animal testing yes or no?

[linnie]

we have a thread similar but I thought perhaps we could have a debate about the rights or wrongs of it based on our personal feelings.

Some feel its ok when it helps a human life do you???
Should it be ok for medical reasons and not for cosmetic reasons?

I would like to hear PERSONAL feelings and lets not attack anyone who doesnt agree with me
( unless they are dam nasty lol )

I have never been in a situation where I have benefited from studies done on animals ( not that I know of anyway)
my moral stand on it is that I dont agree with using animals for any form of testing.

If I was deathly ill and they had an experiment going I would be happy to volunteer myself for the testing.. what would I have to lose

To me all life is precious and should be treated with respect and dignity.
I cant imagine a person taking the scientific stand and using it as an excuse to injure or harm animals.

Cant wait to read the variety of replies

[Cassiepeia]

I'm sure we've had this debate before. http://www.globalpaw.com/thread9153.html

Cass.

[linnie]

yep you are right lol sorry

[xibo]

If any of you have read the thread I started earlier you can probably guess my opinion on this whole thing, but as a side note and something that wasn't mentioned in your previous thread about animal testing; One of the most common procedures done in animal labs is called the "Draize" eye test. This is where a rabbit's eye is swabbed or dripped with a suspected irritant and the results are then used to determine whether a product is safe for human use or not. Again, having read numerous medical reports, some citing information acquired via animal testing, I can say with informed certainty that the results of this test can be easily acquired with equivalent if not more accuracy by doing a cell culture test...also, rabbits don't have tear ducts like humans, so their eyes are different in that way as well. A bill was put forward to ban this test about 5 years ago but many companies disagreed and pushed for dismissal, which was given, and the test is still done today.

Knowing what I know about medicine and research, I know that there are many alternatives to animal testing, the only hitch is that it costs more in some cases and takes more qualified personnel to execute and interpret. Companies have been forced to look into alternative methods of testing their products due to growing concern about the welfare of animals, and many have dismissed animal testing altogether. And good for them. But many have not.

I did my undergrad in neuroscience and took many courses in aniimal behaviour and cognition. Dogs feel pain, dogs have the neural capacity to feel anxiety, become depressed, to live in fear as do cats and even smaller animals such as mice, rats and guinea pigs. The difference between these creatures and humans is that an explanation for what is going on can be explained to us, it can't to them.

One might argue that eating meat is, in itself, condoning animal abuse, which may or may not be true. I'm not a vegetarian, so perhaps I'm a hypocrite. This issue is so crazily convoluted and intensely close to the heart that having a civilized discussion sometimes becomes out of control with passion.

Considering the cognitive ability of dogs, though, and their potential to feel, they shouldn't be kept as anything but special tenants within our homes and our hearts...again...only in my opinion.

[bohemianfey]

I believe that animal testing for cosmetic or retail reasons is completely unacceptable. However, I believe that animal testing for medical and scientific research is just a cold hard fact that we have to face. The thing is that certain potentially harmful things CAN'T be tested on humans, the casualties would be too high and that is of course not acceptable. The scientific world would come to a screeching halt if animal testing was banned. Many of the most important life saving medicines are direct results of animal testing and would have been impossible otherwise. I'm sorry that it's sad and I'm sorry that it's unfair, but the fact of the matter is it's a necessity.

[BellFounder]

For cosmetic reasons absolutely not. Ita appalling that people feel the need to look good so mcuh that they would condone testing make-up on animals. I am very pleased that there are no cosmetic testing labs in the UK.
For medical purposes 100% yes. For a lot of things there are alternatives and these should be used where-ever possible. But you cant study cancer models or disease models on a computer programme. Its just not possible, even the most sophisticated computer cannot simulate cell behaviour as accurately as a real cell.

[She_Wolf]

If it were to save lives of the human race, then I guess it would be ok. But for cosmetics and other related reasons...no no no no no no no no no no times 1000.

[annie_so_pink]

I do NOT support animal testing in any way!

There is a company(that I will not mention the name of) around here that tests their medications on beagles...They purchase the beagles and use them for the first year of their lives and then get rid of them...I guess their is a pogram where people can adopt them afterwards, but there are so many beagles in shelters around here and I think that it is because of that...So, I do not support animal testing in any way!

