Animal Tests

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin When recources can be better used to affect a net total of more people positively, and if the goal of science and medicine is to save as many people as possible, then that thing (in this case animal testing) IS avoidable due to alternative choices yeilding larger numbers saved due to alternative testing practices being available -- then in fact it would be a professional and moral duty to avoid animal testing if those recources could be applied more efficiently with greater results in the aggregate.

IF it is more efficient, and thereby cost effective, to use alternative testing methods then it is simply a matter of time before the pharma companies make the switch. There is no need for government to pass yet more laws in order to effect something that is inevitable.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams IF it is more efficient, and thereby cost effective, to use alternative testing methods then it is simply a matter of time before the pharma companies make the switch. There is no need for government to pass yet more laws in order to effect something that is inevitable.

G., you haven`t thought much on why it persists. One of the main reasons animal testing persists is that the government regulates animal testing and therefore those regulations and mandates need to be repealed. Pharmaceutical companies often persist in continuing them merely out of legal protection to protect them from damages in suits saying they conducted experiments as has been done traditionally to insure safety. It is a regurgitated cycle that propels itself.

Therefore, a change towards efficiency is made much more harder, and artificially so, -- due to the impositions of law and the threat of legal action. Those propel it forward despite the fact that animal models are misleading and not accurate or efficient ones for humans in the aggregate.

[kubedawg]

But G. adams, I've heard the cliff example usee before, but what if it were your life, or the life of your dog's at stake instead of someone else's life?

Animal testing isn't bad as long as it's for something that benefits us medically, and no I don't mean by making a better shampoo. That's just ridiculous.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin G., you haven`t thought much on why it persists. One of the main reasons animal testing persists is that the government regulates animal testing and therefore those regulations and mandates need to be repealed. Pharmaceutical companies often persist in continuing them merely out of legal protection to protect them from damages in suits saying they conducted experiments as has been done traditionally to insure safety. It is a regurgitated cycle that propels itself. Therefore, a change towards efficiency is made much more harder, and artificially so, -- due to the impositions of law and the threat of legal action. Those propel it forward despite the fact that animal models are misleading and not accurate or efficient ones for humans in the aggregate.

I'm a libertarian, so I'm in full support of widespread deregulation. This is an area that certainly could do with some jiggery pokery to simplify the system. So if your arguing we should bring the state out of medical research, we're in agreement here.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: kubedawg But G. adams, I've heard the cliff example usee before, but what if it were your life, or the life of your dog's at stake instead of someone else's life? Animal testing isn't bad as long as it's for something that benefits us medically, and no I don't mean by making a better shampoo. That's just ridiculous.

I don't believe that I own anyone else, so I don't think there is a burden upon the other person to save me first. And in terms of wants, tough tits, I want a buggatti veyron but I don't expect to get one any time soon.

Agreed, testing cosmetics upon animals is wrong and redundant.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Animal testing isn't bad as long as it's for something that benefits us medically,...

It is inefficient use of recourses when money (often tax dollars from grants and subsidies)),talent, and energy is used to make nominal benefits instead of making greater contributions to health when other opportunities readily exist that are known and proven where they (funds) can be focused and applied more to. Theforefore, to do the opposite is wrong for that will mean a smaller number of people are helped in the aggregate.

Take cancer and heart disease for example, we have pumped billions of dollars into animal testing for that research and geuss what? We are losing the war on cancer and heart disease. Rates have stayed pretty much the same, if not increased since Nixon declared war on cancer.

Why haven`t those white coated scientists found a cure after causing millions of rats and mice to get cancer for the last 30 or more years? Perhaps it is because we are not mice and therefore the model is wrong and a suck on recourses. But, why would Pharmas and university/private researchers want to give up using the mouse when their proposed studies with them as subjects has resulted in year after year of getting large grant funds? After all, someone has to pay for the Pharma`s executive`s mansions, boats, cars, status, etc... Never has such a small animal contributed to such large lifestyles of luxury.

As the sedentary and unhealthy eating habits of man have increased, so has cancer and heart desease, too, increased. All that money spent on animal testing has not pushed cancer or heart disease rates down. Now, if those funds were spent on education and affectng lifestyles -- focusing on those things we know that works, in all probability the epidemic of those rates would not be besieging us as strongly as they are.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Take cancer and heart disease for example, we have pumped billions of dollars into animal testing for that research and geuss what? We are losing the war on cancer and heart disease. Rates have stayed pretty much the same, if not increased since Nixon declared war on cancer.

