Poll: To What Extent Is Animal Testing Justifiable?

[Khada]

To be ok with the torturing of a fellow sentient being shows a complete lack of empathy. I wonder how many pro-testing people would change their minds if they had to do it themselves. Its the same with eating meat. If everyone had to torture and kill the animal themselves, many, many more people would become vegetarian/vegan. Humans are animals too.

 

[bobmus]

To be ok with the torturing of a fellow sentient being shows a complete lack of empathy. I wonder how many pro-testing people would change their minds if they had to do it themselves. Its the same with eating meat. If everyone had to torture and kill the animal themselves, many, many more people would become vegetarian/vegan. Humans are animals too.

As previously stated, I started this thread because I might end up with the chance to do so myself, but that is not changing my views on how ethical I think such an action is. Also not to wish to prevent the suffering of your fellow man shows more a lack of empathy than the ability to choose between two evils and decide that animal testing is necessary, in my opinion anyway.

 

[khiliani]

experiments on animals are nessesary for medicines. i work in microbiology rather than pharmacology, so when we use animal models we are injecting pathogens into them to test things like antibiotics work and the pathology of the disease. clearly we cant go around injecting people with potentialy leathal diseases, so we use animals, and every time we do it there is an extended paperwork process and an ethics board we have to go through, so trust me, there are no unnessesary animal tests in medicine.

 

[lacktheknack]

Never. And before I get called out for it, it is because animal testing is horribly inaccurate when it comes to human usage. There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

It's still better than nothing at all.

OT: Teaching purposes and medical purposes. because it's better than nothing and potentially life-saving.

 

[solidstatemind]

Woah. This is a thread that has a certain... ticking to it.

Short answer: Teaching and essential medical research, with an onus to make the process as humane as possible. To elaborate on the reasons behind my stance would result in a huge wall of text, and frankly wouldn't likely sway many people from the positions they currently hold, so I'll stick to the TL;DR version.

 

[zehydra]

I think that animal testing for medical purposes is completely justifiable; it's for the same reason we eat them! Survival.

Cosmetics... well we don't really need to test cosmetics on animals for survival. While I don't really have that much of a problem with it, it can't really be justified.

 

[Candidus]

It's still better than nothing at all.

Do you know what it's worse than? Appropriate testing on people.

As much as we use animals, we also ought to use death row inmates and lifers with no realistic hope of getting freedom before death.

 

[OldGus]

I never got why we test things on animals. Maybe because it's easier, and cheaper, to just grab some rabbit and pump it full of drugs but I still doubt just how useful the data is.

Personally, I'd just let them test on Death Row inmates, but them I'm a heartless bastard.

From what I understand one reason is that often the researchers need to try to reproduce the disease or condition or whatever in the test subject(s) in order to then be able to try different ways of alleviating it.

I've never posted before, but this topic is a bit of a personal issue for me, so I felt I should. I suffer from something called Crohn's Disease (an autoimmune disease generally affecting the digestive system). It's a condition for which there has not been much in the way of any sort of medicine up until recently and for which there is still no cure and on top of that what medicines there are for it would not be there if they hadn't managed to finally reproduce the condition in a type of chimpanzee, I believe. So, yeah. It's not really something you can deal with, as without medicine it tends to get to the point where you either have to have some serious and risky surgery (which doesn't always work) or you die.

So those who would like to say it's never okay to test on animals, in a world where we do no such medical research, what would you have those like myself do, with nothing to stand between us and the very real problem of death?

To clarify, my personal stance on the actual poll is that animal testing is ethically right if it can save lives. I do get rather pissed at those who say "Never" because it's essentially a big middle finger to myself and many, many others.

This... Now, this with Sciency-Ethicy dialogue done with whatever voices you feel like (I like one of them to sound like they're still denying that their voice is deeper than it used to be. The other can sound like a stuffy Scottish professor, or whatever. Actually, really, make up your own voices here.)
A:"We have a new disease! We've never seen anything like it before! We need a new medicine!"
B:"But Doctor: There's no medicine for treating anything remotely related to it!"
A:"Dammit, we need to make a new medicine ourselves! Quick! Analyze the factors and symptoms in human patients! Let's find out what we're worki-"
B:"Done! We've actually been working on analyzing it for years. We had to be sure it was a new disease."
A:"Ok, then in the meantime, try something that remotely treats the symptoms on the human patients we have while we have a research-off to create a new compound!"
5 seconds to 5 years later...
B:"We have a new drug!"
A:"Let's try it out!"
B:"But Doctor, you don't mean human testing? This is a completely new, untested substance!"
A:"Dammit, I'm a doctor, not a German doctor!"
B:"...really?"
A:"Yeah, you know... like that Mengele guy."
B:"Ok, so not like Freud then, who also happens to be a German doctor..."
A:"Ok, ok, ok, not a Nazi doctor."
B:"..."
A:"A doctor not named 'Mengele'."
B:"..."
A:"Com'on! What's wrong with that?"
B:"Isn't that getting a little old?"
A:"Its not like I'm mentioning someone from the Dark Ages who tested new surgical techniques on peasants! Its not like I'm mentioning a Stone Age skull-driller!"
B:"Admittedly, yes..."
A:"Mengele is well known! He is the classic example of unethical human testing!"
B:"Yes, but what about that guy who developed the icepick-lobotomy, or Soviet doctors who experimented with hypothermia treatments by purposefully freezing people half to death, or-"
A:"You don't even remember their names!"
B:"Ok, ok, fine. So no human testing."
A:"Not yet. We don't know how dangerous it could be!"
B:"Yeah, we don't know if it could cure the disease, make it worse, or have horrible, horrible side effects. Or even just be an outright poison!"
A:"Yes! And, we also need to test it on the disease! We can't just give people that disease."
B:"And what if it causes cancer or heart disease? We wouldn't find that out in humans for years."
A and B look at each other meaningfully.
A:"You thinking?"
B:"What I'm thinking?"
A and B:"Rabbits and Monkeys!"
2 years later
A and B:"Commence human testing!"