[AlaskanKristen]

I agree with animal testing for medicinal purposes. We wouldn't have these without animal testing: organ transplants, penicillin, aspirin, vaccines for rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and TB (more not listed), antibiotics, insulin, HIV drugs, cancer treatments, and many more.

I do not agree with animal testing for cosmetic reasons. I don't wear make-up, and, personally, see no point to it.

[RIo&Nickysmommy]

Ive been a nurse for over twenty years and I do not believe in animal testing. Unless the testing is to help animals. Animals are diffrent then people. To test toxicity levels on a mouse or any other animal is stupid in my opionion. Thats why so many medications now get recalled because the studies are not done right. If you want studies to be done right do them on humans who can explain how they feel and tell whats going on. I just dont buy into all this animal testing. Each is seperate. Believe me these lab animalsl are not saving man kind or any of us what they are doing is suffering. With all of our technology and advances in medicine (or so they say) we make a strong medication to fight one bug and Nature finds a way to come back with a stronger one. Check out all the hospitals they have their own infections you get just for staying their. Thats why I personally dont believe in animals testing. No offense to anyone..
Rio&Nickysmommy

[Dobified]

I have trouble with this. I know of a case not that far from where I live. A families dog got loose and picked up by the city pound; who had a contract with the university here to buy dog from them if not claimed in a certain amount of time. The dog and cats go for testing and research at the University.

OK, this family called everywhere looking for their beloved dog. They were told that the dog was NOT at the pound, that is becasue they had inavertently sent the dog to the unversity already, not waited the right amount of days and just sent the dog. After calling and calling around they called the pound back to be told that yes they had had a dog fitting the description there but it had been sent already. The family raced to the unversoty only to find the dog had already been put down. This was a young family with young children.

I do not agree with this at all. I do NOT think that the pound should be able to sell the dogs and cats they pick up for research.

Back to straight animal testing. I do not agree with it for cosmetic reason. There is no need for it.

As for testing for human health. IF the study does good then I am afraid I have no choice but to agree with it. If a monkey can save a human's life from say, cancer or something just as sinister I can't justify NOT agreeing with it.

But as RIo&Nickysmommy said how can it be justified on mouse ? We are not like mice.

I do not know, this is hard one.

That is just my two cents.

[BellFounder]

Originally Posted by Dobified

But as RIo&Nickysmommy said how can it be justified on mouse ? We are not like mice.

We are more like mice than a lot of people would think. Mice are often used to study cancer models. Understanding knock-out genes and tumour suppressor genes is ESSENTIAL in the prevention and treatment of cancer, These are the same or very similar in all mammalian species. Mice are inexpensive to breed (important as you need lots of genetically very similar animals for a study. Cloning is best but breeding several generations of the same family is the next best thing) and make very good case studies making them ideal subjects for testing of cancer models.

[RIo&Nickysmommy]

Well I guess the mice that have been used in the Vioxx situation and so many other medications that have been pulled of the shelves did not have the complete gentetic makeup as humans. True many medication do help and save peoples lives but the pharmacutical companies are not out to cure us otherwise they wouldn't be in business. Their is no money in the cure of disease. I believe case studies and testing should be done on people if the medication is for them and if its for animals then on them. The situation is that its not just mice that have testing done on them its numerous types of animals. I am sure their are exceptions of every situation where one might say they need to test on animals first. Yet I dont see it. The big C word cancer yes all those medication have been tested on animals. Yet I dont see why they tested on animals first since responses are so diffrent from person to person as I am sure it is mouse to mouse. My grand father and my uncle both died of cancer were given many wonderful drugs that Im am sure thousands of animals died from being tested with. And I am sure some lucky humans also lived after taking the medications. No luck in this family. Just my thoughts.
Rio&Nickysmommy

[TazzytheOrpei]

When the day comes that animals live up outside the labs and offer their services to be abused, mistreated, and injected with God only knows what, only then will I believe that testing on any kind of animal is ok. Thats just how I feel about it. Judy

[calgal]

Animal testing is inhumain no matter how you look at it.