live last week, when asked whether he would use a drug tested on ani,als his reply was “yes, because all drugs have been tested on animals at some point”….

One could argue that if ‘animal rights’ were such an important issue to this spokesperson, then he should refuse ALL drugs regardless of the pain and discomfort…???

Assumption you’re making Jo is that we are in some way superior to, and more deserving than, other species on this planet. It’s an arrogant position we (human beings) tend to adopt without thinking. But given the way the planet’s going, arguably (although not certainly) as a result of our meddling, I’d say that’s far from a proven assertion.

Would you eat a stoned rabbit?