A thought against animal welfare

[John4216]

Originally Posted by Susan9608

Gotta disagree ... there are plenty of animal experiments that have lead to drugs/treatments that were quite harmful to people, so therefore, the experiments didn't work.

There are much more efficient, faster, and more accurate methods of conducting medical research than in using non human animals.

And there are plenty that have. The statements was that they don't work period, not that some do not and some do. Just because some have not worked does not mean you discount all of them. I agree that there can be developed better methods and I advocate for those. I am curious what methods are mouch more efficient, faster and accurate other than testing only on humans that currently exist??

[thalestral]

Cell culture, analytical technology, manipulation of micro organisms, computer models and population research to name but some. All without death or suffering, while being as or more reliable.

Dr Hadwen Trust

[John4216]

Originally Posted by thalestral

Cell culture, analytical technology, manipulation of micro organisms, computer models and population research to name but some. All without death or suffering, while being as or more reliable.

Dr Hadwen Trust

Yes and there are others as well though they do not apply to all testing types. Though the data from the site is interesting and points to what I support, technology. But you still have to "test" medicines for animals on animals to make sure they work. And depending on what report you read on your quoted site, between 37%-50% of animal testing worked for humans.

So I agree with reducing testing as much as possible, at this time I do not see it as being eliminated yet. Again I think technology/science is the way to take care of this and everything you listed is exactly brought about by science.

[thalestral]

Again, it depends on whether you believe in animal rights - if you believe testing on animals to be immoral and unethical or if you believe breakthroughs in human medicine to be more important. If the former, then it doesn't matter about testing on animals at the end, we would progress straight to humans or go without.

[Calliso]

Originally Posted by thalestral

Again, it depends on whether you believe in animal rights - if you believe testing on animals to be immoral and unethical or if you believe breakthroughs in human medicine to be more important. If the former, then it doesn't matter about testing on animals at the end, we would progress straight to humans or go without.

Well to be fair if it came down to that. I would still test on animals, but of course alternative methods need to be found for all tests.

[Maisiepaisie]

Originally Posted by John4216

Please don't quote things that are obviously false. They do work. Unless you think that the medical research field gets its kicks out of torturing animals for no reason.

It isn't false. I've done losts of research into this subject so I know what I'm talking about and some scientists do get their kicks out of torturing animals. I have seen plenty of video footage that is very disturbing, one example is a beagle puppy being punched inside Huntingdon Life Sciences. The main reason animal tesing continues is money. Have a look at Europeans for Medical Progress , particularly the FAQ which covers the majority of points raised by those in favour of animal tests. These people are not an animal rights group, they are scientists who oppose animal tests on the grounds that they are unreliable and give misleading results.

[HowietheGreat]

"A PETA investigation has revealed grotesque abuses to animals in laboratories at Columbia University, including subjecting baboons to invasive surgeries and leaving them to suffer and die in their cages without any painkillers. This horrific story came to our attention when a courageous whistleblower, Dr. Catherine Dell’Orto, a postdoctoral veterinary fellow at Columbia, stepped forward to tell us what she had witnessed.

While investigators from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the university’s own internal investigation have concluded that Columbia failed to provide even basic post-surgical care, adequate veterinary care, and euthanasia to animals used in experiments, the torture continues. PETA is calling on Columbia to end the following three crude and cruel experiments, which have no practical value:

• Strokes artificially induced in baboons by removing their left eyeballs to reach and clamp a critical blood vessel to their brains and administer experimental drugs. Animal records reveal baboons hunched over in their cages, unable to drink, chew, or lift their heads, and left without veterinary care.

• Monkeys with metal pipes surgically implanted in their skulls for the sole purpose of inducing stress in order to study the connection between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. One monkey, left alone to recover from the hideous implant surgery, was photographed with blood running down her face long after she had come out of anesthesia. The animals were given nothing but an aspirin after the anesthetics wore off.

• Twenty years of pumping nicotine and morphine into pregnant baboons who are strapped into backpacks full of instrumentation and tethered inside their metal cages. Their babies undergo surgery while still in utero. One baboon lost 40 percent of her body weight, and her severe bone infection was left untreated. Another baboon endured five surgeries—all approved by Columbia’s ineffectual Animal Care and Use Committee.

