English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is it logical or even ethical to cause suffering in the hope of relieving suffering?

2007-01-14 21:00:47 · 14 answers · asked by TLC 2 in Science & Mathematics Medicine

Tommythe...

In my case money doesn't come into it, I’d rather die poor than live in the knowledge that I am the cause of another creatures suffering.

2007-01-14 21:11:37 · update #1

Mind you I could push animal test onto creatures like politicians... lol.

2007-01-14 21:13:50 · update #2

POETSAILOR4V..

Er..Hmmm... With all the killing on innocent men women and children in the world today, what makes you think we have risen above the animals. Surly putting yourself above anybody, including animals is pure arrogance... And where there is arrogance there is no love, no compassion.

2007-01-14 21:29:24 · update #3

I think the biggest obstacle to animal testing is the corporate pigs. It seems very irresponsible to allow them to operate in the so called free market. The pressure for success is driven by shareholders and I drought very much they would be working for the benefit of the people as whole.

Example:

Would an arms dealer welcome peace?
Would a privately run pharmaceutical company ever want an end to disease?

It seems to me that if these two sectors of our society continue to remain in private hands rather than public, then we can expect to always to have war and disease

2007-01-15 01:28:41 · update #4

14 answers

I believe the best testing is human testing. It's going to be a product used on humans. Test it on humans for the best results.

2007-01-14 21:04:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Considering that the large majority of potential treatments turn out to be failures, it's certainly reasonable. Some animal testing is superfluous and could be stopped, but there are (despite others' postings) no computer models or other alternatives that are as good, so it' certainly reasonable to try new drugs on a few animals, then a few people, before going on to general use.

2007-01-16 02:57:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

No. What makes humans think that we are the be-all and end-all on this planet?

What makes us think that we have the right to inflict pain and suffering on our fellow creatures purely because we have the larger brain and opposable thumbs?

I can understand the logic behind it, but what we are doing is wrong. Put yourself in the place of those animals; take away the ability to communicate, trapped in an enclosed environment, tortured until they finally put you out of your misery and cut you up to find answers to questions that don't effect you.

I know most religions believe animals don't have souls (I disagree) but does believing animals are soul-less give humans the right to mistreat them?

Answer is a resounding "NO"

Good question though!

2007-01-14 21:10:56 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix 2 · 4 1

I hear all this stuff about "animal rights" and here is a fact possibly not considered. If we hadn't risen above the rank of "animal" ourselves the point would be totally moot. There would be no domesticated anythings, your cat would still be a desert predator and the basic laws of survival is all the law there would be. Be real good at killing and eating or real good at running and hiding or you are lunch. Test em, eat em, skin em and wear em. Make more, repeat.

2007-01-14 21:22:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

We are living in the 21st century....countless billions have been spent on space exploration and wars, and yet they cannot find the money to investigate alternate methods of testing drugs/shampoos/cleaners etc. What these laboratories do to animals in the name of research is immoral, barbaric, unnecessary, and a disgrace to the human race.

2007-01-14 21:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by sarch_uk 7 · 2 2

Testing on animals is, at the moment, the only way to viably test out products that save lives in humans.
Would you rather scientists test new drugs on you or your family?
Most peoples arguments, are that the animals are badly treated and tortured, but infact the animals are better treated than the humans that work on them. They have better lives than their wild counterparts and they are helping our lives to be better.
In any case they dont have an understanding of what is going on and when they are killed it is in a human way and they do not struggle and it is quick and painless!
For all the people who are against it, i hope that you refuse treatment in hospitals and never take any drugs of any kind as they will all have been tested on animals. (make up too ladies).

2007-01-14 21:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I agree. I always buy products that states on the back that it was not used for animal testing...

2007-01-15 01:04:12 · answer #7 · answered by slickcut 5 · 2 0

Its not logical. Penicillin is lethal to guinea pigs. Valium excites cats, not sedates them. One variety of avocado is lethal to parrots.

When Fleming tested penicillin he tried it on a guinea pig and a boy with pneumonia. The boy recovered but the guinea pig was poisoned. Had he only tested it on the pig it would never have been released for use in humans.

The main lab animals used in cancer research is the mouse; but mice and rats tend to get sarcomas and the cancer we tend to get are carcinomas.

There are numerous cases of drugs tested on animals which have gone on to be toxic; Thalidomide is one example.
After drugs are tested on animals they are then tested on humans; remember the recent events in London when so many volunteers died? That drug had passed animal testing as fit to test on humans.

It should be replaced by computer simulated testing as soon as possible, which would also be cheaper and faster.

2007-01-14 21:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by sarah c 7 · 5 2

i guess so
as we are more important than animals for sure but we have also to have mercy on them and t ouse this in a very important matter not just for the sake of killing

2007-01-14 21:06:14 · answer #9 · answered by khatora 3 · 2 1

No. It's not. It's a cruel excuse to rid the world of harmless animals. It's sick.

2007-01-14 21:04:59 · answer #10 · answered by *StewartGirl14* 2 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers