No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
animal testing is so wrong its inconclusive and there are better tests out there that down involve animals suffering every day of their lives.
- yella23eh
July 11, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In addition to my lifetime goal of responding to every post on this site, ever, I should probably tell you that the idea behind this site (I think) is for informed, reasoned discussion. So you can take the position "Animal Rights Testing is inconclusive, and thusly should not be used", but you have to provide evidence and facts to back that up.
- quantummechanik July 11, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animal testing is one stage out of many that drugs have to go through before they are released to the general public.
Though it is not a pleasant task it is a needed one.
- MrBook August 22, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think you need to provide some sort of argument for why it is ok to use animals in testing to begin with. It may be the case that animal testing helps save human lives but that doesn't necessarily justify it. We wouldnt tolerate involuntarily experimenting on humans so why is it acceptably to do this to animals? Animal testing kills millions of animals a year and sometimes in unspeakably cruel ways. Why is this testing justifiable in order to alleviate some human suffering?
- jordon September 5, 2009 11:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Animal testing is justified because it does alleviate human suffering... without it there would be no way to bring test needed medications.
If you oppose animal testing then you cannot use virtually any modern medication or medical diagnosis tool without using something that benefits from animal testing.
- MrBook September 6, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What is it about alleviating human suffering that justifies torturing millions of animals to achieved? Shouldn't the animals suffering and death count?
- jordon September 6, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
We should test on New York rats. Do they count the same as a horse or cat or dog?
- ttut21 September 7, 2009 2:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If they are able to suffer comparably than they count the same.
- jordon September 7, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What justifies it is that we are humans.
Why torture and kill billions of plants every year just to feed and cloth us?
- MrBook September 7, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I fully support most efforts to end suffering of all sorts. However when it comes to medical testing, I think everyone needs to place themselves in the position of the animals . They do not want to be subjected to often painful experiments. They don't want to die. We wouldn't involuntarily do these experiments to humans, so why is it ok to do them to animals?
In regards to us killing plants, I think that this line of reason runs into some problems. First plants don't have a central nervous system, there is no credible evidence to even hint that they can feel pain or that they have any conscious thought. This seperates them distinctly from animals. The second problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't help your case. If it were wrong to kill plants it would also be wrong to kill animals and thus wrong to experiment on them.
- jordon September 7, 2009 11:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
New Medical Products Must be Tested in Living Organisms
- From Wesley Smith
By Wesley J. Smith - Senior Fellow in Bioethics
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm not an expert, but come on...
I'm not a scientist or an expert on the subject, but the argument that NO medical research done to animals is every justified just doesn't make any sense. While it's probably true that we need to be more compassionate with animals, we still need to continue testing and research on animals. Most everything I have read -- assuming from credible sources without a pro-animal agenda -- points to the fact that testing on animals does save human lives.
- marloma July 16, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Follow the Money
I also have a lay perspective of this issue, yet through the eyes and words of well-informed acquaintances, I have learned to follow the money and “cures that are banned” by our Allopathic medical establishment.
With our technological advancements in the last few decades, using animals vs. basic medical algorithms, as just one of many noninvasive, profoundly more accurate, research methods, is medieval.
If you think you will ever see cures for cancers, or anything else that is backed by massive dollar movement through charities and grants, then all I can say is please, do not donate your money.
I hope this was in no way impolite.
- alfawav
August 29, 2008 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nothing to do with "healing"
Having been exposed to this profitable and unethical world of medical research through the eyes of a “former” vivisectionist, all I can say is this is about human egocentric methodologies and money. This has nothing to do with “healing”, and you sir know that better than most.
- alfawav
August 29, 2008 4:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good to know
It's good to know that I'm not the only one that feels that medical research on animals cannot be justified.
- lisathevegan
September 17, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm with you...
To me, it just proves how stupid the human animal can be. Researchers spray chemicals in these tortured animals' eyes, only to be able to tell the two legged idiots running around loose that it is harmful to spray chemicals in their eyes! So much of the research is just moronic and a total waste of money. Those people out there that need to be told NOT to put hot coffee between their legs because they could be burned, and then, of course, the juries that award these idiots enormous sums of money for being stupid, to me, have the same level of intelligence as the researchers. What happened to common sense? Unless you're looking to make a bundle from a lawsuit - thanks to our pathetic judicial system - use your head for something other than keeping your ears apart! Poor defenseless animals do not need to be used for cruel research—ask for volunteers from death row. At least they would be VOLUNTEERS! And, of course, there is always technology to turn to. If the formulas and information are entered into the computers these researchers have spent millions on, it would be hard to believe that these computers cannot come up with the answers they need.
- Glasscat
December 4, 2008 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are already six billion people
There is no philosohical basis on which to mount the argument that the death of five people is more devastating than that of five animals . What is the difference? Why are animals seen as less important- there are six billion people we can do without a few?
- sor666
May 6, 2009 8:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree with you, but not the way you'd like me to
I don't believe that either animals or humans have any intrinsic value to the planet. I agree, we should be treated equally, but we should not elevate animals to do so, we should knock ourselves off of this pedestal of "humanity" and accept the world as it is. Of course if neither human nor animal has intrisic value I would say test on animals for our own selfish interests. What is the difference?
