Is there anything wrong with animal testing?

[Saw11_2000]

I remember that. I'm probably getting the name wrong, was it Josef Gobbels or something like that? He did testing on twin Jews.

But, the US does simply not incarcerate someone for their race. You were basically forced into medical testing because you were a Jew, etc.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Wouldn't that constitute cruel and unusual punnishment?

That can be debated. It took the supreme court a while to debate if even the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe prisoners should have a choice, they can choose to either be a candidate for testing, or serve the sentence without testing. Since they will be kept alive longer with the testing, I bet most would try the testing.

 

[Aqualung]

I have always wondered why we don't test new medications and stuff on criminals who are on death row. They're going to die anyways, and plus, this might help to repay their debt they caused. Since they're humans, we wouldn't have any weird cross-compatibility issues like those we sometimes see with animals. Anyone else think this is acceptable/proper?

Because we're not allowed to punish criminals anymore.

 

[michel]

That can be debated. It took the supreme court a while to debate if even the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe prisoners should have a choice, they can choose to either be a candidate for testing, or serve the sentence without testing. Since they will be kept alive longer with the testing, I bet most would try the testing.

A logical solution, but one I could not be in favour of; for one, I don't believe in Capital punishment, so I suppose that get's me off lightly with your suggestion.

 

[Dark_Waltz]

I think no. Am I just delirious or what?

Well then you have to ask yourself is there anything wrong with testing harmful products on humans?
If so what makes humans better than animals in your mind and why?

 

[Saw11_2000]

A logical solution, but one I could not be in favour of; for one, I don't believe in Capital punishment, so I suppose that get's me off lightly with your suggestion.

Not very many experimental drugs kill people. We could possibly extend this to all heinous crimes, like all murders. Drug companies typically don't develop chemicals that would kill their customers. That wouldn't be good, just look at Merck right now. They're losing an amazing amount of money thanks to Vioxx. I believe they'll be looking more into developing safer drugs since they're REALLY going to learn their lesson with this whole thing.

If someone is going to spend life in prison, then why shouldn't they at least try to help advance medicine? It isn't really very bad at all, people sign up to be clinical guinea pigs all the time here.

 

[Saw11_2000]

A logical solution, but one I could not be in favour of; for one, I don't believe in Capital punishment, so I suppose that get's me off lightly with your suggestion.

Why would I ever let you off easily?

 

[Saw11_2000]

Because we're not allowed to punish criminals anymore.

What do you mean? Do you think that people would think that is just too excessive?

 

[Aqualung]

What do you mean? Do you think that people would think that is just too excessive?

Yes. They would think it way to excessive when they think that simply working for their keep is too excessive.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I think that's right. There's already a huge debate over the death penalty, and surely this idea would not gain any momentum among the people.

 

[Solon]

The nazi's in Germany did a lot of medical testing on prisoners. after all they were going to kill them anyway. Kept it secret for quite a long time to.

never was never will be a good idea.

Terry_____________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Herr Doctor Mengele among many; ironically, the allies were desperate to get their hands on his research, after all, human subjects were not an option in the West. One also thinks of Dr Rausch at Dachau, the research was inavaluable to the allies. They only had to turn a blind eye about how it was obtained.

 

[michel]

A strangely sad aspect of war; some of the greatest scientific advances came as a result of wars. Well, at least that is a positive......though never worth the war.

 

[Underhill]

I think animal testing is only an issue in a country wealthy enough to not have more important things to worry about.

If it will save human lives then I'm all for it. As long as it's done with as much empathy as the research will allow.

 

[Valjean]

I remember that. I'm probably getting the name wrong, was it Josef Gobbels or something like that? He did testing on twin Jews.

You're referring to Dr. Josef Mengele. He conducted medical research studies on a captive population that was generally considered sub-human at the time. The general benefit to humanity was cited to justified his research. The end justified the means.

Today a similar situation obtains vis a vis humans and four-legged captives. Few people deny these subject's sentience or capacity to suffer, but most use the same utilitarian argument to justify it -- it is medically useful research, the end justifies the means, and, "they are not like us..."

The powerful can always find ways to justify their exploitation of the helpless.

A slightly off-subject observation: I find it odd that Dr Mengele's experiments are so well-known and oft-cited, while the infinitely more outrageous, and socially deleterious experiments of Japan's Unit 731 and those currently being conducted in northern N. Korea seem largely ignored. Are people unaware of these?

 

[Underhill]

Exploitation of the helpless or survival of the fittest. I don't argue that animals can't feel pain. But if I have to choose between my family, friends or perfect strangers who could be my neighbors, or an animal (monkey, dog or mouse), I'm going to choose the animals every time.

The question is this. If it were up to you to choose the life of a dog or a human, which would it be. Hopefully the answer is as obvious to you as to me.

 

[Katzpur]

I think no. Am I just delirious or what?

objectively speaking, probably not. Unforunately, I have a terribly difficult time being objective about anything involving hurting animals. I can't even watch news stories describing animal abuse. I'm sure there's a place for it, and that a lot of good probably comes from it. I'm just too much of a softy when it comes to animals.

 

[Aqualung]

objectively speaking, probably not. Unforunately, I have a terribly difficult time being objective about anything involving hurting animals. I can't even watch news stories describing animal abuse. I'm sure there's a place for it, and that a lot of good probably comes from it. I'm just too much of a softy when it comes to animals.

I think there's a difference betwixt animal testing and animal abuse. The animals the test on were either specifically bred for tests or were just surplus animals from the streets or whatnot. That's way different than somebody buying a dog or something and then beating/starving it because the "changed their mind" or they just think it's funny.

 

[Valjean]

The "surplus" and "secifically bred" animals might be hard-pressed to see the difference, aqualung.

 

[painted wolf]

and yet, would a mouse with cancer really object to helping find a cure for cancer?

Remember that many medical advances we have today, we share with our animal companions. From reparitive surgery to dibetic treatments to cosmetic treatment.

Mind you I never agree with cruel or unnessisary testing... animals deserve respect and doubly so for those that sacrifice for the good of all of us.

wa:do