Animal rights; which is your view?

Basil_Fawlty

If the animal rights activists have a better idea for testing the effects of chemical compounds in vivo then I would be very interested in hearing from them. They talk about using computer modelling and in vitro methods, but they don't understand that the effects in the lab and in an animal can be wildly different. Look at what happened with those 6 volunteers in London - those harmful effects weren't picked up in the lab experiments done in vitro, nor in the animals. Normally the animals would show up a response not seen in vitro and although it is of course regrettable, it is absolutely necessary for the treatment of diseases and conditions. Do they think people should just die because of a lack of drug treatments? I suffer from asthma but if not for Salbutamol Sulphate, I don't think I'd be here now. I know that animals have probably suffered for this drug to be available to me and many other asthmatics but it is definitely worth it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined.

How do these drop-outs and failures, sorry, animal rights activists, think we should handle the development of drugs and diseases? Do they refuse treatment if/when they fall ill? No! They decide to take the drugs. They are hypocrites.

And remember, there will always be animal testing, because there is a multi-billion pound economy relying on it, so don't be under the misguided impression that a few nutcases with impaired common sense can stop them. I agree they should be labelled terrorists because that is what they are. My biology teacher from school told us about how he had to check his car for bombs and other "devices" whenever he travelled anywhere. The reason? He worked in Cambridge University as a Post Doc researcher (animal research). I question anyone who thinks that this type of behaviour on world-class scientists is justified.

Don't forget that the cost of protecting scientists is passed on by the pharmaceuticals into the price of drugs so it is eventually picked up by taxpayers (drugs bought through NHS ) so it does affect more people than anyone may think...

Willsnarf1983

IMO

animal testing should be allowed but should be regulated for medicinal reasons only, secondly the animal rights protestors are disgraceful when they goto the lengths as the three of that dispatches program (and how i smiled with glee when they got 12 years after saying that spending one night in jail was worthwhile for the protection of animals!)

Also what gets my goat is when people say they are against animal testing but would be the fisrt to take medicine etc etc and one more thing if your against animal testing and eating animal products then really you should be a vegan not a vegetarian because surely under that principle even if the animal is in captivity its not as natural life as it could have and thus would be deemed cruel.

Will

russellgreeno

Hi,

I've been vegan for about 1.5 years and vegetarian for quite a while before that.

It's interesting how many of you have said that all animal rights protestors are hypocrites, when I became vegan, not only did I decide to avoid all forms of food relating to animals, household products that were tested on them and drugs tested on them too.

Basically when i get ill (recently I had a bad throat and cold) I just rested as much as I can and eat/drink well, I've not needed to rush to the doctors to get any drugs just because I have a sniffle.

It's interesting how many people go to the doctors with mild complaints and effectivly get given a very expensive prescription placebo costing the NHS millions, maybe I should resent paying my National Insurance and taxes because I'm not using NHS to get reduced priced drugs like some of you.

Before you label all animal rights protestors as terrorists, don't forget nearly all of them work in jobs just like you and pay their taxes too. If they didn't just imagine how much more of your money would be taken by Gordon Brown.

If you are opposed to us and our views, please feel free to pay higher taxes so we do not have to pay for your discounted drugs.

Regarding alternatives for animal research, there are plenty of starving people in Africa, why dont we test on them, its not as if they're important is it, (otherwise the rich countries will have sorted out the third world by now). Also there is fact that they will never get to take any of these drugs anyway, drugs are too valuable to send to a poverty ravaged continent when they can be easily sold to us for billions every year. In fact, the tests would be much more effective because they would be on humans wouldnt they?
It would completley avoiding the HUGE discrepancy between us and animals.

What about disabled people or those on benefits, aren't they just draining the welfare state and cost the taxpayer billions every year, it would be much more cost effective to test on these people instead of animals.

Obviously I don't think we should test on starving, diasbled or poor people, but to throw NEJ's question back at him.

So NEJ, if a close relatives was seriously ill, would you prefer to let them die or use a drug that was tested on a mentally disabled person who just sat in a wheelchair for 30 years and cost the NHS £500,000 in care during their lifetime.

