Animal testing Ethics

I personaly belive that In my self centered Ethical ideas anything which has good results for me is fine including animal testing.

Discus but dont flame

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok you're obviously very highly intelligent, so I'll take it there's a good helping of irony in that statement.

I'm against it, and I sincerely hope science can give us methods of testing that don't involve animals. I know people say 'Oh well they're lower lifeforms, inferior to us, so we can experiment on them.' If you ask me that's exactly why we shouldn't experiment on them. A self-aware human can at least rationalize what is happening to them. What is an animal whose consciousness is roughly equal to that of a very young human child to make of the fact that it is being looked after one minute, and the next is being stuck with hypodermic needles, having stuff sprayed in its eyes, or whatever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Including the really horrifying tests ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your criteria should be, if you wouldn't allow the test on humans you shouldn't allow it on animals. And I'm not talking about tests on bacteria etc..

 

there are virtualy no realy horifying tests, all prelim tests are on microbes in labs.
I also offer that one, is it worse than batrey farming? and two you are streching onto the grounds of the mental incapacity act, are people who are incapable of making decisions still in posesion of full rights?

 

yes these are decent working criteria, but given enough money people would do virtualy anything. also dose this mean you would just as happily see a person die as a pet?

 

I encourage you to research what kind of testing is done on animals.
Maybe start here: http://images.google.nl/images?source=ig&hl=nl&rlz=&=&q=animal testing&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

 

I don't understand how you get this from my post..

 

if somthing can only be done to an animal if it could be done to a human then the same is in reverse and you apply the esame ethos
P.S. I know this is a vile exageration but i am making a point

 

I was making the reverse point.
If you don't want a particular test done on humans because it is painful or damaging, why is it ok to do it on an animal ?
Do you think animals don't feel like humans do ?

 

on this point I refer to my eirlier argument about human testing, For certain tests I would happily volunteer for a fairly minimal sum, the pictures you aded in an eirlier post were all from extremist groups and activists which give a lopsided story, there are perfectly decent trials which are not represented

 

Then there's probably nothing wrong with testing it on animals either.
However, you can give consent whereas animals don't have any choice.. but that as an aside.

These tests do happen though..

 

This infringes on the mental capacity act which refers to choice.
In my solution i would offer that actualy human testing is preferabale and this is infact where i stand but animal testing is a necesary evil and it comes back to the question of the value of a life. Would you sacrifice the one for many? I totaly reject cosmetic testing as unecesary.

 

It was just an aside.

It's largely an unnecessary evil. The main reason companies still test on animals is an economic one.

Yes.

What do you mean here ?
Do you mean that you totally reject cosmetic testing and that it is unnecessary ?
Or do you mean that you reject that cosmetic testing is unnecessary ?
If you meant the former then why did you vote for "Alow Full Testing" ?

 

My apologies for not making myself clear with agreement I will change the thread to medical testing since I cannot argue for cosmetics.
The one for the many quote was retorical but it makes the point.
Short of paying human testing wages are there any other ecanomic reasions

 

Developing other means of testing chemical and drug effects on living tissues cost lots of money.
Despite this some companies have taken this road, their products are often a bit more expensive though..

About sacrificing one for many, that would apply to members of the same species primarily.
Sacrificing one human for the good of the rest..

 

Cybernetics
actually your compleatly wrong. For starters drug testing on animals is done at WAY higher doses that will ever be given to humans, secondly in order to get an effective idea of what the effects will be on humans these tests have to be done on animals as close to humans as possable (which means apes)

Then there are the types of tests where an animal is injected with a bacteria or virus just to see what happens, what the disease progression is.

Its unfortuante that these tests are still nessary, hopefully embrionic cloning will eliminate the need for them but even with cloning there is no why to tell what a drug or pathogen will do to a funtioning body

 

I agree with Enmos, if someone feels so strongly that a few should be sacrificed for many humans, they should volunteer to be the test subject.

 

I don't necessarily support it, but I don't mind it. It is only to be on the safe side to test products on animals to ensure that no humans are harmed. Not to mention animals can make valuable tools in furthering scientific understanding and improving Human quality of life.

 

I admit that it is not a perfect system but not all tests are on apes though i dont see why they are picked out. Also as i pointed out earlier I would be awilling subject for many trials.