 

[Wintermoot]

without animal testing we might risk human life.
also anybody against it should at least have the courtesy to offer them selfs as test subject.

 

[bobmus]

Woah. This is a thread that has a certain... ticking to it.

A certain ticking??

Snip: A long conversation about Nazi doctors

So effectively your view is that we must test on animals because testing on humans would make us barbaric? An interesting way of looking at it when most people against animal testing argue for the barbarity of that act. I happen to agree with you on this one, thank you for that!
*Hands Internet Point*

 

[Bobbity]

Testing cosmetics on animals strikes me as blatantly wrong, to be honest.

If we're researching something important, or doing the experiments for the sake of teaching, then that's justifiable.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Not for cosmetics but for medicine and research/education yeah. Though I'd want to minimise the latter. Drugs testing is too important.

 

[solidstatemind]

Woah. This is a thread that has a certain... ticking to it.

A certain ticking??

Sorry, that was too obscure, wasn't it? I was trying to imply that it was a bomb waiting to go off. Animal rights are a pretty highly charged topic.

 

[Conza]

Wow, I'm once again in the majority, I'm not sure if I should be surprised or pleased...

Yes, animal testing is cruel, and doing it for cosmetics or similarly trivial pursuits should be classed as animal cruelty without a cause, but for true medical research that can end suffering and save people's lives, well I guess I'm for it.

I wouldn't say option 4 'only to save lives' I'm sure there are research subjects where the ideea isn't to save lives, but could still cure currently incurable diseases and other 'nearly' deadly medical conditions.

I guess ultimately we may all eventually think option 5, but when we have places that drug, gas and slice the throats from chickens, who've been clamped by a metal noose, to make us our McChickens, I think medical research would have to be less cruel, I hope, and much more beneficial than an unfilling snack.

28 to 57 either side? Gosh, I was under the impression there would be more of us saying 'no, no I love animals, don't hurt them, its not fair', you know, the kind of "good" answer, what you'd say/do if you were a "good" person. The counter of course is, 'well if it's good for billions of humans, why does it matter if a few thousand animals have to suffer cruelty for it.' I suppose, it would be that.

 

[Biodeamon]

Anything for science. you monsters.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Good evening. I think it's wrong in all situations. Besides me clearly being a crazed animal rights activist here are my points. I think if people them selves are unwilling to suffer for the good of everyone else then they should just sit down and shut the fuck up, because they have no moral high ground - absolutely none - in claiming that a few should suffer for the many.

And you know what's funny? I bet everyone's that type of person. While we're all ranting on 'the good of the many' we ignore the fact that we our selves would instantly speak out against this behaviour if it ever effected us. Suddenly, those 'heroes' saving the lives of thousands of people become monsters.

And no, I'm never under the impression that animals are these cuddly helpless creatures. Animals are dangerous, uncivilized, and ocassionaly disgusting creatures. And if they're bigger then you then you can bet your ass they're looking to ruin your fucking day. But hey, just to be fair I see humans the same way, my self included.

My second argument is that 'Medical research' is a bunch of shit. We live in a fucked up nation where we slowly fuck our selves up by paying for unhealthy foods and then we pay our money for pills that only help us in the short term. Pharmaceuticals as well is nothing but a business, therefor I will not see it justifiable. Long term solutions will only come once saving lives stops being a business

So hold on a minute, if I find animals dangerous, disgusting creatures then why am I against testing on them? Well, that's pretty simple. Because unlike everyone else I don't want to play the role of the hypocrite, I want to be better then that. Therefor I use very simple logic -

I believe it's wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. A very simple belief, 3rd grade simple, but it seems to just fly over everyones heads, and instead they find them selves running into double standards and inconsistencies. So no, if you're going to be either moral or consistent then testing on animals is completely wrong, we're the villains. No matter how good our intentions and how many people we save, it's simply not consistent or moral.

You make some interesting points (and I mean "interesting" not in a bad way, mind). As I previously posted, I personally have a condition which would might well end up resulting in my own death if there had not been some sort of research in how to stop it from doing that. It is very true that what is done for test purposes is not something I would want done to me; I doubt anyone would want something like that done to themselves.