That argument is complete shashh.

mikeashbee

I have been interested to skim through the above posts, and offer the following observations:
1. There seems to be an emotional and under-evidenced stance on both sides
2. I would like to see research on the effect of Disney's (and others)
personification of animals in children's cinema
3. I abhor cruelty to animals when there is no purpose to it. I am ashamed
of humanity when this occurs,and agree with Oscar Wilde's famous quote.
If there appears to be no purpose to this post, then so be it. I suspect if you remove emotion then most people would feel the same.

rdwarr

I don't care what the cause is. We now apparently have 8.9% of forum members who believe terrorism is justified if beliefs are strong enough.
Either somebody's fiddling the results or we're all in BIG trouble:eek:

Willsnarf1983

russellgreeno wrote:

Hi,

I've been vegan for about 1.5 years and vegetarian for quite a while before that. So you should be

It's interesting how many of you have said that all animal rights protestors are hypocrites, when I became vegan, not only did I decide to avoid all forms of food relating to animals, household products that were tested on them and drugs tested on them too. Not all but i would reckon there are more vegetarian protestors than vegan

Basically when i get ill (recently I had a bad throat and cold) I just rested as much as I can and eat/drink well, I've not needed to rush to the doctors to get any drugs just because I have a sniffle.Good

It's interesting how many people go to the doctors with mild complaints and effectivly get given a very expensive prescription placebo costing the NHS millions, maybe I should resent paying my National Insurance and taxes because I'm not using NHS to get reduced priced drugs like some of you.

Before you label all animal rights protestors as terrorists, don't forget nearly all of them work in jobs just like you and pay their taxes too. If they didn't just imagine how much more of your money would be taken by Gordon Brown.yeah i would pay the extra 10p or whatever it is so that you didn't have to pay for the NHS or recieve any benefit, hell i'd pay a tenner

If you are opposed to us and our views, please feel free to pay higher taxes so we do not have to pay for your discounted drugs.

Regarding alternatives for animal research, there are plenty of starving people in Africa, why dont we test on them, its not as if they're important is it, (otherwise the rich countries will have sorted out the third world by now). Also there is fact that they will never get to take any of these drugs anyway, drugs are too valuable to send to a poverty ravaged continent when they can be easily sold to us for billions every year. In fact, the tests would be much more effective because they would be on humans wouldnt they?A typical rubbishy arguement, using emotive language, try and stay on the lines. There ARE medical tests on humans!
It would completley avoiding the HUGE discrepancy between us and animals.
We are higher in the food chain
What about disabled people or those on benefits, aren't they just draining the welfare state and cost the taxpayer billions every year, it would be much more cost effective to test on these people instead of animals.You have to be taking the p1ss now

Obviously I don't think we should test on starving, diasbled or poor people, but to throw NEJ's question back at him.

So NEJ, if a close relatives was seriously ill, would you prefer to let them die or use a drug that was tested on a mentally disabled person who just sat in a wheelchair for 30 years and cost the NHS £500,000 in care during their lifetime. Its never gonna happen but its nice to see that you didn't even answer his original question

That argument is complete shashh.

But a question back to you, i have no problem with people protesting for what they believe in, if we didn't have that our country would not be 'Great' Briton but do you condone the use of violence, grave digging, car bombing to get your point across? When you look back in history there are no terrorists that have succeeded via violence

Cheers

Will

SunnyBrighton_2

I wouldn't take a transplant, nor do I take pharma drugs.
I would support any of my family who likewise refused such things.
I never give to 'charities' which support animal testing.

I believe that a lot of what passes for normal in today's society is simply amoral - we, as a society, lack compassion in our lives, whether for animals or other humans. Through this emptiness, so much pain and cruelty is inflicted on other living beings.

I am very happy for all those involved in pharma testing to feel free to test all drugs on themselves if they believe in it so deeply, because pharma drugs are about corporate profit and greed, not welfare or health of any kind. Most drugs don't cure, but cause the recipient to continue in a chronic state, so that the drugs have to be consumed regularly, and profits maintained.

"Modern Health Care System is the Leading Cause of Death
Doctors are in fact the LEADING cause of death in this country. Not heart disease, not cancer--doctors. In all fairness, doctors themselves are not to blame for all of this. The entire modern health care system, however, is to blame for allowing, even promoting, so many unnecessary procedures, drugs and mishaps."

The damage in society is so deep it shows in all kind of ways.

Coveredinbees!!!!

MORPH3US wrote:

I stand by my post.

From your previous posts, its obviously the only to communicate with you that you can understand.

Why is it that just because I have a differnet opinion you think you have the right to call me an idiot? Is it that your arguement is so weak you have to resort to name calling? Ever consider a career in politics you would fit right in with all the rest of the mud slingers who run this once great country.:mad:

Basil_Fawlty

SunnyBrighton wrote:

I wouldn't take a transplant, nor do I take pharma drugs.
I would support any of my family who likewise refused such things.
I never give to 'charities' which support animal testing.

