Vivisection

[Quiet Things]

In all that is good and wonderful how can people, people who call themselves scientists, do this?!
Please this site... it is haunting. Panel 4
And graphic so please, don't look if you can't handle animals in pain. But please we have to do something to get people to realise how bad this is.

[Myspoiltpiggies]

That is awful! I've seen some of those pictures before. It's very sick what goes on in this world.

[crazywiggy]

I agree the photos are horrible, but read the small print - many of these photos were taken decades ago, long before any legislation came into effect.

I know you're probably all against vivisection in all it's forms, but please be aware that it's not all as bad as you are led to believe.

[Lydia]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

but please be aware that it's not all as bad as you are led to believe.

Please elaborate - animal testing is still quite prevalent and goes on all over the world, as we speak.

Feel free to browse through PETA's updated website and tell me that it's "not all as bad" as we think it is... StopAnimalTests.com

... I don't think so. I appreciate that there are lots of people with different attitudes towards things in this world than I, or others here, have but I don't think that vivisection is some great thing.

[amm59]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

I agree the photos are horrible, but read the small print - many of these photos were taken decades ago, long before any legislation came into effect.

I know you're probably all against vivisection in all it's forms, but please be aware that it's not all as bad as you are led to believe.

Vivisection still exists today. I suggest you look at the National Anti-Vivisection Society website.

Not as bad as we are led to believe? Well... how about we restrain you, then attach some tubes and electrodes to your brain, keep you in that position for an extremely long time, and see what happens?

Vivisection IS bad, it IS a problem, and it IS wrong. With all of the technology in the world today, I cannot believe that vivisection is in any way still "useful."

[HowietheGreat]

75% of all animal testing is inconclusive to humane beings. The results prove nothing about us or our illness'. We as a species were not meant to live forever. Look at our birth to death rate. As a whole we are worse then roaches, consuming everything until there will be nothing left. Sure, lets let animals suffer so that we can live to be a 110. It is awful. Nature was supposed to be allowed to take it's course. We were never supposed to be immortal so to speak.

[vics2004]

I would like to see some info and stats from a non biased source too though (ie not for/against vivisection) as each group will have their own agenda, and manipulate the statistics to show that.

In my opinion, the reason why most people don't take anti vivisection rallies seriously, or listen to their "facts" is because they have signs saying not to support main health charities because of the fact they use vivisection (ie Cancer Research UK over here) without thinking how many people have recently been told one of their relatives have cancer (for example).

I was put in that situation, I had been told a couple of days before that my grandad (about 70) had cancer, so a rally against people supporting charities including Cancer Research UK totally put me off listening to them.

I am still undecided on the vivisection front, again I want to see statistics from a neutral source, however the personal fact I know is a lot of people change their stance on it when they have to face the reality of themselves or a close relative being treated with medicines tested on animals, would you refuse?

[HowietheGreat]

Yes I would, because once again-testing done on animals rarely prove anything in humans. People are not supposed to live forever. Cancer is awful and I have had loved ones die from it-but cancer, diseases, and illness is natures way of keeping populations in control. Human beings are trying to do everything and anything possible to allow us to live as long as possible. THis was never supposed to occur in nature. We do things with no regard to how are actions are going to effect future generations. My heart goes out to anyone with a terminal illness but I do not believe animal testing is the answer. Look at the sociopaths on death row. People who have killed without mercy and have inflicted suffering on others. If we are looking for experimental subjects, we may as well choose from our own gene pool. That in society's eyes would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" despite the horrific crimes of these individuals. No, let instead get virtually useless data from animals that do not have a voice to express their suffering. No, I do not believe in animal testing and I would not support a drug or procedure that endorsed it.

[vics2004]

Howie, what I am saying is, it is good to have that stance now, however don't judge others decisions, because you aren't in that situation, you don't know whether you would still refuse treatment if your dying. When your married, with a couple of kids, and the thought of leaving them behind keeps you awake at night. You could say now that you will refuse, till the cows come home, but unless your in that situation you can't truly judge the person who doesn't refuse it.

Plus, can you send me some neutral links re vivisection

[smileyface cavy]

This is why I make sure none of the products I buy are tested on animals.

[Susan9608]

Originally Posted by vics2004

In my opinion, the reason why most people don't take anti vivisection rallies seriously, or listen to their "facts" is because they have signs saying not to support main health charities because of the fact they use vivisection (ie Cancer Research UK over here) without thinking how many people have recently been told one of their relatives have cancer (for example).

I was put in that situation, I had been told a couple of days before that my grandad (about 70) had cancer, so a rally against people supporting charities including Cancer Research UK totally put me off listening to them.

I am still undecided on the vivisection front, again I want to see statistics from a neutral source, however the personal fact I know is a lot of people change their stance on it when they have to face the reality of themselves or a close relative being treated with medicines tested on animals, would you refuse?

My mother in law was diagnosed with breast cancer about 2 weeks ago. It was originally thought to be totally incapsulated within 1 lump. Then they found a second. Her doctor still felt that they were totally isolated. She went in to have the lumps removed and a wire placed for radiation therapy. While having the ultra sound done to place the wire, they found a 3rd lump, in a 3rd quardrant of her breast. Now it is considered multi-centric breast cancer; she is now going to have to have a radical mastectomy followed by radiation and chemotherapy. Her chances of survival dropped considerably when they found that 3rd lump.

