Is vivisection ok?

Question

Personally, I would say no...regardless of medical development, but for it to happen for 'cosmetic purposes' is just disgusting!

Answer 1

No! Okay, maybe that's too simplistic an answer but I have good reasons for saying no. The main reason is the terrible hardship and cruelty faced by animals for the lack of real medical develoments. For example, chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal world are immune to AIDS and Hepatitis. This, for me, provides the clearest indication that comparing animal and human subjects is totally flawed as a scientific method. Drugs that have been passed due to animal testing have then gone on to be trialed with humans - those which showed to cure or improve strokes for monkeys had no effect or sometimes a worsening effect on human subjects.

I would recommend anyone concerned about this subject should visit the Dr Hadwen Trust's website at http://www.drhadwentrust.org and read about how they work on research methods to ensure that animals do not have to be used or harmed in the development of medicine.

The discovery of the Genome is so significant to the development of medicine it could finally see an end to vivisection if, and only if, scientists are allowed to speak freely about their objections to animal experimentation.

Please also see http://www.animalaid.org.uk and http://www.vegansociety.com to see how you can live a cruelty free lifestyle.

Thanks for raising this important topic.

Answer 2

No it isn't.

It is pointless whether it's for medicine or cosmetics.

Why? Because all species-even those closely related like chimps-react in different ways.So a drug that is fine for a chimp may kill a human.The same applies for diseases.Chimps-our closest living relatives-are immune to 98% of illnesses that affect us.

So drug tests have to be done all over again on human volunteers.

Therefore what is the point?Makes as much sense as a vet testing medicine for a dog on a cat.

Answer 3

PETA once said, 'if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we wouldn't support it'.

Rarely is anything said that makes my blood boil as much as that does. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is a truly horrific disease, claiming millions of people every year, many of them children, none of them deserving. I'm sure you all know the scale of the problem in Africa, as it's so well publicised on TV.
PETA would condemn millions of innocent people, people no different to yourselves, to death for the sake of a far lesser number of animals. I don't dislike animals in the least, but I fail to comprehend how anyone can value them over human lives.

Anyway, the animals tested upon are done so with as much care as possible, there are laws in place to ensure that, and they don't usually suffer or die as a result of the testing. On the other hand, life saving and pain preventing drugs are provided by animal testing, that save millions of people every year. If it came down to you or a family member, would you rather they died or used a drug that wouldn't have become available without animal testing to save their life? Even the famed Linda McCartney used drugs tested on animals when push came to shove.

The fact is animal testing is entirely necessary. It may not be perfect, and we may not be close enough to animals for it to give a completely accurate result, but it's better than any other method save one.
That one, of course, is testing on humans. This happens already, but that is on drugs which have been previously tested on animals. The testing on animals means that, when taken to human level, they more or less know what effect it will have, and they know it won't be anything life threatening, and any danger involved is very, very small.*
I don't know about you, but were this not the case, and I was offered large amounts of money to test a drug which doctors didn't know what the likely results were, or whether it was potentially life threatening, I wouldn't accept.

*The recent TeGenero blunder happened because it was tested on humans, despite that it killed most of the animals it was tested on.

Answer 4

Absolutely not. Read, "What will we do if we don't
test on Animals by Ray Greek". You'll find that the
data they arrive at by testing on animals cannot
be responsibly applied to human science.
This is why gene therapy is so important.

Also, they like to inject animals with diseases
and place extra y and x chromosomes in them
in order to change their sex or their orientation.
How sick!!!

Answer 5

I fully agree, I make homemade cosmetics, hairspray, gels, shampoos, etc, so I cant see why its necessary to test on animals at all. The cruelty that these little beings go through for mankind is shocking.

Answer 6

People and animals are not made the same way. Testing human medicines on animals is absolutely useless. Not to mention apathetic and disgusting.

Answer 7

Well IF someone "volunteers" for such a procedure well then it would be OK, otherwise I do not think it woudl be OK to "force" such a procedure onto another.

It means something like "the SLICING and experimentation associated with operating on a liviing subject":~is that correct?

Answer 8

I'm gonna go with "no" here... I don't think some people who answered know what vivisection is.

Answer 9

I agree on the cosmetic arguement -

But when faced with a potentially terminal illness, will you turn down treatment that has been tested on animals and die, rather than live to a ripe old age???

I think i know the answer.

Answer 10

You really, DON'T want to get me STARTED, on this subject, - so, I'll just say, that I TOTALLY agree, with you! Vivisection is BARBARIC!