I believe that a lot of what passes for normal in today's society is simply amoral - we, as a society, lack compassion in our lives, whether for animals or other humans. Through this emptiness, so much pain and cruelty is inflicted on other living beings.

I am very happy for all those involved in pharma testing to feel free to test all drugs on themselves if they believe in it so deeply, because pharma drugs are about corporate profit and greed, not welfare or health of any kind. Most drugs don't cure, but cause the recipient to continue in a chronic state, so that the drugs have to be consumed regularly, and profits maintained.

"Modern Health Care System is the Leading Cause of Death
Doctors are in fact the LEADING cause of death in this country. Not heart disease, not cancer--doctors. In all fairness, doctors themselves are not to blame for all of this. The entire modern health care system, however, is to blame for allowing, even promoting, so many unnecessary procedures, drugs and mishaps."

The damage in society is so deep it shows in all kind of ways.

I'm sure there are a few people on this very forum who suffer from cancer or other debilitating illnesses - perhaps you will be the first to tell them they shouldn't receive treatment.

I have no idea what you're on about here - medics are there to help not kill. Unless you are referring to abortion or something separate?? Drugs work and that's why they are used.

You are misguided in thinking that those who develop drugs do so purely because "they believe in it" - it's dedicated to improving people's quality of life - and I fully support it, as does our PM and the government, and those with common sense.

kobi_3

shokadelika wrote:

You have not bothered to read the link in my first post.These scientists acted illegally WITH the protection and knowledge of the Home Office and the Government.It took a high court case to publish this information and you go on about "myths of Animal research"
I agree let all the truth(myths) come out show all the horrors inflicted on animals for useless drug (profits) not the benefit of humans.Using "sympathetic" charities to make these experiments justified is an excuse that is wearing thin.
You also run the risk by experimenting on Primates (and Pigs) our nearest relative of a virus or some other unmetionable jumping cross species.........Bird Flu anyone.
I cannot understand the people who work in these places!
What did you do today at work dear"
"oh!nothing much sacrificed a few (150) primates some illegally caught in the wild and put some piglet hearts into the stomach of others some had pig organs grafted to their neck"
"Mmmmm.pass the sausages."
Just because primates use different language does not mean to say they are any less intelligent than Humans and they certainly feel PAIN.

LD50 and cosmetic tests are carried out by companies domicled here offshore in other countries and well you know it!
As for the safety of drug testing shalll we mention Voixx around 150,000 deaths worldwide.
Thailidomide etc etc etc.or the 15000 deaths in this country alone from prescription drugs
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...607618,00.html

Without being patronising, you have missed the point of my post. I was not arguing the rights and wrongs of animal research. what i was highlighting was the disparity between people's understanding of both the benefits (treatment's for diseases) and the detriments (ethical considerations of using animals at all). My point is that the public should be made aware of the the fact that when they are taking a pill they are directly condoning animal research. this way they can make an educated choice about whether to take the pill or not. even animal rights groups do not educate the public on this point. they focus on the abstract of animal research detracted from the product which this research produces. Why do animal rights groups not encourage a boycott of all prescription drugs? that way they remove the financial market that the pharmaceutical companies need to survive. I suspect the reason why they don't is because asking sufferers of cancer, Parkinson''s disease, neuropathic pain or even common infections not to take a drug that would alleviate some of their discomfort is not likely to meet with success.

In reply to some of your other points: By far the vast majority of research is done on rodents (rats and mice) and not primates (although you sinlge out primates in your post, presumably due to the more emotive nature of primate research over that of rodents).
Animals feel pain - yes, that is why surgical procedures are performed under anaesthetic and animals are given pain killers in a similar manner to human patients if the procedure is likely to induce discomfort. it is not in the scientists interests to have an animal which is in pain (for example corticosteriod levels in the blood are much higher in animals in pain than normal animals and this can be detrimental to the experiment itself). Vets constantly monitor animals and their primary concern is animal welfare. But yes, overall animals will feel more discomfort because of the procedure than if they had never gone through it. this is one of the ethical decisions that the public have to contend with.
I was not using charities as an excuse for animal research; simply another example of the complete absence of public education by any of the groups concerned (charities that fund research, Universities and companies that perform it and animal rights groups).