i disagrree with animal testing, Is it ethical for me to accept medication that is tested compulsorily by law?

Question

It is compulsory by law to test medication for use by humans on animals.

Answer 1

unfortuantely, most of the medication that is on the shelves, in our hospitals, and so on, has been tested on animals as that's the way all tests have been carried out historically. so, i imagine that you wouldn't be able to take any medication if you really wanted to avoid using any that had been tested on animals.
to answer your question, i imagine that it's theoretically not ethical for you to accept any medication but it's also completely unavoidable if you are ill enough to need it.

Answer 2

That's a difficult question to answer. The thing about testing medication on animals is that the results don't necessarily correspond to the way the drug affects people. Many drugs are withdrawn each year due to safety fears despite being tested on animals and then deemed fit for use on humans. Personally, I've always said that if I get cancer or have a heart attack I would not want treatment because of the way animals are used to research these two ailments. On the other hand, I daily take medication for back pain which will have been tested on animals and despite this I have to take the medication or I simply can't move. That doesn't mean I condone animal testing, and if an alternative was found I would certainly prefer that. It's not your fault that animals are used for testing, and as difficult as it may seem you should take your medication if you need it. Don't blame yourself for the fact that vivisectionists won't use alternative methods for research.

Answer 3

A life without medication! You will have to be extremely lucky health wise! Or very strong minded when in pain!
If it's man-made and chemical it's been tested on an animal!
Personally I'd like to thank the animals! Without animal testing I'd be in pain 75% of the time and my friends and family have all needed treatments too!
Some of the treatments have been life saving or continue to be!
Without animal testing my boss has no Hope of a cure (MS) and he'd have no way of fighting it's effects!

Only you can decide how far your ethics go!

Answer 4

you can disagree, it doesnt mean you have to act on it though.

I disagree with commercial crap and chav clothes, yet I work in a store classed as chav gear and hate all the customers. (its river island where I work).

You can ignore your beliefs once or twice if its necessary, its immature to thing otherwise as in reality you have to learn to live with those around you and sometimes life will mean that you have to do things you dont like doing or are against your beliefs.
Unfortunatly this this life, and the cost we pay to have such a thing called a society. A society being somewhere people live WITH and bend around others inorder to make things work out well, else you wouldnt really be able to get through life.

I should warn you though, if you dont act on your beliefs enough, you may go mad when the inner you tries to get out. Part of life is about maintaing a healthy balance.

Answer 5

Well it seems one of the idiots in charge of idiot animal rights group P.E.T.A hasn't anything against it if it serves their own interests (heard something about her being a diabetic taking insulin, which comes from Animals)

Likewise, one of their leading idiot celebrity supporters Pamela Anderson... just to prove how hypocritical the Anti's are one moment speaks out against animal testing, the next supports a campaign to help fight a disease (Hepatitis C, or whatever it's called)..... which depends on Animal testing to find a cure!

Answer 6

I'm against animal testing every year i donate myself to the NHS as a human guinea pig so they can test medications on me and student doctors and nurses also practise on me to for there final exams

its a great feeling to thing uv helped save a poor little defenceless animal

Answer 7

because of the fact the previous solutions propose, i think of you will possibly be able to locate there is no longer a standard answer or a customary answer for all circumstances. somewhat there are varieties of animal sorting out that are unethical, yet there are different varieties that are mandatory and the only thank you to realize an regular beneficial consequence. often, i think of drugs, wellness care products, cosmetics and different products must be examined on prepared human volunteers who've given counseled consent, no longer animals. human beings could make a decision approximately no count if or no longer they desire to place their wellness on the line to attempt a product (and are paid for doing so). Animals do no longer % to take part in sorting out, do no longer comprehend the outcomes, and are not compensated for his or her threat. regardless of the undeniable fact that, in circumstances the place acquiring counseled consent isn't achieveable - case in point pediatric drugs - animal sorting out may be the only conceivable determination. some will argue that animal sorting out won't be able to grant significant counsel for human medical reaction, yet that's a techinical, medical question, no longer a ethical one. finally there are circumstances the place animal sorting out is needed. If a medical look after avian flu is got here across that's going to might desire to be examined on animals. The medical care might have an incidental earnings for human beings yet if so there may be no thank you to appreciate if it somewhat works without animal sorting out. So, all in all, i do no longer think of customary generalizations are achieveable. you will possibly be able to desire to look at each proposed attempt on a case-by making use of-case foundation. it is likewise significant to be waiting to chop up the medical questions (what's achieveable? what delivers scientifically significant consequences?) from the moral ones (what ought to we do?). The solutions to the medical questions can help us verify the moral ones, yet they're distinctive questions that would desire to be addressed one by one.

Answer 8

The animals that they use in laboratory are born and raised for that purpose alone. If it was up to me, I would replace them with humans. That would be fair. But since our opinion doesn't matter and we do need the medication, there is no choice.

Answer 9

ok if your mum was dying and needed drugs that were tested on animals would you say no you cant use that cause its been tested on animals if the answer is no then you should accept animal testing or you just be a hippocrite

Answer 10

Depends on your viewpoint.

I'm against animal testing on things like cosmetics etc, but when it comes to medication human life is more important, hence i agree that the testing is a nessesity.