Vivisection

1) Do you think the following are acceptable (please indicate yes, no or not sure and give an overall reason)?
(a) Using a newly developed treatment on an animal which has independantly contracted the illness to test it to see if it is effective and safe.

Yes.

(b) Giving an animal the illness and then testing the treatment.

Yes.

(c) Carrying out low level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products of a low danger such as shampoo to test for any possible reactions.

Yes.

(d) Carrying out mid-level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products up to a level which would cause negative effects to the animal. An example of this would be the draize test which involves placing a product in the animal's eye and then measuring the levels needed for the levels of irritation.

Yes.

(e) High-level experimentation. This involves deliberately exposing an animal to something which is known to have negative effects and then monitoring the response. An example of this would be testing to see the levels of lead needed to kill a rat.

Yes.

(f) Low invasive surgery. This may include non-life threatening experimentation such as testing skin transplant techniques.

Yes.

(g) Highly invasive surgery. This may include life threatening experimentation such as placing electrodes on an animal's brain to find the area which may be responsible for certain functions or for testing xenotransplantation.

Yes.

(ii) Do your above choices apply to all species that can be legally tested upon? If no, please explain what you would think acceptable to different species.

Yes

2) Do you think it is acceptable to use animal testing in the following cases?

(a) Cosmetics testing - perfume, washing powder etc.

No/Yes. No on cosmetics yes on washing powder the reasons are simple. Someone can choose not to wear lipstick but we need washing powders and cleaning products that are safe.

(b) non-prescribed drugs which use no new chemical combinations

Yes.

(c) non-prescribed drugs which do use new chemical combinations

Yes.

(d) prescribed drugs for minor illnesses - chest infections, colds etc.

Yes.

(e) prescribed drugs for major illnesses - chrones disease, alzheimer's etc.

Yes.

(f) unnecessary surgical techniques - plastic/cosmetic surgery

Not sure (not all plastic surgery is for vain reasons, e.g. Burn victims, mastectomies etc.) If a procedure has uses other than making rich scarecrows more scary then it is acceptable no otherwise.

(g) vital surgical techniques - heart transplants etc.

Yes.

3) Do you think that vivisection is the best way of ensuring the safety of humans and the best way of advancing medicine at present?

If it is live surgery without anaesthesia then NO, if it is the legal practice of experimenting on animals in humane conditions then yes I believe so.

4) Do you think more time and money should be spent on advancing alternative testing techniques?

Such as? If you know of any then yes only if they are more effective than animal testing.

5) Is it moral to experiment on animals when the animal does not naturally suffer from the illness itself?

Yes.

Difficult questions to answer I know!

Click to expand...

Not really. Trust me if cows had the chance they would be doing it to us. Our lives and our standards of life are more important than that of animals. I know, it is not fair but I would rather see a billion bunny rabbits dead before I see another orphan from malaria.

When we are talking about cosmetics I am right with the animal rights activists. But when it comes to real drugs that trully affect people's lives then the tree huggers are by themselves.

1) I do not agree with testing on animals for any product or medication or anything else. Full stop. Animals can't make a choice and in many cases a human wouldn't choose to be experimented on the same way, therefore, why should we do it on beings that cannot even make the choice themselves?

3) Do you think that vivisection is the best way of ensuring the safety of humans and the best way of advancing medicine at present? How can testing on an animals other than a human possibly be the best way to advance medicine? Human things should be tested on humans.

4) Do you think more time and money should be spent on advancing alternative testing techniques? Definately.

5) Is it moral to experiment on animals when the animal does not naturally suffer from the illness itself? No!

The things that we test are things not naturally found in said forms in nature therefore why should we test on nature?

I was going to answer this, but Silent Bob just answered every single question precisely as I would've.. so, at this point, it'd be pretty redundant.

fillerbunny said:

I was going to answer this, but Silent Bob just answered every single question precisely as I would've.. so, at this point, it'd be pretty redundant.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

DaveS said:

Hey all,

Just doing a small survey and debate over the morality of vivisection, the scientific practicalities and the extent for when it should be used.

