Is vivisection ok?!
Is vivisection ok?
Personally, I would say no...regardless of medical development, but for it to happen for 'cosmetic purposes' is just disgusting!
Answers:
No! Okay, maybe that's too simplistic an answer but I have good reasons for saying no. The main reason is the terrible hardship and cruelty faced by animals for the lack of real medical develoments. For example, chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal world are immune to AIDS and Hepatitis. This, for me, provides the clearest indication that comparing animal and human subjects is totally flawed as a scientific method. Drugs that have been passed due to animal testing have then gone on to be trialed with humans - those which showed to cure or improve strokes for monkeys had no effect or sometimes a worsening effect on human subjects.
I would recommend anyone concerned about this subject should visit the Dr Hadwen Trust's website at http://www.drhadwentrust.org and read about how they work on research methods to ensure that animals do not have to be used or harmed in the development of medicine.
The discovery of the Genome is so significant to the development of medicine it could finally see an end to vivisection if, and only if, scientists are allowed to speak freely about their objections to animal experimentation.
Please also see http://www.animalaid.org.uk and http://www.vegansociety.com to see how you can live a cruelty free lifestyle.
Thanks for raising this important topic.
Source(s):
http://www.drhadwentrust.org
If it will save humans, then yes, it is reasonable.
I also agree its disgusting.
better to test on animals than humans
would have to agree with you on the cosmetic front but not on the medical front.
prickly subject i know but here goes -
when you know someone who is dying and their only hope of treatment is something that has been tested on animals then you may change your mind.
when you have to watch someone you love slipping away because a much needed drug hasn't yet finished trials due to upset on the testing of it on animals you may change your mind.
sorry if i offend anyone but this is a subject i feel strongly about, there are no winners.
You really, DON'T want to get me STARTED, on this subject, - so, I'll just say, that I TOTALLY agree, with you! Vivisection is BARBARIC!
I agree on the cosmetic arguement -
But when faced with a potentially terminal illness, will you turn down treatment that has been tested on animals and die, rather than live to a ripe old age???
I think i know the answer.
I fully agree, I make homemade cosmetics, hairspray, gels, shampoos, etc, so I cant see why its necessary to test on animals at all. The cruelty that these little beings go through for mankind is shocking.
To the individual who said chimps are our closest relative, I have an FYI - We differ from chimps by 2% DNA. We differ from dolphins by only 1% DNA.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is doing all they can to end animal testing.
From Vivisection is Absurd . org
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
The pharmaceutical industry funds many groups and organisations, so...
(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
Well IF someone "volunteers" for such a procedure well then it would be OK, otherwise I do not think it woudl be OK to "force" such a procedure onto another.
It means something like "the SLICING and experimentation associated with operating on a liviing subject":~is that correct?
I'm gonna go with "no" here... I don't think some people who answered know what vivisection is.
Absolutely not. Read, "What will we do if we don't
test on Animals by Ray Greek". You'll find that the
data they arrive at by testing on animals cannot
be responsibly applied to human science.
This is why gene therapy is so important.
Also, they like to inject animals with diseases
and place extra y and x chromosomes in them
in order to change their sex or their orientation.
How sick!!!
People and animals are not made the same way. Testing human medicines on animals is absolutely useless. Not to mention apathetic and disgusting.
No it isn't.
It is pointless whether it's for medicine or cosmetics.
Why? Because all species-even those closely related like chimps-react in different ways.So a drug that is fine for a chimp may kill a human.The same applies for diseases.Chimps-our closest living relatives-are immune to 98% of illnesses that affect us.
So drug tests have to be done all over again on human volunteers.
Therefore what is the point?Makes as much sense as a vet testing medicine for a dog on a cat.
PETA once said, 'if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we wouldn't support it'.
Rarely is anything said that makes my blood boil as much as that does. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is a truly horrific disease, claiming millions of people every year, many of them children, none of them deserving. I'm sure you all know the scale of the problem in Africa, as it's so well publicised on TV.
PETA would condemn millions of innocent people, people no different to yourselves, to death for the sake of a far lesser number of animals. I don't dislike animals in the least, but I fail to comprehend how anyone can value them over human lives.
Anyway, the animals tested upon are done so with as much care as possible, there are laws in place to ensure that, and they don't usually suffer or die as a result of the testing. On the other hand, life saving and pain preventing drugs are provided by animal testing, that save millions of people every year. If it came down to you or a family member, would you rather they died or used a drug that wouldn't have become available without animal testing to save their life? Even the famed Linda McCartney used drugs tested on animals when push came to shove.
The fact is animal testing is entirely necessary. It may not be perfect, and we may not be close enough to animals for it to give a completely accurate result, but it's better than any other method save one.
That one, of course, is testing on humans. This happens already, but that is on drugs which have been previously tested on animals. The testing on animals means that, when taken to human level, they more or less know what effect it will have, and they know it won't be anything life threatening, and any danger involved is very, very small.*
I don't know about you, but were this not the case, and I was offered large amounts of money to test a drug which doctors didn't know what the likely results were, or whether it was potentially life threatening, I wouldn't accept.
*The recent TeGenero blunder happened because it was tested on humans, despite that it killed most of the animals it was tested on.