Is it right to test medecine on animals?

Question

I think it is - for the sake of developing new medicines.

Lets have some reasons for your answers too!

Answer 1

Ooooo...touchy subject. Cruel? Maybe. Necessary? Probably.

I eat meat and I wear leather. Hell, I'd probably wear fur if I lived somewhere colder and those "so-called" animal rights activists would shut up. So I can't really take a stance saying you shouldn't kill animals for our benefit.

Given the choice, I'd much rather test on a primate than a human. If testing on animals is unethical, surely testing on humans is much, much more unethical?

Answer 2

Regardless of whether it is right or wrong it is a legal requirement for new drugs to be tested on animals before they can be released for human use. I think that much information can be derived from animal models which gives us clues as to the effects it may have on humans. I doubt the lady who disagrees with this practice would really be prepared to feed her child with an antibiotic or any other medicine if it had not been tested on animals. Luckily there are human volunteers to do the clinical testing but these people must be protected by first verifying the safety of the new drug in an animal system. Even then sometimes things go wrong. This would be more common if the drug were only to be tested on cell cultures in vitro.

Answer 3

Asking whether it is right. No. It is necessary? Maybe...

Animal testing should be reserved as a validation tool as the way medicine interacts with animals may not always be a good indicator of what results may occur in people.

If the animals-over-people extreme campaigners volunteered to be the 'guinea pigs' instead of the guinea pigs I would have respect for them.

Life in all its forms should be respected. People come first though.

Answer 4

No it can never be right to test on animals just for our sakes. If us humans are going to ultimately get the benefit of the drug and not the animals they were tested on then surely they should be tested on humans. You could either pay people to do this as they do in clinical trials now or the could ease the prison population

Answer 5

well i think it is totally wrong the pain those animals would have to go through. They have feelings too cut them and they bleed. Look at those people last year who got paid for testing some medicine they nearly died but they chose to take the stuff why should a harmless creature be put through that. If the big wigs that do animal testing want them done let them do it on themselves put themselves through the pain and them hopefully they'll realise what bastards they are

Answer 6

I would rather have medicines tested on animals then people. Every batch in case of a manufacturing mistake. I don't think it is necessary to test on thousands of animals except with new medicines. With ongoing tests a few dozen should be sufficient. Animals still need to be treated humanely.
Ravenous has a point. Maybe we could test medicines on illegal aliens.

Answer 7

Well development of 'virtual' models of the human body and innovations like the Human Genome project make it less likely that it will be needed but for all practical intents and purposes, it may not be right, but it is the lesser of two evils - it would be extremely unethical to test it on human beings - this is of course assuming animals do not have the same rights as people - but we are looking out for ourselves. By the time animals have gone through the drug testing process, the only merciful thing to do is put them down. But if we didn't use them as models, we would never make any progress.

Answer 8

Let's see... take surplus animals saved from death at the pound to test chemicals OR test them on your children.

Allow release of chemicals/drugs and wait to see if they cause unexpected damage on the populace or sacrificing some animals that would already be incinerator ash.

By realizing the process feeds and cares for animals posted for death - extending their lives, the thought of using them is more supportable. By choosing the manipulation of a few animals to prevent damages to a staggering huge numbers of people is the justification.

The ethics is subjective.

Answer 9

Unfortunately it is a necessary evil. In most instances it is the best way to determine if there are unwanted side effects before moving on to human trials.

I do however have a HUGE problem with animal testing in other industries - cosmetics for instance. In this day and age there is no excuse for that.

Answer 10

I do not like animal testing, it is not fair to the animal they have no say and should not have to suffer for human advancement. We have already invaded their habitats and are killing species because we are building in their "homes."

I think in order to have medications that are effective on humans you need to test on humans. How can this be done? Well, in my opinion instead of having criminals sitting around on death row for 20 years at the taxpayers expense they should be the ones who are being used for testing. They lost their rights when they were convicted of their crime and should be of some use to our society until they are executed.