Medical tests on animals.Good or bad?

Question

Please give a reason

The question says MEDICAL TESTS.
I was not aware that beauty products aare covered by the field of medicine.
Please read the question before answering

Answer 1

Animal testing of new drugs and procedures is not "good" or "bad". It is simply absolutely essential. There is no other way of discovering how a substance will act in a complex organism, except introducing it into a complex organism. Naturally, animal testing is not done until other types of testing have been completed. If a drug kills normal cells as well as cancer cells in cell culture, or doesn't affect either one, then obviously there is no point in testing it in animals. However, if a drug kills cancer cells effectively and doesn't appear to affect normal cells in culture, then it must be tested in animals before it can ever be considered as a medication for human beings.

It would be totally unethical and immoral to give a new drug to a human being before ALL possible means have been taken not only to assess the efficacy of the drug, but just as important, to identify possible serious side effects. Suppose you have a new drug that has been tested for months on cell cultures, and in every case has quickly killed all malignant cells without harming any normal cells. That's a pretty exciting discovery. So now you give the drug to 50 rats with malignant tumors. All the tumors disappear within a month, but during the same time period, 12 of the rats die from cerebral hemorrhage. This is a side effect you could not possibly discover through cell culture testing, because a cell culture does not have a brain that can bleed. Likewise a new chemical might cause such effects as extreme blood pressure changes, heart failure, kidney failure, muscle paralysis, blindness, skin rashes, or hundreds of other serious complications. A cell culture doesn't have a circulatory system, kidneys, eyes, muscles or skin, therefore no such complications would be noticed by cell culture testing.

If my wife or one of my children was to receive a new drug, I would want assurance that absolutely ALL possible means had been taken to ensure its safety. Nothing less could possibly be ethically justifiable. And if a thousand rats had to be killed in the process, so be it. Or rabbits. Or dogs. Or whatever it takes.

Answer 2

I find this very tricky.

It's pretty barbaric, the organisation gathering animals, locking them up, and putting drugs in them just to see what happens. I'm very opposed to animal cruelty- I don't eat meat, I am sickened by people wearing fur...

Having said all that- if one of my parents or brothers was- god forbid- suffering an incurable illness, then my human instinct would be to do or allow ANYTHING to save them- I'd hate every minute of it, but I would support animal experiments if there were any chance it could help them. It's not ethical, it's not fair, but I would.

I am going on the basis that what's being tested is a very significant drug for humans- actually life saving, not just a new headache drug or something.

Also, think of what would happen if a very significant cure were found, ie a cure for leukemia, which kills a lot of kids? The number of human lives saved would be greater than the number of animal casualties. It's still not ethical, but it is something I could make peace with.

I can't stress enough that I genuinely hate the idea of animals being locked up and tested on, I think it's appalling, and I don't think it's ever morally sound- but it's all very well for me to complain until I need those drug companies to help somebody.

Plenty of people might say it's always a bad thing, and they'd never support it, but if their child needed a life saving drug that needed animal testing, they'd allow it every time. Although right now thats not the case with my family, it might be the case for other people's so I have to apply the same judgement.

Bottom line- there is a big difference between thinking we have the right to do something completely unethical, and being willing to do it even though we know we do not.

Answer 3

Medical testing on animals is no longer necessary because of all the previous testing that has been done. Computer models and programs may be used...and scientists can now grow skin and organs in labs that can be specifically tested on. There are also, terminal people that are willing to try new drugs and programs even though they are still in experimental stages. There are still some really sick and grotesque medical experiments that happen not only to rats, but monkeys and dogs. There are tests done where an organ, such as the liver from a pig is surgically placed under the skin in the neck of a chimpanzee to test for drugs that may be useful in transplant surgeries...the effects of this surgery are disgusting, vomiting, bleeding from the eyes and nose, profuse diarrhea, crying out in pain, and a slow and painful death. A great many of these surgeries are done with no pain medication or anesthetic, they are sliced open and experimented on while tied down and mildly sedated. Not only are these experiments cruel, but so are the ways in which the animals are "housed". They are shut in tiny metal cells, with no blankets, no lights, no toys, and they never ever leave these cages for their entire pitiful stay. I do not care what kind of sickness I get...I do not deserve to live over ANY other living creature. That "holier than thou" attitude that Geoff talks about in his answer below, applies to people that think they are superior to all other creatures on Earth and so they have a right to take advantage of that. Of course we take medicine when we are sick...but I really do not think animal testing is necessary anymore...it makes no sense, I am not at all like a guinea pig, so what does testing on that animal do for me? We need to use technology and information based on previous testing.