Take a few minutes to review this Web site and you will understand what the animals at Columbia face every day. Then, please take a few more minutes to find out what you can do to help end these crude, painful, traumatic, and wasteful experiments."
-You tell me how this helps any of us.

[John4216]

And I would say to both of you to read my posts and you will see I am in favor of eventually ending all animal testing period. But I also want the truth. The truth is that some testing is required at this time and some does benefit both animals and humans. The truth is also that much of the testing being done is not needed at this time. But it is false to say that ALL animal testing does not work which is what was said.

[John4216]

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Right now one of my pigs has a possible viral infection. The medication she is taking works on both humans and animals. It cures the same thing in both, regardless of genetic differences. She is taking this medication rather than another because the other tends to upset their stomach more and has the same effect on people. Now for them to know all this it had to be used on animals to make sure it worked and worked safely to cure them as well as cure people. The fact that it works for BOTH shows that there are some things that cut across the gap. I am hugely grateful that there is medicine to help cure her so I do not have to watch her or others suffer.

[thalestral]

Originally Posted by John4216

so I do not have to watch her or others suffer.

And what of those that you didn't have to watch who were used to produce this medicine?

[John4216]

Originally Posted by thalestral

And what of those that you didn't have to watch who were used to produce this medicine?

So you advocate with the "do without" that ALL should suffer. How is that any better and how does that reduce suffering? As long as human beings are on this planet we are going to impact the animals around us. "Do without" is asking for people to ignore their own compassion, their ability to rise above and help others, even those not of their own species. So why would I advocate that? I advocate eliminating testing as much as possible. But eventually the medicine has to be taken to make sure it works right and is safe. It may not need to be tested on them in development hopefully but eventually it has to be tried on them to make sure it is safe for them. So my humanity is used to get me to stop testing but then I am supposed to ignore another part of my humanity to not aid and assist. Catch 22.

[thalestral]

Why would all suffer if we abolished animal testing? Suffering would not increase for humans, it would remain level. If anything overall suffering would decrease, as there would be no torturing going on and none of these animals being bred for experimentation.

How does our compassion allow us to continue torturing animals, when we know that animal experimentation is out of date, that many experiments are pointless rehashes, and that other methods exist? At the end of the day though, how reliable it is shouldn't matter - pain, suffering and death is nothing we should put on any of our fellow creatures. Being born into this world to have a life of pain - what right do we have to subject those weaker than us to our poisonous will? No matter how convenient it is to us or how "tasty" their flesh may be.

And quite frankly, there is going to be no great incentive for governments to invest more in alternative methods when animal testing remains the cheapest with its expendable subjects (and it is cheaper - they get a lot of funding for staying with this kind of research!). The idea of encouraging science to come up with more methods while continuing to cause death and suffering is a weak excuse. What exactly are you and those who think that doing to encourage science and governments? The only way to encourage for most people is to protest against animal experimentation, as it is only with the abolishment and public disapproval of that that other methods will be given appropriate financing and time.

[crazywiggy]

Firstly - it is not simply a case of animal testing versus non-animal testing. Nor is it a case of animal testing working or not working. The issue is far more complex than that.

Science and technology are both still developing, we don't know 100% about the body (human or animal) or diseases or drugs. Animal testing is far from perfect - but so is every other method in existence. It is false to say animal testing works every time, but as John points out, it is also false to say animal testing never works. The same can be said of all methods. Like it or not a great many humans and animals have benefitted from animal research.

Of course, some dangerous drugs have slipped through the net, but to lay the blame solely on animal testing is shortsighted. These drugs were tested in a variety of ways, including some of the non-animal methods already mentioned. Clearly, these methods also failed to pick up on the problem.

Before a drug is released for use everything must be done to ensure that it is safe. That means using a variety of tests at our disposal, to get a thorough overview of the whole scenario - the wider the testing the better to build up the most accuracte picture of what a drug will do. They don't simply pump a new drug into a puppy and start selling it.

Of course, like most people, I look forward to the day when animal testing will be unnecessary. Unfortunately we are not there yet. Things are improving. Already a number of animal tests have been phased out and replaced with non-animal alternatives. In other cases the non-animal methods are not quite as reliable. They may be used in the mainstream, but if there is any question over the results the animal method may then be used to verify them. Fortunately science and technology keep advancing, so more and more animal tests will be replaced until there are none left.

