Animal rights; which is your view?

guineapig2

7th_Song wrote:

The BUAV, who are no doubt used to constantly being asked the cliched question, post this response:

"Unfortunately most pharmaceuticals will indeed have been tested on animals without your consent, regardless of the fact that animal testing offers no guarantee of human safety. However, taking these drugs does not exclude you from voicing your opposition to animal testing.

That sounds like a very morally dubious argument which doesn't quite fit with a group trying to take the moral high ground. How about a few other equivalent arguments - do they sound sane either?
"I disagree with killing for ivory but it is OK for me to support the trade by purchasing illegally poached ivory"
"I disagree with employing children to make clothing under brutal conditions but it is OK for me to knowingly buy a product from the manufacturers"
"I disagree with keeping battery hens in terrible conditions, but it is OK for me to buy eggs from the producers knowing that it encourages more cruelty"
"I disagree with killing animals for meat, but it is OK for me to buy and eat that meat"

What is the point of having an opinion and then knowingly undermine it with actions that support the very thing with which you disagree? Drugs companies only make money by selling drugs; if nobody bought them, they would go out of business and no animal experiments would be carried out. Its like standing at the school gates selling knifes to children while complaining about the increases in stabbing in the area!

IvanOpinion

Maybe its simply because there is NO alternative .. there is NO choice. I am sure most/all vegans etc. would, if given the choice use drugs and materials not tested on animals. Its not much different to an environmentalist using their car or public transport to get to a meeting to discuss and promote environmental issues ... if its 100+ miles from their source they have little choice. The argument about animal rights people using drugs tested on animals is ludicrous and I am surprised to see it continually being repeated on this thread as if it holds any water whatsoever.

The old argument about fur coats is another silly one. Most animal rights protestors will (reluctantly) agree with fur coats where suitable (such as in the polar regions .. their argument is with the ugly slappers that adorn themselves with dead animals hoping it will make them look important.

I am against animal testing and would much prefer the use of the prison population .. after all those testing on animals keep telling us of how humane it is and how little suffering is endured by the animals and how everything is rosey in the garden ... therefore why should there be an issue. The problem though is the same unscrupulous drug companies and laboratories get around animal welfare legislation by opening labs in foreign countries that are much more relaxed about animal torture and mutiliation.

Ivan

Fifer

IvanOpinion wrote:

The problem though is the same unscrupulous drug companies and laboratories get around animal welfare legislation by opening labs in foreign countries that are much more relaxed about animal torture and mutiliation.

If you know that then you will know who the unscrupulous ones are and can boycott their products in favour of the scrupulous ones.

Ivan wrote:

The argument about animal rights people using drugs tested on animals is ludicrous and I am surprised to see it continually being repeated on this thread as if it holds any water whatsoever.

That old Ivanism. Say something's ludicrous or invalid then it must be, regardless of the evidence? Drug companies have no option but to test on animals: it's the law. I'll say that again for anyone who has difficulty understanding. Drug companies have no option but to test on animals: it's the law. To use your own words Ivan:

Ivan wrote:

Maybe its simply because there is NO alternative .

To criticise them for doing so but still take advantage of the products they develop is hypocritical in the extreme. To use the products and physically attack those who work for the producers beggars belief.

Can we explore the argument used above?

most pharmaceuticals will indeed have been tested on animals without your consent, regardless of the fact that animal testing offers no guarantee of human safety. However, taking these drugs does not exclude you from voicing your opposition to animal testing.

What they are saying is that since people had no say in whether new drugs are tested on animals or not, it's ok to use them. Well, doesn't that argument apply to the pharma industry too? They have no say over whether drugs are tested on animals either. It's the law that they must be. The only way the pharma industry can stop animal testing is to cease producing new cures. That suggests to me that anyone against animal testing should boycott such new products until they convince governments (not companies) to cease animal testing.

7th_Song

The only thing preventing the use of alternative research methods, and there are many, the EU has recently given the go-ahead on six of them, is the legal requirement that every pharmaceutical be tested on at least two species of animal.

