Experimentation on Animals

[Ikeni]

We could just experiment on people in for life imprisonment, like paedophiles or rapists who are shunned from society.

[Professor X]

We could just experiment on people in for life imprisonment, like paedophiles or rapists who are shunned from society.

Apart from the immoral implications from that statement, it would also be an infringement on their human rights.

[Ikeni]

Apart from the immoral implications from that statement, it would also be an infringement on their human rights.

Then it raises the argument of why human rights should apply for somebody who, metaphorically, spat on human rights by committing their crimes. I do sometimes wonder why murderers are given the right to life when they violated someone else's right to be honest; not to say I advocate the death penalty, just we shouldn't accept such ridiculous arguments.

[DCJerboa]

Careful, Ikeni, you're gonna derail the thread, lol. So I'll respond in a single short sentence: because humanity should hold itself to a higher standard than those who violate our laws and the rights of others.

[logrus]

Hmm Animal tests...

Well... personally I think that some humans might as well be animals, however that being said, I don't support testing products on animals. I think its inappropriate for us to even consider testing something on an animal that we are not even considering trying on a human being.

While I am a hunter, I don't do it to watch animals suffer I do it because when I was younger my family needed the meet in order to get by. I feel the same way about animal testing, if its necessary for the continued survival of the human race, and you can show me that is will cause MINIMAL pain for the animal then I would be OK with animal testing, but if your just shooting in the dark forget it.

~L

[FoxyBunny]

Example of when I think animal testing is appropriate and necessary:

Suppose you come up with a new drug to cure leukemia. Lab tests and computer simulations all show it has great promise, but there is some indication that it might horribly damage the liver. You have a few choices here.

You can give it to a deathly ill person anyways, and hope that it doesn't mess up their liver to the point that they die of that instead.

You can give it to healthy person and hope you didn't just sign a death warrant for a perfectly healthy human being.

You can give it to a rabbit, who metabolizes and has liver function incredibly similar to human beings, and see what happens. If the damage shows up, you have the option to euthanize the animal to prevent unnecessary suffering, and now you know. If it doesn't cause liver damage, you can begin human trials.

I see this as a very reasonable approach. I do not believe that animals, as a rule, have less right to life than humans (which does not apply to my children, because as any parent knows, our children have more right to life than the whole human race put together lol). I do however note that an animal which is full-grown in 4-6 weeks and which can be gently put down if things go badly is a much better choice for first-run trials than an adult. Heck for no other reason than that it takes longer than 4-6 weeks to get a full-grown death-row prisoner replaced, if we want to be cold-blooded about it.

[Rodri]

Thalidomide babies or dead rabbits?

I used to carry out research on animals when I was younger. Well actually it was one particular animal, our family cat, after I heard that a cat always lands on it's feet, no matter how they fall. My research was cut short by the firm hand of government. (my Mum)

But seriously. When you consider that the corporations that use animal testing on new products are basically only looking for a market edge/advertising slogan (NEW & IMPROVED! NOW MADE WITH 100% NATURAL LARD!!!), then it's probably not something we should just accept. But when it comes to testing new medications - well, Thalidomide babies or dead rabbits? I would say most people would vote for dead rabbits. I think I am trying to say it is all about context.

Testing on murderers and rapists? What happens when you run out of them? Testing on other criminals or groups we don't like? What about testing on groups of people we don't really like very much and would be better off without? How about testing on homeless people, or gypsies, or certain religions we don't like?
Does this remind anyone of any particular time in fairly recent history?

[FoxyBunny]

Exactly, Rodri! It's a slippery slope once you begin talking about involuntary medical testing on humans. The current laws are very clear that you must have informed consent (look that up...it's the basis of all medicine) before you can do ANYTHING to a human being, except in rare emergency situations in which case implied consent applies only if what you are doing is in the patient's best interests and you have reason to believe the person would want you to do so and would consent if he/she were able to do so.

These laws protect all of us, and I'd fight darn hard to keep them in place.

[imnothere]

everyone seems to be on the same page on this subject so let me play devils advocate and propose that while yes animals have value and deserve to enjoy a quilty of life that is more then tollerable, that they do not have morals like humans and we should therefor not scruple to apply our moral values to them. as the domanant spicies on this planet we have the right to do what we like with its other inhabitants, and it is our responcibilty to eachother to make sure that something new or improved doesnt go to human testing too early. allergic reactions occor all the time and a good way to find out what those reactions might include so that the formula may be tweaked to exclude the nastier ones is to test on lesser creatures whose exsistance is ours to govern anyway by devine right.

*these views are not all my own i am mearly introducing them to expand the discussion on the topic to include more thought provoking answers. it is in no way intedned as inflamitory though i realize it might be

[armbarchris]

I'm with Ikeni on this.
Since society isn't likely to take my other suggestion for dealing with criminals sentenced to death or life imprisonment (execution on the spot, no 20 years of waiting on death row) we might as well have these people contribute to society while their sitting in their cells, sucking up tax dollars from honest hard working citizens and being better fed, better clothed, and better treated than many of those said honest, hardworking citizens.
I'd rather test products on criminals then animals; but if that's not an option then I'd rather test on animals than not test at all.