Answer 4

It's very easy to say that animal tests are wrong, and its very easy to take a 'holier than thou' attitude about it, but its a different story when you or a loved one is dying of something that could have been cured with some animal testing. How many of you have had serious diseases or bacterial infections? How many have you have taken a modern antibiotic before? There's a very good chance that many of you that have answered wouldn't be here if it wasn't for modern medicine. So many diseases don't even exist anymore because of animal testing.

And there is always a need for testing; we are certainly not at a point where we don't need to test anymore. With every new disease and every new drug there needs to be tests. Mammals (rats, rabits, etc) happen to have very similiar responses to drugs as humans. Is it a good thing? No, of course not. But would it be better to let people die from preventable/curable illnesses? Not sure about that. And any kind of human testing, with the exception of clinical trials using volunteers who are sick with the disease being tested on, is skating on very thin ethical ground. Prisoners on death row? First of all, the death sentence in itself is wrong in my opinion; we don't know for sure that they are guilty a lot of the time, and its impossible to prevent innocent people from being falsely convicted now and then. Even if it were somehow 100% certain they were guilty, allowing involuntary tests on inmates would be a big step in the wrong direction. What would be next? I can just see all the different ways this would be abused.

So, at the end of the day, life isn't fair people, and nature itself isn't 'good' or 'bad'; it just is what it is. When you eat a steak to survive, is that different? What about when a wolf eats a deer? What about the bacteria that cause disease in animals in order to live? Are they bad? No, they're just trying to live, and so are we. Life feeds on life and its not always pretty out there.

I think animal testing should be as humane as possible, however, and should be closely regulated. And yes, I think using animals for cosmetics is pretty ridiculous.

Answer 5

I think it is justifiably necessary to test potential cures on animals who already have that disease or sickness; but to induce a terminal infection into an otherwise healthy animal is the epitome of sickness itself.
Give a reason? I would think that is self-evident, but I will ...if the animal already had the sickness the cure might save its life and other lives, including humans. It is for the good of all without inflicting added pain or trauma.
Whereas, if you make a healthy animal sick with a life threatening disease for such a purpose, you are playing at being God and the karma will rub off in your products some day.
Any wonder so many people are turning to alternative ways of healing these days?

Answer 6

i think medical testing on animals is very limited, the primary animal they test on is the guinea pig but the biggest antibiotic we use penicillin can potentially be toxic to them. They are very sensitive to its effects so if they had been used to test penicillin then we never of had penicillin. I know a lot of medicines have been developed because of medical testing but its quite dated now. Dogs are still commonly used but can't tolerte ibuprofen it cause kidney problems and paracetamol can cause allergic reactin but they are drugs humans take daily.

Answer 7

Bad , i know medical test have really progressed our medical knowledge / drugs but I feel there are other ways.

There are human trials which are very beneficially, bur recently there has been a lot of bad press.

I know this is a very bold statement but I think that why not test on prisoners with life sentences, there are a lot of prisoners in America on death row - in America at least life means life. If these people are sentenced to death which does eventually mean death why not use them as medical trials?

It breaks my heart to see these animals suffering for reason, at least my concept takes people who have used or abused people in some way and used them for the greater good.

I know not every storey is clear cut and I try to stay open minded, but if your nearest and dearest had been murdered in cold blooded murder would you be bothered if the killer was tested upon for the greater good?

Answer 8

as quickly as my heart develop into going out of section after a hard night and that i develop into given injection.i'm fearful of injections. I shouted on the nurse individual to take it off.he didnt for a on a similar time as and that i for my section fussed approximately it.he develop into understand-how yet develop into very sluggish. they had to do extra tests yet what the hack I didnt want it and my boyfriend took me out of wellbeing facility. I went domicile and had a time without work the artwork :) while they positioned me in a magnetic seek section to work out my neck, my mom develop into waiting patiently exterior yet I didnt took the try after 2 minutes.i didnt realize it may sense that extraordinary.it develop into extraordinary I dont like it. Then the discomfort eased by way of itself.when you consider that I easily have a tattoo I cant anymore bypass into that weirdness back.A dragon tattoo in case you're able to be able to desire to appreciate.

Answer 9

If me or my family and friends had a serious illness and to save their lives a few rats would need die to save their lives in a medical test, then sorry rats...

Definitely not for beauty products though.

Answer 10

I know Ventolin for asthma was tested on animals, so as an asthmatic I have to say good, I do not agree on beauty products being tested on animals.