Don't presume for a moment that you're the only one that's had a loved one diagnosed with a potentially fatal illness. Because you're not. I'm sure dozens of members here have not only had close relatives and friends diagnosed with fatal or chronic illnesses, but have also been diagnosed with horrible illnesses themselves. But does that change how they feel about animal testing?

My mother in law's illness has not changed my mind at all. I want her to live; she's a fabulous woman - strong, confident, considerate, compassionate, intelligent, plus she always takes my side when my husband and I argue. I want her to be able to meet her grandchildren. She's pretty much the only family my husband has - I don't want him to lose her this early in life. But it doesn't change how I feel about animal testing.

Almost every medicine in existence today was brought into the market through the use of animal testing. So does that mean everyone should go through their medical cabinets and throw away their tylenol and benadryl and so on and so forth? It's an unfortunate fact that many advances in this country have been made at the exploitation of others, from slavery to child labor to animal testing. We can't go back and change the past and bring back those that died or rid those who suffered of their suffering. What is important, though, is moving on to a better future, where animal testing is no longer needed.

It's not a question of animals OR people. There are all kinds of ways to test drugs for safety without using animals or people (though, eventually all drugs have to go through a human trial). The questions is suffering vs. not suffering, compassion vs. no compassion, and advancement vs. stagnation.

[JarBax]

Almost 8 years ago, after 3 months of procrastination by my old GPs practice, I was diagnosed with a brain tumour. I suffered illness and pain in that time, I didn't know we were capapble of enduring while conscious.

Luckily, the tumour was benign, and after slipping into unconsciousness (blessed relief!), the 4cm diameter cyst it caused was drained, and later, the tumour successfully removed. I suffered further un-imaginable pain before the level of pain relief was sorted.

I spent 8 further weeks in hospital (2 hours journey from home), during which time, I was visited by an aquaintance. I don't remember the exact wording, but this person asked me "So how do you feel about animal testing now Jane?" The inference being that I had been wrong all these years, and that because animal testing had obviously saved my life, I should now admit I was wrong in my anti-vivisection/against animal testing beliefs.

I don't remember my exact reply (I'm never good at saying how I feel at the time - only afterwards, usually when I should be trying to get some sleep!), but I hope I managed to explain that I would never have wanted any animal hurt in any way, in order to save my life. The fact that they obviously did, makes me feel unbelievably sad, angry and helpless.

I have no doubt that animals used for vivisection suffer pain which I can relate to. The thought crossed my mind many times when I was ill. But these are innocent creatures with no chance, no choice and no defence.

Whilst we all obviously have a strong will to live, I would never wish pain and suffering on some other creature, so that I have a chance at life.

[vics2004]

I don't think that I am the only one who has had something like that happen, I just think that the protesters should just realise that less people will take them seriously and listen to their message if they tell people not to support a charity thats currently helping people they know. Instead they should be promoting knowledge of other methods, its more productive, and will get more people to listen

My 2nd post was in relation to Howies post, she said she would refuse medication that would save her life if it was tested on animals, and I just stated she can't know that until she has been there, I mean case in point-Jarbax doesn't agree with it then and now, but she didn't refuse it, how would she feel if someone from this forum judged her and said she would a bad animal rights person for not refusing?

I am not saying it's not bad, but again, I am saying that instead of being reactive in the protesting, they should be pro-active, (although I think many people on the forum would be more pro-active promoting other ways rather than critiscing)

I think I just have bad experiences when it comes to animal rights people, like another group who burnt down a breeders farm, which fair enough, the breeders in the wrong, but all she did was built it up, breed more animals, and all the others lost their lives for no reason.

[JarBax]

Vics, we have spoken, and both know there are no hard feelings either way!

At the time of my hospitalisation, I was in no state to even consider thinking about refusing treatment. Thinking about it now, if I had refused - it wouldn't have saved or even helped any of the animals who had dear knows what horrible trials done to them. Maybe that would have meant they'd suffered in vain? I don't think I would have refused. It doesn't seem like a sensible option! It would not have been pro-active...I am better use alive, to do my small bit trying to better the lives of animals, and 'do good' while I am around!

[vics2004]

Very true. Please can I have some neutral links, or at least one with both sides debating together (experts). I want to be more anti vivisection, but I need to know the facts.

[crazywiggy]

Lydia & Amm59: I have looked at NAVS, PETA and so many others I have lost count.
The problem (as I see it) is that most of the stuff I have found on these websites has been very inaccurate, e.g. the photos are old, from other countries etc. (This is especially true in the UK - most of the photos are from outside the UK)

I admit I don't know much about animal testing in the US, but I do know that British labs are very different to the pictures the public get shown.
That's all I meant by it not all being so bad. I'm sure some of the tests are horrendous, I'm sure the animals could be kept in better conditions, and I don't doubt there are a few people in the industry who may be deliberately cruel to the animals - but not all of it is that horrible.

Vics2004 - I don't know if you'll have much luck finding genuinely neutral info - but you could try looking at both the animals rights websites and the pro-vivisection websites to get both sides of the argument.

Anti-vivisection you could check out PETA, NAVS, BUAV, Animal Aid etc.
Pro-vivisection you could look at Research defense society, foundation for biomedical research, coalition for medical progress etc.