1) Do you think the following are acceptable (please indicate yes, no or not sure and give an overall reason)?
(a) Using a newly developed treatment on an animal which has independantly contracted the illness to test it to see if it is effective and safe.
(b) Giving an animal the illness and then testing the treatment.
(c) Carrying out low level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products of a low danger such as shampoo to test for any possible reactions.
(d) Carrying out mid-level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products up to a level which would cause negative effects to the animal. An example of this would be the draize test which involves placing a product in the animal's eye and then measuring the levels needed for the levels of irritation.
(e) High-level experimentation. This involves deliberately exposing an animal to something which is known to have negative effects and then monitoring the response. An example of this would be testing to see the levels of lead needed to kill a rat.
(f) Low invasive surgery. This may include non-life threatening experimentation such as testing skin transplant techniques.
(g) Highly invasive surgery. This may include life threatening experimentation such as placing electrodes on an animal's brain to find the area which may be responsible for certain functions or for testing xenotransplantation.
(ii) Do your above choices apply to all species that can be legally tested upon? If no, please explain what you would think acceptable to different species.

2) Do you think it is acceptable to use animal testing in the following cases?
(a) Cosmetics testing - perfume, washing powder etc.
(b) non-prescribed drugs which use no new chemical combinations
(c) non-prescribed drugs which do use new chemical combinations
(d) prescribed drugs for minor illnesses - chest infections, colds etc.
(e) prescribed drugs for major illnesses - chrones disease, alzheimer's etc.
(f) unnecessary surgical techniques - plastic/cosmetic surgery
(g) vital surgical techniques - heart transplants etc.

3) Do you think that vivisection is the best way of ensuring the safety of humans and the best way of advancing medicine at present?

4) Do you think more time and money should be spent on advancing alternative testing techniques?

5) Is it moral to experiment on animals when the animal does not naturally suffer from the illness itself?

Difficult questions to answer I know! Some could probably do with re-wording so treat them as you see them and if you want you can offer further questions or whatever. I will keep silent on the issue for the moment to prevent other's views from being biased.

Thanks!

Dave

Click to expand...

Yes to all, with the caveat that the testing should be important in ensuring the safety and/or efficacy of the product in question.

1) Do you think the following are acceptable (please indicate yes, no or not sure and give an overall reason)?
(a) Using a newly developed treatment on an animal which has independantly contracted the illness to test it to see if it is effective and safe.
Yes

(b) Giving an animal the illness and then testing the treatment.
Yes

(c) Carrying out low level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products of a low danger such as shampoo to test for any possible reactions.
No.

(d) Carrying out mid-level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products up to a level which would cause negative effects to the animal. An example of this would be the draize test which involves placing a product in the animal's eye and then measuring the levels needed for the levels of irritation.
No.

(e) High-level experimentation. This involves deliberately exposing an animal to something which is known to have negative effects and then monitoring the response. An example of this would be testing to see the levels of lead needed to kill a rat.
Not sure.

(f) Low invasive surgery. This may include non-life threatening experimentation such as testing skin transplant techniques.
Yes.

(g) Highly invasive surgery. This may include life threatening experimentation such as placing electrodes on an animal's brain to find the area which may be responsible for certain functions or for testing xenotransplantation.
Yes.

(ii) Do your above choices apply to all species that can be legally tested upon? If no, please explain what you would think acceptable to different species.
Yes.

2) Do you think it is acceptable to use animal testing in the following cases?
(a) Cosmetics testing - perfume, washing powder etc.
No.

(b) non-prescribed drugs which use no new chemical combinations
No.

(c) non-prescribed drugs which do use new chemical combinations
Yes, but once outcomes are found testing can and should stop.

(d) prescribed drugs for minor illnesses - chest infections, colds etc.
Yes.

(e) prescribed drugs for major illnesses - chrones disease, alzheimer's etc.
Yes.

(f) unnecessary surgical techniques - plastic/cosmetic surgery
No.

(g) vital surgical techniques - heart transplants etc.
Yes.

3) Do you think that vivisection is the best way of ensuring the safety of humans and the best way of advancing medicine at present?
Yes.

4) Do you think more time and money should be spent on advancing alternative testing techniques?
Yes

5) Is it moral to experiment on animals when the animal does not naturally suffer from the illness itself?
If it is serious and can lead to a cure for humans yes.

