Poll: Morality (Yep, another one)

[Huddo]

So I know there's a lot of morality threads around here, but I thought this one would be interesting to see your opinions on, Escapists. So...

Would you stop the research and development of an important and revolutionary drug that could save many, many lives if you knew there were hundreds of animals that the drug was being tested on?

This question is of course assuming that you have the power to abort the research. And the drug is perfectly legal, and will save millions and millions of lives.

Why do I ask? I'm just curious for your opinions.

 

[El Poncho]

Probably not, however they could test it on the humans that are going to die of whatever they are curing before testing would be done.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

There's no need to test on animals anymore. Your question is phrased is such a way that I would know or at least suspect that the drug would work which means others will too. That's what drug trials are for.

 

[Lilani]

Animal testing is and has always been an integral part of scientific discovery, and we wouldn't have most of what we have today if not for it. So, I'd be all for it.

However with all the people willing to be paid to do that testing, I can understand the diminishing need for it in today's world.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

Its a necessary evil. I voted no.

 

[crudus]

I have no problem with animal or human testing. So no I wouldn't

 

[Swarley]

No, but I'm a strong believer that people > animals.

edit: Now I'm curious, what if this thread had just been "animal testing for medicine: right or wrong" would it have gone in a different direction? The title/question seems to bias toward yes, which really makes it questionable if this is at all showing our morals beyond " people > animals if it will save millions of people"

 

[eggy32]

Of course I'd be fine with it. Drugs have to be tested somehow. I'd like to know why the people who said "no" did so, though.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Nope, we're all just animals and it just so happens that we are the most intelligent and the best predators. What that means is essentially that we rule this planet and we can do whatever the hell we want as a species, after all who will tell us it's wrong?

NOTE: Yes, I do realize this sounds incredibly conceded and arrogant but you really have to think objectively about why the treatment of animals matters. It may seem wrong or cruel, but so too does eating another animal, and we do that all the time.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Lab rats and other animals are born and raised specifically to be used for testing. Its unfortunate that they exist as simple living tissue to test things on but at least they don't have the higher functions of the brain to really be screwed up by their situation. If they were kidnapping animals or using humans (against their will) then I'd get the legal system to kick their asses though. Hopefully human test will begin as soon as possible and volunteers (who know the risk but are willing to accept it a opposed to animals who can't choice) will be used as soon as possible.

 

[Vianyte]

Looking at the big picture, the good far outweighs the bad.

So no

 

[Iron Mal]

If I was to stop the development of a life saving drug then it would have to be for a damn good reason (sadly for animal enthusiests out there, I do not class animal testing as a good reason).

A few animals may be discomforted or even killed, but the number of human lives saved would probably be much greater (and also, we have regulations on how animal testing is carried out, it is humane and ethical).

Which do you think would trouble me more?

Having to bury a few rats and rabbits?

Or having to tell hundreds (maybe even thousands) of people to say their last goodbyes to their loved ones because a few people didn't like the thought of animals in labs?

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm fine with animal testing for medical purposes, so I don't see much of a dilemma.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

No. I'm sure there would be protesters-a-plenty, but the human race is morei mportant to me than any of it's animals.

 

[Gaderael]

Interesting. Over thirty people have answered the poll question, but only 13 (including myself) have bothered to reply.

I myself would say no. An emphatic no. Saving human life is just a tad more important to me then a few hundred lab animals. I mean come on, I eat animals (a lot), so why would I be bothered by animals be humanely tested on to ensure that people get to have their loved ones with them? Cure for cancer at the expense of lab bred animals? Yes please!

 

[Insanum]

Medical testing on animals = a nessicary evil

cosmetic testing on animals = should be outlawed.

End of discussion.

 

[SimuLord]

Medical testing on animals = a nessicary evil

cosmetic testing on animals = should be outlawed.

End of discussion.

Damn it all, ninja'd.

The point as I see it is that it is one thing to sacrifice animals for legitimate human benefit. This may be a moral gray area but it's at least justifiable in light of all the good that can be done.

But testing on animals for nothing more than human vanity and consumerism? Those people can go die in a fire.

 

[samaugsch]

Nope, we're all just animals and it just so happens that we are the most intelligent and the best predators. What that means is essentially that we rule this planet and we can do whatever the hell we want as a species, after all who will tell us it's wrong?

NOTE: Yes, I do realize this sounds incredibly conceded and arrogant but you really have to think objectively about why the treatment of animals matters. It may seem wrong or cruel, but so too does eating another animal, and we do that all the time.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Dags90]

Almost all lab testing animals are from specific genetic stock and are bred to be genetically indistinguishable and are purposely kept in mirroring environments. I have serious doubts into the amount of personal identity each mouse possess in relation to their population. You might as well think of lab animals as clones of clones. The originals are probably generations dead; it's like testing on HeLa cells.

 

[WolfThomas]

No, it's a necessary evil. However testing on animals should be only a brief step in a large overall process that will require strenuous testing on humans.

Testing on animals is not very accurate for working out results in humans, for example pencillin kills hamsters and thalidomide doesn't cause birth defects in rodents but it does in humans. What we can work out however is stuff like the LD50, the dose that kills 50% of the population.