On the other hand, I also wouldn't want to suffer what my condition causes me to suffer. Your logic appears to work simply, as you say: "I believe it's wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me". Very well. Is my condition wrong, then? Would you like to have it?

If the answer is no, you would not like to have Crohn's Disease, then by the logic of your belief it is wrong. So if the only way to alleviate the suffering caused is to cause suffering in animals rather than our own species... where is the right decision? It seems to me that we have two evils here by your logic (which is probably accurate, actually).

So which do we choose? The one where suffering happens or the one where suffering happens?

I guess in that case I have to stand with our own species and, by extent, myself--even if it does indeed make for a villainous picture.

On a different note, as to the medical research thing you mentioned, I am not qualified to say one way or another whether or not it is bullshit. From what little I do know I agree on that point, the "saving lives as a business" thing is pretty bad and I wish it could be better, but I suppose "saving lives as a business" is better than "saving no lives at all".

I thank you for finding my points interesting. And yes, in a nut shell animal testing basically is using an evil to get rid of another. My own conclusion on the Animal Testing argument is that it isn't about 'what's the greater good' but more of a horrible act that we have to do to keep our families and friends alive. And regardless of how wonderful and perfect that sounds, regardless of how many times we repeat to our selves 'that it's all right' it's still, ultimately, an evil thing to do.

If you think about it, that quote can basically be applied to anything and everything we've ever done. So I guess in the end we're just a bunch of dangerous and disgusting creatures trying to keep what's important to us, no different from any other creature. Our man made ideals collapse like nothing when they contradict our wants, and if it means keeping those important to us alive we'll always do terrible, unimaginable things. By justifying our actions we nullify the sacrifices and ignore the suffering that goes around.

So in short, it's a wrong, terrible thing to do that humanism simply can't justify, that I can't justify. But if it means saving those dear to me I won't say 'no' if I'm given a cure, no matter the cost. But hey, you must admit it's pretty damn amazing that I never run into Doublestandards or inconsistencies in my argument, aye?

 

[Treaos Serrare]

Never, at all for any reason. Period.
Kill off or silence these assholes who keep quashing cloning, Breed "blank" clones and test shit on them, and no its not against human rights because its an artificially created human and thus not granted those rights; their sole purpose is to be used for parts and testing.
They are not educated or even given a fully formed brain, they are comatose/Vegetables.
This is much more ethical and morally right than to torture defenseless animals who dont even know why it hurts or whats going on at all.

 

[OldGus]

Snip: A long conversation about Nazi doctors

So effectively your view is that we must test on animals because testing on humans would make us barbaric? An interesting way of looking at it when most people against animal testing argue for the barbarity of that act. I happen to agree with you on this one, thank you for that!
*Hands Internet Point*

Yeah, that's it in a less humorous nutshell. Basically, anyone tells me "animal testing is barbaric," I respond with "Ok. Then lets go to China, steal infants, give them (Let's say this time) cystic fibrosis, and then give them a new medicine to try and treat it and oh by the way, we don't know if it will actually make them better, or even if it is just a poison we whipped up by mistake because we couldn't do any better testing before this."

Never, at all for any reason. Period.
Kill off or silence these assholes who keep quashing cloning, Breed "blank" clones and test shit on them, and no its not against human rights because its an artificially created human and thus not granted those rights; their sole purpose is to be used for parts and testing.
They are not educated or even given a fully formed brain, they are comatose/Vegetables.
This is much more ethical and morally right than to torture defenseless animals who dont even know why it hurts or whats going on at all.

To you... yeah, from a purely logical standpoint, that would solve some problems, like where to get spare organs when we drink our way into the queue for new livers. However, we are not at the point of popping out fully-grown clones fresh from a vat (and some scientists doubts we will be), nor artificial wombs to house/birth these clones that have to grow up somehow, and the cost of effectively keeping them on life support from birth to the end of their "lives" would be astronomical. That doesn't even get into the difficulties of having a brain fully formed enough that it can regulate bodily functions and alert us to possible psychological/neurological side effects, the increased length of testing required due to cancer development rates, for example, once again returning to the human rate of progression (a melanoma with every new TV!) and making it so testing for long term effects means watching for 10-30 years, or the possible religious arguments about this whole deal (I know, who would listen to a religion based on a sun-stroked, alcoholic guy tortured to death when we have the Earth-mother). Would that be a great thing, where we just go to a clone for testing? Sure, possibly, in the future. Just like it would be great to eat cloned-animal tumor meat grown in a tank to save some of the cute species (until they overgraze themselves out of existence or into a predator boom.) In the meantime, for new medicines your choices are Mengele, or Bunny Mengele, cause question 2 quickly behind "will this cure patient X?" is always, "will it make him go fetal, blue, and bloated?".
And at reCAPTCHA, the most arrogant of all... "Believe ainuital?" One, your spelling is horrible, and two, based on your previous choices for words, I don't believe you know the difference between a hare from the British Isles and a Welsh Rarebit! Go back to the bowels of the internets!