Another part of the issue relates to the treatment of animals in labs. Yes, there has been evidence of scientists abusing lab animals. There are also pet owners who abuse animals, vets who abuse animals - yet you don't tar all of them with the same brush. There are also a lot of good people working in the industry who genuinely care about animals and go out of their way to improve the welfare of the animals in their care. It's not perfect, but it is very different to the image usually portrayed by anti-vivsection groups. And as a comparison, there are many pet store cages in the UK that would be too small to legally use in a lab - but no one (except maybe those of us on this forum) complains about it.

The old claim that animal testing is done for money is nonsense. Animal testing is expensive. Lab animals themselves are far more expensive to buy than pet animals - ferrets at £2000, mice at over £100 each. Then you have to have expensive caging, bedding, food, enrichment etc, not to mention large cage wash and autoclave facilities to disinfect everything. On top of that the animals need care every single day of the year - a computer model, or a dish of cells, can be left every weekend. With animals you have to pay for staff every day, including overtime rates for bank holidays etc. Then you need all the licences, a named vet, etc. The cost is astronimcal - there is no way any company would spend this sort of money if animal testing was unnecessary. (Naturally this may not apply in quite the same way in the USA as it does in the UK, but the overall idea is the same).

Of course, a lot of people's views on animal testing come down to whether you believe in animal welfare or animal rights. As Thalestral points out - if you believe in animal rights, then animal testing is always wrong, no matter how humane or benficial it may be. But if you are in favour of animal welfare you can be either for or against animal testing, depending on what you believe about its validity, how it is done, what it is for etc.

[HowietheGreat]

John, not sure if that was directed my way-it wasn't a direct attack againist you. I wish we could abolish it all together by using other methods-you're right we're not there yet. I work in the mental health field. I sit through drug reps, and doctors presentations on psych meds. Yes, they test on animals, frequently rats and mice. It makes me sad but I also know how these drugs help people with severe to mild mental illness. I can't say those people do not deserve to have those drugs. I am 100% for better treatment of lab animals if they must be used. Nothing deserves to go without proper pain medication or proper vet care. The post I listed above kept me awake the night I read it. It was torture for those animals. Columbia University is one of the rare colleges still using lab animals. Even harvard and princton have stopped using animals and are using other methods now. It is possible. I know Johns Hopkins still uses animals but they are a experimental hospital. I hope they offer their animals vet care and as humane of treatment as possible.

[John4216]

Originally Posted by thalestral

Why would all suffer if we abolished animal testing? Suffering would not increase for humans, it would remain level. If anything overall suffering would decrease, as there would be no torturing going on and none of these animals being bred for experimentation.

And no new cures for any animal illness could then be found either then. I want to find a cure for cancer in my pigs, a cure for heart problems in them, and other problems they suffer. I want to find cures/ and medicines for domestic and non-domestic animals as well. But the only way to know if that medicine works is to give it to them and see if it works. According to you this is wrong.

Originally Posted by thalestral

How does our compassion allow us to continue torturing animals, when we know that animal experimentation is out of date, that many experiments are pointless rehashes, and that other methods exist? At the end of the day though, how reliable it is shouldn't matter - pain, suffering and death is nothing we should put on any of our fellow creatures. Being born into this world to have a life of pain - what right do we have to subject those weaker than us to our poisonous will? No matter how convenient it is to us or how "tasty" their flesh may be.

The same way our compassion allows poverty, starvation, abuse of children, etc etc. This appeal to emotion really does nothing but sidetrack an interesting conversation so far.

And suffering and death is not something that should be put on us either. I do not object to "pest" control because I do not want to see an outbreak of any number of plagues/diseases yet it causes "death" to other beings. So which is it? Do we allow ourselves to die or conduct pest control? Face it, until you remove people from the equation there is going to be impact on the animals by our mere presence.