So you state that all medical research done was by animal testing? I find that hard to believe. What, you want us to test on human beings instead? lol.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg So you state that all medical research done was by animal testing? I find that hard to believe.

Quote me where I said, "all" medical research was done by animal testing?

If my memory is correct, it was either you or Kubedawg that I requested to quote me accurately. Please go back and do so if you cannot paraphrase correctly. I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of that.

What, you want us to test on human beings instead? lol.

A mouse sure is not an accurate model for us. A human is an accurate model for humans. In fact, it is the perfect accurate model because it is identical to our biology. Wouldn`t you agree to that?

There are many who would volunteer for testing in a variety of ways with incentives and inducements. In addition the U.S. prison population alone is about 2 to 3 million people. What a waste for a child rapist murderer to be executed without giving something back to society from which he took.

[kubedawg]

You did not provide any information regarding any other types of testing being used. Therefore, I said that to hint the message that not all testing was done on animals. I was being sarcastic. Billions of dollars is a big number. What percentage of testing, out of ALL testing that has been done, was done with animals? That is why I find it hard to believe you are blaming the scientists for not finding a cure for heart disease or cancer due to the fact we've spent BILLIONS on doing so with animals. Well where are the numbers for the other tests that have taken place? Are they in the millions? billions? trillions? No amount of money in the world will replace a human life. You cannot throw a billion dollars at a scientist and tell him or her to find a cure for cancer.

If testing on animals has proven to be incorrect ALLL these years of doing it, why is it still being done? Why aren't we using those scum bags in prison?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Quote me where I said, "all" medical research was done by animal testing? If my memory is correct, it was either you or Kubedawg that I requested to quote me accurately. Please go back and do so if you cannot paraphrase correctly. I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of that. A mouse sure is not an accurate model for us. A human is an accurate model for humans. In fact, it is the perfect accurate model because it is identical to our biology. Wouldn`t you agree to that? There are many who would volunteer for testing in a variety of ways with incentives and inducements. In addition the U.S. prison population alone is about 2 to 3 million people. What a waste for a child rapist murderer to be executed without giving something back to society from which he took.

Testing on inmates is cruel and unusual, however vile their crimes. Even if it led to a reduced sentence, the choice to undergo testing would not be entirely voluntary. It also set's a hideous precedent. In China they are selling executed prisoners organs to the highest bidder, usually wealthy foreigners. I'm sure the Chinese authorities claim they're making sure that criminals are giving something back to society too.

[kubedawg]

I personally wouldn't want a drunk muderer's liver though lol.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams Testing on inmates is cruel and unusual, however vile their crimes.

I guess that will depend upon your sense of retributiton.

Even if it led to a reduced sentence, the choice to undergo testing would not be entirely voluntary.

I guess not. I also geuss that people joining the military in the U.S. is not entirely voluntary if they are pushed in that direction out of economic concerns. There is always an impetus pushing along many peoples' choices. I don`t expect pure perfection. Why do you?

It also set's a hideous precedent. In China they are selling executed prisoners organs to the highest bidder, usually wealthy foreigners. I'm sure the Chinese authorities claim they're making sure that criminals are giving something back to society too.

If the liver or kidney of a convicted child rapist murderer who has taken dearly from society can be used to give life to a five year old girl, I find no reason to deny that if he is going to be executed for his crime.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I guess that will depend upon your sense of retributiton. I guess not. I also geuss that people joining the military in the U.S. is not entirely voluntary if they are pushed in that direction out of economic concerns. There is always an impetus pushing along many peoples' choices. I don`t expect pure perfection. Why do you? If the liver or kidney of a convicted child rapist murderer who has taken dearly from society can be used to give life to a five year old girl, I find no reason to deny that if he is going to be executed for his crime.

I don't expect perfection, but I disagree with government coercion in almost all areas, this being one of them. I have no inclination to see new Mengeles being encouraged by government.

As I don't agree with the state pursuing barbaric practices such as execution, the final argument doesn't hold water with me.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams I don't expect perfection, but I disagree with government coercion in almost all areas, this being one of them. I have no inclination to see new Mengeles being encouraged by government. As I don't agree with the state pursuing barbaric practices such as execution, the final argument doesn't hold water with me.

Isn`t confinement for life a kind of execution in and of itself? Why don`t you think confinement is barbaric?

