Hello people of Yahoo, you have now become the proposition for my debate topic! Kindly help find rebutles =]?

Question

Okay, the question is: ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH - I am saying they should be. Please tell me what you would say back (rebutles) to my main points. These are:
(1)-Would you rather your mum or dad dying of some illness they have no cure for or kill a few animals on the way to finding the cure to save millions of lives?
(2)- We kill animals for many other reasons. Like to eat for example I bet your not ALL vegetarians. We also keep them as pets; do you ever think WHY dogs run ways? Maybe, JUST maybe they are feeling like they are trapped. Way more animals being killed for meat and clothes than medical testing, so why not protest about them? We should use them for medical testing because we already treat them bad without knowing, so why not do it to save the human race? You already hurt them by eating them and you don’t give a second thought!
(TO BE CONTINUED)

- There is no other way to find out how a new substance with react in a complex organism. Do you think we would test on animals unless it was absolutely necessary? It’s the best solution so far to medically. It would be inhuman to use a new drug on a human, did you think of the possible side effects?


- Medical testing on animals works. The asthmatic out there can not disagree with animal testing because that’s how they got the ventolin, the cure for it. 5000 Americans alone DIED from asthma before a cure was found. Neither can diabetics. They found the cure for diabetes insulin by medical testing. Thousands of animal lives have also been saved by animal testing. In Brittan 200,000 puppies died each year Canine distemper virus now as a result to animal testing puppies lives are being saved!

- Of coarse no one likes having a needle injected into them, and if you feel so strongly about the fact we should NOT use animals for medical testing would you rather we tested on you and your family? I didn’t think so. The Federal Law prohibits 'pain full' testing on humans AND its illeagle to not give animals pain medication if they are doing a test that hurts so it does not hurt them. The animals are only allowed to have one test done to them, so we do not HARASS the animal. Each creatures cage is cleaned and sanitized daily then checked by a vet. If an animal becomes sick or injured it must be removed from the experiment immiedatly and given full madical attention. If all a few more than 1 animal becomes sick the treatment given to them must be stopped and the experiment abandoned.

Answer 1

I think they should test on animals. Who wants to use medicine that is unsafe. Kill the gerbils, not my vegan family.

Answer 2

1) this question is biased to begin with. Saying that you are only killing a few animals is misleading and untrue, also saying that it will save millions is misleading, it may or may not do this. Also it is uncomparable to say a “few animals” vs. a parent. Your parent is someone you grew up with and love, while a lab rat 500 miles away you have no emotional connection to. A more balanced question would be like comparing a friend dying to your own dog dying. In which case I honestly couldn’t choose. I would also rather have a human whom I didn’t know die rather than my own parent, that doesn’t mean that human testing is going to happen. The reality is more like a few million animals dying compared a person. There is also the theory of earths equilibrium where disease is just a way to lower an out of control population and leads back to only the fit surviving. Its only natural to get disease and die.
2) I do not eat animals or use animal products. I think that protesting against meat and fur is just as prevalent if not more than protesting against medical testing. From personal experience people are more accepting of medical testing on animals than they are of eating or wearing animals, so again this question doesn’t seem balanced or thought out. Maybe the human race shouldn’t be saved. There is absolutely no evidence that animal testing will save the human race or even that the human race is even becoming extinct so again…I don’t think the question works with no research behind it.
3)there are actually many other ways to find out how a substance will react in a human body than putting it in a dog or cat. The only testing done is they will put the drug into a dog/cat/rat whatever and get a dose they think wont kill someone, then they give it to test subjects (people). So its not really that scientific or safe actually, and this is coming from my 3rd year pharmacology class and it’s a little shocking. They only test on animals because they FDA is outdated and still requires it. Just because it is safe in animals doesn’t mean it will be safe in people, look at thalidomide and vioxx. And the opposite is also true, we may have missed out on countless new drug therapies because they didn’t work in other animals, but would have in people. There are advanced computer models that predict the outcome of a drug that are more accurate than using an animal that has totally different physiology than humans.
4) number one asthma has no cure. Ventolin treats acute asthma, but once again there is no cure. People still die from asthma related problems today, ventolin is by no means a miracle drug. I can disagree with animal testing and still take these medicines because before they did not have more advanced ways to test drugs, now they do so there is no excuse. Also why would a diabetic not take insulin if they are against animal testing, it would be more of a reason to do so as to not have the animals die in vain. You can say animal testing works, but its more like a shot in the dark. I would attribute it to the scientists mind and luck than animal testing.

Saying the only other option to animal testing is to test on “you and your family” is also a false statement. This statement is made in ignorance when in fact there are other, safer ways to test drugs. And although the “laws” are a nice thought, there are not nearly enough inspectors to enforce these laws, and many universities like Auburn for example have been prosecuted by the USDA for animal cruelty after a whistleblower came forward. So even though it would be ideal for the animals to be treated so “nicely” that’s not what happens in the real world. And animals that become sick are not always removed from the experiment, actually when testing a new drug u must find the lethal dose. They give them as much as they can until they are dead. That is how they can estimate a safe dose when they are moving on to humans. After every experiment, all the animals are destroyed. Ever notice how there are no “retired lab rat sanctuaries”. They all must be killed after their one experiment.

Answer 3

Well, it has to be tested on something.. and the rationale is better to test it first on animals before human testing can be conducted. The problem is the generalization that radical groups associate with an industry as a whole based on no more than anecdotal testimony or a few illicit videos. I seriously doubt that any suffering or dying human being will refuse treatment simply based on the knowledge that animal testing was done with the medicine/procedure he/she is about to take to save his/ her life. See the hypocrisy there? Protest the method if you must, work to improve the system even. But don't stand against the science whose main purpose is to extend human life. Fighting for animal rights is noble perhaps but so is the fight for imporvements in human healthcare and longevity.

Answer 4

There are now alternatives to animal testing that actually prduce more valid results. New drugs are required to be tested on actual hmans before being approved, and they turn away volunteers for each new medicine. Humans can volunteer for testing of their own free will-animals cannot. The animals are made to suffer much more when used for research than when slaughtered for food. I have never seen a well treated pet run away and animal abuse is illegal. Yes, I and members of my family would volunteer for testing if it would improve ours and others lives.
Last, but certainly not least-I am an asthmatic and have been a Respiratory Therapist for 22 years and THERE IS NO CURE FOR ASTHMA. Ventolin/albuterol sulfate is a short term bronchodilator that treats symptoms only. That one statement tells me you have not done your research.

Answer 5

Wow, if you really believe all that crap you are seriously misinformed or delightfully naive. If animal testing was absolutely necessary to save the lives of humans and it was done as humanely as possible, then perhaps it could almost be acceptable, but I've seen too many undercover stories done on animal testing facilities to be as naive about the whole situation as you seem to be. Unlesss of course the statements you made were purely for debate purposes, and you don't believe that fairytale.
Animals are not ours to test on.

Answer 6

Testing on animals does not necessarily correlate to the same reactions in humans. Eventually, human volunteers are used anyway. Or testing is done on cells. I'm sure there are sites on the internet that debate the pros and cons of animal testing. You'll get better rebuttals there. And drop the dogs running away argument. It's dumb and irrelevant.

Answer 7

thats too long to reply too, but how would you like it to have all your babies taken away from you to be cut open....injected and made crazy and mentaly ill?

humans create the medication, they should take all responsibility for it.