- ReyMostaza
May 6, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Confuses Me
If the medicine was veterinary, then yes, definately test it on the intended subjects. But if the medicine is intended for humans then the only testing of it should be done on humans. I've heard people argue that humans could die from testing things on them and I don't understand what the problem is with that. Humans die all the time. In fact, chances are the human who's life is risked by being a test subject is probably dying anyway. I can't imagine someone with cancer or AIDS having the patience to "wait their turn" to test new drugs. Lets see, I'll be dead in three months from lung cancer if the new drug doesn't help, but I have to wait six months before I can try it while they test it on dogs first? How many people die waiting for drugs caught up in the regulatory nightmare of unneccessary animal testing ? Testing on any living organism other than the intended user makes little sense, biologically, ethically, or financially. Because extrapolated data is weak data, animal testing does us no favors. Lets test on humans and get solid facts we can really use to save lives.
- opiper June 21, 2009 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
in response
the reason scientists test on many types of animals is apparently due to certain organs in the animals that resemble humans organs.for instance testing on the nervous system of a cat would be more percise than a nervous system of a dog or other such animal.this increases the amount of animals that die in research and scientists are unfortunatly slowed in there progression of a cure but these are much better than useing humans for research.waiting for a cure and dieing from there sickness is better to most people than useing something that could shorten their already shortening lives and since no one can safely say when someone will die i find it hard to beilieve the sick would sighn up for that.in fact almost no human would sighn up for something that could harm them.prisoners might get a higher turnout ,but there familys might take legal action agianst the state for inhumane treatment or some other such allegation.i just dont see people no matter what there views are could watch and allow another person to suffer and have long term effects of suffering or die.
- death
June 26, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again...
...I fail to see the point of testing any medicine on living organisms for whom the medicine is not intended. Cat, dog, mouse, and rabbit organs may "resemble" human organs, but by definition, they are NOT human organs and therefore do not function exactly as human organs do.
Take tobacco testing and lung cancer , for example. The tobacco companies used the results of animal testing for decades to dupe people into believing humans couldn't get lung cancer from smoking . By the mid 1960's, they had spent millions trying to develop lung cancer in animals with tobacco smoke (often force-fed in insanely excessive and non-applicable amounts) and had absolutely zero success. They couldn't get dogs, cats, rabbits, or mice to get lung cancer, no matter how hard they tried to give it to them, and so scientists extrapolated the animal testing to mean humans couldn't get cancer from smoking either - no matter how much they smoked or for how long.
Not only does this illustrate the pointlessness of testing anything on animals to determine it's effects on humans, it also makes me wonder why the National Institute of Health (NIH) is still issuing million dollar grants of taxpayer monies to scientists who continue pointless animal testing of tobacco products.
If it's too difficult to handle the suffering and death of a person, why is it not too difficult to handle the suffering and death of an animal? Are we not all flesh and blood? Do we not share nervous systems with pain receptors? Aren't the biological similarities between human and non-human animals (the ones that dupe people into thinking animal testing is justified) the strongest argument against irrelevant animal testing? We think animals are similar enough to humans to be able to extrapolate meaningful data from torturing them but not similar enough to humans to deserve any consideration for living without pain? The abuses of power we exercise on non-human animals only makes us less worthy of our dominant position.
Human animals are, by far, the most savage beasts of all...
- opiper July 1, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
sorry for the late response
i fully acknowledge that animal testing can be sketchy and a bit of a gamble when applied to humans.however those animal tests gave scientists a new question "why did so many animals not develop cancer but humans did?" with research and study people might learn something new about human biology and they might even get a clearer understanding of the cancer's smokeing cause.so even though scientists were not able to convince the populace of the dangers of smokeing they did get food for thought and ultimately i would say set the ground work for new scientific studies and tests.i feel that animal testing is relevant still because somewhere in an animal test relevant information can be found, though it might not be the info the scientists are looking for, it is still valuble to some feild of study.
ultimately as alternatives become more advanced and succesfull animal testing will have a diminshed purpose in scientific research but unless exstensive evidence prooves animal testings utter impotance at obtaining new and relevant information would i agree that animal testing should be Completely wiped out as a scientific tool.
the last part of your response covered philosophy and it being quite late i am unable to type my philosophies on the matter.if possible your next response could further cover your philosophies so that i can have the main bulk of my response geared tords my thoughts on the matter.
- death
July 3, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How do you think animals lives are saved at the vets?
So you have never vaccinated or wormed your pets ? Never had to take them to the vet?
It's not all about 'humans'
- Kelly616
July 27, 2009 11:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read My Original Post
Yes, I have vaccinated and wormed my pets . And I've given them various pharmaceuticals too. I take all my pets to the vet regularly. But I'm wondering if you read my original post on this subject. I said "If the medicine was veterinary, then yes, definately test it on the intended subjects." My point is simple: testing human medications on non-human animals is cruel and unneccessary. If the medicine is veterinary, test it on animals, but if the medicine is meant for humans, don't test it on animals, test it on humans! Regardless, I totally agree with you about one thing: it's not all about us!
- opiper July 28, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.