I can give up forcing prisoners to undergo animal testing, however, I see no reason, so long as safeguards are installed, to deny people from volunteering for test, either prisoners or free persons in society. Let them exercise their liberty in that regards and let the animals not be forced.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin There is always an impetus pushing along many peoples' choices. I don`t expect pure perfection. Why do you?

You just expect pure perfection for animals instead of humans.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Let them exercise their liberty in that regards and let the animals not be forced.

And that's a catch 22 because you will never be able to tell if an animal is being forced or is willfully doing it. They don't have the same capabilities we do. So there is no way to say that it is wrong to do animal testing based on what you just said.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kubedawg You just expect pure perfection for animals instead of humans.

No, I expect equal consideration of interests. That does not mean I expect perfection because I know it is not possible. Human society is based on "equal consideration of interests" in our relationships with one another, or that is the ideal we try to achive and profess, but we do not have perfection in that -- still that does not stop us from trying to move in that direction or profess that as the nobel principle to guide us no matter what our shortcomings.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
Let them[prisoners or free people in society] exercise their liberty[volunteering for medical/scientific] research] in that regards and let the animals not be forced.

Quote by: kubedawg And that's a catch 22 because you will never be able to tell if an animal is being forced or is willfully doing it. They don't have the same capabilities we do. So there is no way to say that it is wrong to do animal testing based on what you just said.

This is just a ludicrous statement. I don`t even know if I should honor it with a reply. Who in their right mind think animals are volunteering for medical research to save us? Now, I would like all honest debaters and those who honestly come to debate with reason who are in this thread or perhaps one of the other animal threads to step up and either support this ludicrous statement by Kubedawg or have the integrity to tell him here in public, despite you being on the same side as him in the debate, that IT IS a ludicrous statement to even suggest the possibility that animals are volunteering for testing. G. Adams, Captain Chaos, Kamehameha, are you, too going to also suggest that animals may be volunteering for research or can you state categorically that in all probability they do not and this statement by Kubedawg is just way out there in left field somewhere as it concerns reason?

Gee, now I understand the phrase, "grasping for feathers" as a person falls -- in this case their argument in debate. I guess those people have to resort to anything no matter how improbable it is.

As for me, I have yet to see or heard of a dog, cat, mouse, chimpanzee running from the street directly into the research centers, or waiting outside to take a number to get in.

[kubedawg]

I'm just evening the playing field here. Prisoners are people too ya know, and prisoners have rights. If you are assuming equal consideration of rights, then why force prisoners to go through the same tests instead of animals? That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Stop twisting my words into your own assumptions. You gotta dig through some of this. Nothing is just on the top layer. I didn't say that animals could volunteer for this, in fact, I said the opposite. I was pointing out how you continue to contradict yourself in almost every post you make.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Isn`t confinement for life a kind of execution in and of itself? Why don`t you think confinement is barbaric? I can give up forcing prisoners to undergo animal testing, however, I see no reason, so long as safeguards are installed, to deny people from volunteering for test, either prisoners or free persons in society. Let them exercise their liberty in that regards and let the animals not be forced.

No, confinement for life isn't execution, it's confinement. You can still grow as a person, in UK jails at least, through education or spiritual improvement. You still have friends on the inside, family that visist you if your lucky etc Confinement is seperation from society because your dangerous and/or your being punished. Your also, where possible, being rehabilitated.

If a prisoner volunteering garnered them no benefits other than those also gained by innocents, eg money and a comfy break being looked after by nurses, then it probably isn't a problem. However, I think the demand for test subjects would be high, and big pharma's would lobby government to create further incentives, or make it less voluntary, for prisoners. And you know what politicians are like when they smell a party donation.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams No, confinement for life isn't execution, it's confinement. You can still grow as a person, in UK jails at least, through education or spiritual improvement. You still have friends on the inside, family that visist you if your lucky etc Confinement is seperation from society because your dangerous and/or your being punished. Your also, where possible, being rehabilitated.

Well said and fair enough. I guess I was more or less thinking of social execution for those in isolation -- like the Charles Mansons of the world. But, I am not going to argue the point confinement is execution.

If a prisoner volunteering garnered them no benefits other than those also gained by innocents, eg money and a comfy break being looked after by nurses, then it probably isn't a problem. However, I think the demand for test subjects would be high, and big pharma's would lobby government to create further incentives, or make it less voluntary, for prisoners. And you know what politicians are like when they smell a party donation.

I can live with an imperfect system in regards to volunteers for personal benefit. Many of our systems are not perfect but we forge ahead with them and try to improve as we go.