1) Do you think the following are acceptable (please indicate yes, no or not sure and give an overall reason)?
(a) Using a newly developed treatment on an animal which has independantly contracted the illness to test it to see if it is effective and safe.

Not sure

(b) Giving an animal the illness and then testing the treatment.

Not sure

(c) Carrying out low level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products of a low danger such as shampoo to test for any possible reactions.

No

(d) Carrying out mid-level experimentation. This includes testing drugs and products up to a level which would cause negative effects to the animal. An example of this would be the draize test which involves placing a product in the animal's eye and then measuring the levels needed for the levels of irritation.

No

(e) High-level experimentation. This involves deliberately exposing an animal to something which is known to have negative effects and then monitoring the response. An example of this would be testing to see the levels of lead needed to kill a rat.

Not sure

(f) Low invasive surgery. This may include non-life threatening experimentation such as testing skin transplant techniques.

Not sure

(g) Highly invasive surgery. This may include life threatening experimentation such as placing electrodes on an animal's brain to find the area which may be responsible for certain functions or for testing xenotransplantation.

Not sure

(ii) Do your above choices apply to all species that can be legally tested upon? If no, please explain what you would think acceptable to different species.

Yes

2) Do you think it is acceptable to use animal testing in the following cases?
(a) Cosmetics testing - perfume, washing powder etc.
No

(b) non-prescribed drugs which use no new chemical combinations
No

(c) non-prescribed drugs which do use new chemical combinations
Not sure

(d) prescribed drugs for minor illnesses - chest infections, colds etc.
No

(e) prescribed drugs for major illnesses - chrones disease, alzheimer's etc.
Not sure

(f) unnecessary surgical techniques - plastic/cosmetic surgery
No

(g) vital surgical techniques - heart transplants etc.
Not sure

3) Do you think that vivisection is the best way of ensuring the safety of humans and the best way of advancing medicine at present?

No

4) Do you think more time and money should be spent on advancing alternative testing techniques?

Yes

5) Is it moral to experiment on animals when the animal does not naturally suffer from the illness itself?

Not sure

Basically, I don't like the thought of animal testing at all. Though I can understand it being used for testing of medicines. I think testing of non-essential things (such as testing cosmetics, toiletries, cleaning products) is unnecessary and should be banned. Medicines for curing illnesses is one thing...shampoos, cosmetics and other things that people can survive without is quite another.

Do you think vivisection is perfect or would you rather see other techniques developed?

Click to expand...

No it is not perfect, nothing really is and yes I would like to see other techniques developed but it all depends on how much potential the new techniques have.

I have heard there has been large advances with the human genome project and they hope to have a complete human "body" in function quite soon. This will be like a computerised human whereby a chemical combination etc. is inputed and through this model the exact effect should come out.

Click to expand...

That would be interesting, if you find the source I would love to read about that. In general if we find a better technique to test chemicals which is as effective as animal testing then I am all for it, but so far we don't have one.

Also, do you think it necessary to map possible side effects in animals when the side effects could be completely different in humans?

Click to expand...

The side effect list may not be exact but it can give some insight as to how safe a drug is or not, esp in the last phase of animal testing which is, I think, primates.

In general as far as animal testing and clinical trials go I would like to see a couple of changes in the status quo allowing science to move faster without adopting nazi ideas. Animal testing is an evil but a necessary evil at this point. I stand behind Lush's and Body Shop's no animal testing practice but as I said the life or even quality of life of a single individual is enough justification for the death of a billion animals (as long as they die with the least pain possible).

Oh and for the record, I love animals especially dogs. I freaking adore dogs! But if it came between me and Skippy, Skippy better run!

I would say it's not very moral to do any of the above, except look for alternate ways of testing.
Really, though if you're looking for allergic reactions in humans to shampoos, shouldn't you really test it on humans--well as long as it doesn't contain chemicals that can kill. However, with prescription drugs, it's never known who might die from it--FDA passed drugs have killed people.
If am being reasonable about this though, I would have to say some sort of testing has to be done. Until they can replace this type of testing with another, I suppose this type of behavior will still go on.
No, I am not a vegetarian, but I do believe in not wasting life for just any reason. I'm sure the animal feels the terror of being tortured, kind of like we would if we were abducted and put in a strange place with people throwing make-up in our eyes.
However, it still raises the question, how to test it?