It seems likely that, like so many controversies, this one will become irrelevant as sectors of the scientific community come up with more and more of them. Look to the future politicians, assuming, in view of the impending ecological catastrophe we actually have one.

IvanOpinion

Fifer wrote:

That old Ivanism. Say something's ludicrous or invalid then it must be, regardless of the evidence? Drug companies have no option but to test on animals: it's the law. I'll say that again for anyone who has difficulty understanding. Drug companies have no option but to test on animals: it's the law. To use your own words Ivan:

To criticise them for doing so but still take advantage of the products they develop is hypocritical in the extreme. To use the products and physically attack those who work for the producers beggars belief.

If it is an Ivansim then it is one you and I are totally agreed on although I get the feeling you are misrepresenting what I posted. I am not criticising the drug companies because they are only doing what they are forced to by the government ... what I think is ludicrous is the use of an argument that tries to imply that vegans (or anyone else) is a hypocrit if they use any prescribed drugs ... if someone can supply viable non-animal tested drug then that would provide choice ... until then, irrespective of how abhorrent the animal torture and mutilation carried out by these companies may be, this government dictates that it must be carried out which leaves the populous with no other choice.

Ivan

Fifer

IvanOpinion wrote:

If it is an Ivansim then it is one you and I are totally agreed on although I get the feeling you are misrepresenting what I posted. I am not criticising the drug companies because they are only doing what they are forced to by the government ... what I think is ludicrous is the use of an argument that tries to imply that vegans (or anyone else) is a hypocrit if they use any prescribed drugs ... if someone can supply viable non-animal tested drug then that would provide choice ... until then, irrespective of how abhorrent the animal torture and mutilation carried out by these companies may be, this government dictates that it must be carried out which leaves the populous with no other choice.

Ivan

We might, just might be getting close to something we can agree on. I've never said that vegans, vegetarians or indeed animal testing protesters are hypocrites. I reserve that judgement for anyone who uses medicines tested on animals and attacks (often literally) the producers of those same medicines they benefit from (biting the hand that [STRIKE]feeds[/STRIKE] cures?) when the only possible credible target for their naive fury are those who dictate the testing be done; their governments. However, in a democracy, the normal way of influencing governments is by campaigning for it to be done via the ballot box rather than by force.

Incidentally, if and when animal testing is stopped, be prepared for other groups to start protesting; those with life-threatening and currently untreatable diseases. It is inevitable that if we cease animal testing prematurely without proper safe alternatives which are as scientifically valid as animal testing, the pace of medical process will slow significantly. I know that your alternative is to test on prisoners, but I'm afraid that despite the image portrayed by the animal rights lobby, the majority of medical researchers are not latter-day Mengeles and would not be willing to test on humans, even if they could be guaranteed they were all guilty of something - which of course, they couldn't.

guineapig2

IvanOpinion wrote:

The problem though is the same unscrupulous drug companies and laboratories get around animal welfare legislation by opening labs in foreign countries that are much more relaxed about animal torture and mutiliation.

Ivan

IvanOpinion - Clearly you have some specific information about what actually goes on in these labs - p'raps rather than just aluding to 'animal torture and mutliation' you could precisely describe just what they do so that we can all be a little more informed in our discussion.

Are foreign countries really more relaxed about animal experiments? - again specific differences would be most informative as the I 'd suggest that the legal requirements for proof of the safety and effectiveness of a drug would be rather similar across most countries. I'd also speculate that drugs companies undertake their testing in countries where the police show less tolerance to animal rights terrorists in order to protect their staff and animals - yes I did say animals as releasing formerly captive animals into the wild - like the mink 'released' from a fur farm a while ago is in its own way cruel as most died of starvation...

kobi_3

IvanOpinion wrote:

Maybe its simply because there is NO alternative .. there is NO choice.

But there is a choice. You can choose not to take the drugs. Drugs are not a 'right', but simply another commodity of today's society. Therefore by taking drugs (implicit in the knowledge that their production required animal research) means that you ARE condoning animal research (in exactly the similar manner as the wearing of animal fur means that you are condoning the killing of animal for fashion).