[John4216]

Originally Posted by HowietheGreat

John, not sure if that was directed my way-it wasn't a direct attack againist you. I wish we could abolish it all together by using other methods-you're right we're not there yet. I work in the mental health field. I sit through drug reps, and doctors presentations on psych meds. Yes, they test on animals, frequently rats and mice. It makes me sad but I also know how these drugs help people with severe to mild mental illness. I can't say those people do not deserve to have those drugs. I am 100% for better treatment of lab animals if they must be used. Nothing deserves to go without proper pain medication or proper vet care. The post I listed above kept me awake the night I read it. It was torture for those animals. Columbia University is one of the rare colleges still using lab animals. Even harvard and princton have stopped using animals and are using other methods now. It is possible. I know Johns Hopkins still uses animals but they are a experimental hospital. I hope they offer their animals vet care and as humane of treatment as possible.

I agree. I am also a licensed therapist in the field and see the same. I know my own university still uses animals which, to me anyway, is not needed except for the Vet school where they work to help and heal not test on. I too want to see the animal testing eliminated as much as possible. The point that is not being answered so far is what about the medicines used to treat animals themselves. My example was about medicine used to treat them.

[crazywiggy]

I think people should be aware that lab animals don't live a "life of pain" or are tortured. A lot of testing is very simple - give the animal an injection then some time later do a blood test to see if it had the desired effect. The only suffering is the momentary pain of the needle. I've had enough blood tets, vaccinations and given blood to know this isn't exactly torture.

It used to be a case that pain relief was never used, but thnigs are changing. Certainly in the UK it is stipulated that pain relief should be used unless there is an exceptionally good scientific reason not to. The more extreme procedures - especially those you see in the photos - are done under anaesthetic, some of which are terminal, so the animal feels no pain whatsoever.

I'm also interested in what peolpe think of animal behaviour research. There are now coutless studies showing the negative effects of poor housing. They have also found out things like what an animal needs in its environment - such as pigs needing a hidey, mice needing to be able to nestbuild etc. This research has helped to improve animal welfare in every field, by showing that poor care is unacceptable and showing us exactly what we need to do to improve our animal's lives. This research is not only changing peoples opinions, it is being used to change laws - such as the new Animal Welfare Act in the UK and the forthcoming ban on standard battery cages for chickens. Would you say that this research was wrong, despite the obvious benefits to animals?

[thalestral]

The UK legislation contains enough loopholes for many animals to be in pain. To belittle their suffering is not on - the majority do live a life of pain, whether that be physical, emotional or mental (almost 60% of experiments are carried out without anaesthetic).

Nothing I've said is an appeal to emotion, though goodness knows if many of you would consent to animal testing on your own animals in order to save others. The fact is that most are happy for such things to continue as long as they don't have to think about the faces or personalities involved that are no different from those we have in our family as pets. Don't want to let "emotions" get involved.

And yes, I say animal testing is wrong as it causes suffering and death without them being able to give permission. Were they able to decide whether or not they wanted to die for others it would be another matter. As it is they cannot.

As for animal behaviour research, would you think it was okay to place guinea pigs in small cages for their life to monitor their behaviour? Or do you think experts should work alongside rescues and those with experience to go with the best option that there is?

It's interesting that the laws governing animal testing in the UK for example date back to 1986 and haven't been amended since. Not a good sign. Furthermore, no animal researchers have ever been prosecuted under this law despite all the video footage and photographs of the many who have abused their positions.

Animal suffering for animal medicine or human medicine - the fact is, we make them do it. They do not choose to. If people wanted to test on me to find a cure for cancer without my permission - would that be okay? So why is it all right to do so on those who are weaker than ourselves? It is a violation of their right to freedom, their right to life, and their right to not be tortured. I do not believe that humans should have the right to do as they wish with those weaker than themselves, and all these arguments of suffering and so on fail to address the suffering that is already happening.

We have millions of drugs for conditions already existing - why carry this on any longer? Do you really think your life is worth more than any other born on this planet?

[thalestral]

Here are some links from Animal Aid, a group I support. I can only hope people take the time to read through them.

Animal Aid: Animal Experiments
Animal Aid: Killing animals and humans
Animal Aid: BRED TO SUFFER - Animals as models of human disease

I understand now why AR people get so upset/angry - talking to people with different morals gets no one anywhere and I'm afraid I can't continue to read the disrespect of life here as I see it with the other stresses going on in my life.

Enjoy the links anyway

[John4216]

Originally Posted by thalestral

I understand now why AR people get so upset/angry - talking to people with different morals gets no one anywhere and I'm afraid I can't continue to read the disrespect of life here as I see it with the other stresses going on in my life.

