Opinions on animal testing

[rickolasnice]

^ Wasn't that just for cosmetics?

Using animals to test cosmetics is just wrong all round.

 

[Spoo]

We use animals for utilitarian purposes; going ahead with testing because of the virtue "benefiting us." There is no better way to justify killing and torturing animals. Im not a "just-theory" ethicist.

 

[rickolasnice]

They still share in the same human dignity as the rest of us

They shouldn't be.

Regarding cosmetics - My answer is the same. There are people who've been horribly disfigured, either because of genetics, or accidents, or an attack. These people are human persons too, their suffering is just as real, they also deserve to have products that are known to be safe.

People don't need cosmetics. If people want to wear make-up then there are plenty of products already available.. or new ones should come with a little warning: May cause blindness, hairloss, cancer, death, etc etc and the choice of whether or not to take it should be on the person.. not an animal.

 

[ebola?]

Medical and scientific animal test seems like a necessary evil, albeit one WAY more justified than factory farming.

And by vegan, I hope you mean ones that also avoid taking any sort of pharmaceutical treatments, and also would have a DNR on their person in case they need to be intubated or have surgery, since those skills are frequently honed on animals.

They would need also eschew use of computers for animal products are typically used in their manufacture, so none of them are here to talk to us. (so clearly, veganism is an ideal to strive for, not a black-and-white categorical schema).

ebola

 

[HarrytheHead]

If it will save human lives, maybe even a family member of yours.. Wouldn't you support it?

 

[Perpetual Indulgence]

^Nope.

People should be able to volunteer for clinical trials to test the REAL thing. I was dying of a disease I would rather have therapies tested on me so other people may possibly benefit.

I pay attention to labels. The products I buy do not use animal testing nor have animal based products within them.

 

[rangrz]

^

What about those things which, for a variety of reasons, can't be tested on people? Trauma resuscitation? You can't just grab people off the street and shoot them 5 times in the chest and try new things to fix it and hope it works. As I mentioned before, stuff that is highly dependent on genetics and which requires a controlled lineage to work with (most immunological research is like that)

You should know what sorts of research are required for various products and procedures and the infeasibility of them using humans, given your education/profession PI.

 

[Perpetual Indulgence]

I am taking about clinical trials for diseases, silly not trauma.

 

[shimazu]

non-issue tbh

animals are raised to die all the time how is this any different?

 

[rangrz]

I am taking about clinical trials for diseases, silly not trauma.

Fair enough. I'd like to see more human testing, as animal models are not always perfect, but I think they're still going to be the bread and butter.

 

[ebola?]

non-issue tbh

animals are raised to die all the time how is this any different?

People who oppose animal testing generally also oppose factory farming (or more often, animal husbandry in general).

ebola

 

[shimazu]

well there's like a billion plus farmers who'd disagree with that

 

[ebola?]

There are a billion-plus farmers who oppose animal testing?

ebola