Well seeing as this is the Kitchen here is my response:

Than maybe this thread has run its course. It is difficult to talk to someone with different views (notice I say views rather than morals). To speak with someone who believes an earthworms life is just as important as my childrens life. With someone who advocates a return of plagues/diseases so we do not continue pest control (its wrong to kill those animals and it is wrong to find a cure for some of them because we can not ask the animal). It is difficult to talk to someone who paints everyone with the same brush, either us or them. It is difficult to talk to someone who is against finding a cure for any thing that may beset animals be they pets or wild(cancer, heart disease, ect). It is difficult to talk to someone who implies others are immoral for doing the natural thing of placing a higher value on their offsprings life than on others. It is difficult to talk to someone who believes that the family using that oxen to grow rice to feed them is wrong and should not "enslave" that animal.

Sorry uncle but that seeing eye dog you have needs to be freed in the future because I have found out that we have enslaved it and it is immoral to have it, nevermind the fact that it is treated just like one of your children and obviously loves you as well. Sorry ill, terminally ill and depressed patients that get visits from a dog every week. In the future we will have to stop this because it is immoral of us to enslave this animal, nevermind the fact that it is treated as part of the family; nevermind the wagging tail and obvious happiness the pet has in visiting you, it is immoral. Sorry amish guy but your religion is obviously immoral and those draft horses you use to plow your fields have to go. Sorry my household pets for holding you in "immoral" slavery. Sorry for providing you a longer, healthier and happier existence and treating you like you are one of my family, yes even you sasha who treats my youngest like he is her puppy and truly has an emotional bond with our "pack". I have been told that it is immoral of me to do so. Yes I know that they presume to speak for you yet acuse others of doing the same; and yes because others treat their pets poorly then all pets must be freed. Sorry that I embrace you in a partnership, a word that seems foreign to some. Sorry to my future grandchildren while you lay there dying of the plague or hanatvirus or other illness, just remember that your suffering for the "moral" reasons of not having pest control and not having any further tests to eliminate these types of illness or to find better non-lethal means of pest control.

In my opinion what you advocate increases suffering if by nothing else than by taking longer to accomplish what you are trying to do and by alienating more moderate folks who might have the same end goal in mind as you but just a different way yot get there. If it takes 50 years by the hard line way or 20 years by moderately getting there one step at a time which one is better? Sorry but as long as humans share the planet with animals there is going to be an impact and interaction. To try to act like that won't happen is naive at best. And to try to imply someone is immoral because they want to treat their animal friends as partners and better their lives is more than just offensive it is ivory tower thinking.

Plus it is easy to discuss these things while we type away on machines that cost more than many people in the world see in a year and yet we can be critical of their "morals" when they are just struggling to survive. If you want to end animal suffering you must also end human suffering at the same time.

And it is difficult to talk about this when there is nothing to discuss according to you. It is laid out and is black and white and you want what you want immediately and if people disagree with your point of view then your "people with different morals" and disrespectful of life according to you. This in no way encourages people to see your point of view and makes the whole thing a "us vs them" kind of mentality. You paint everyone with the same brush and ignore what you do not want to think about or address. What is sad is that many of those you toss aside are ones who want basically the same goals as you do they just see a different path to get their but because it is a different path you are willing to alienate them. What is even moe sad is that I am willing to acknowledge that some of what you said is great, and that the ultimate goal is a good one and I won't discount everything you have said and imply your immoral and have no respect for life simply because you see a different path to the goal than me or simply because I do not like propoganda and rather want reality and how best to approach it that way.

As a final note, I would say that if you did ask my pets if they would like to be where they are or out in the wild, you are going to find they are going to want to be with me because they are part of my family and are treated no different than my children and in some ways maybe a little better. So until you can ask them what they want, you really have no right to pass judgement on them. It does not take a genius to figure out what the answer from them would be. Lead a long, happy, healthy existence as part of my "herd" or "pack" or live out in the wild where they all would probably have been dead by now through disease, starvation, illness, injury or predator. We live in a mutal partnership that is beneficial to both animal and human. Partnership means they already have the same rights that my own human children do. And if that is immoral, well then I am proud to be immoral with my pets.