Do you think animal testing for medicine is wrong?

Mel Crapo: *I'm not saying I think it's RIGHT, sorry

Robbie Starchman: Yes, I do.There are enough humans who will test drugs and medicines. I've done medical studies. My friends have done them. Some, not all. In the end you'll need to test a medicine meant for human consumption on a human anyway. Plus, in America, there is a recall of drugs every week. Drugs that have ultimately been tested on humans, which end up causing all kinds of other medical problems. Even death. So if this is the case cyrrently with drugs that are tested first on animals, then humans, it's not doing a good job.No animal testing for drugs is OK by me. Rats, monkeys and rabbits might have totally different chemcial reactions than a human. Many many diseases can be wiped out be eating right in the first place. Once in your body you might be able to help by eating raw organic food.Diseases re the cause of pollution, radicals, diet and environmental hazards, and testing drugs on animals is wrong! for the animal , ethically wrong and in any case, does not work to find the bes t drugs- which always have to be tried in people in the end. I know enough people would say yes to being the ones tested. Money is a good incentive, but facts and results don't care about money....Show more

Cierra Gadbaw: I'm not saying I think it's WRONG, I'm saying I'm unsure of what to think about it. Also, if you are against it, would you say that there are alternatives or what? I mean that as a serious question.

Lynn Hollars: I hate life- But what about the medicine that we need? For cancer, AIDs, etc. Things that have not yet been cured.

Moises Rupinski: That largely depends on what you mean by wrong.Do i think it is wrong in that it can aid in the development of cures that save lives? No.Do i think it is wrong in that it forces a non consenting being into experiments that may produce negative effects in the subject (eg LD50/side effects)? Then yes i think that is wrong.! I'm well aware that medicines i've taken over my life have bee! n derived from animal studies & that medicines will come in the future from animal testing, however that doesn't justify it no more than cures that have been found in WW2 japan/nazi human test subjects (gunshot wound treatment/decompression/hypothermia etc) is a justification for using humans. I'd rather large funding to seek alternative technological methods & a use of volunteer prisoners (to avoid the loop of testing on wrongly incarcerated humans) in return for monetary rewards eg extra calls etc.The main justification for animal testing utilises a utilitarian point of view ie the net good outweighs the net bad (10 rats to save 100 humans is a utilitarian stance for example). However utilitarianism rejects the notion of individual inherent rights & the argument can just as easily be flipped on its head ie 10 humans to save 100 humans. One cannot have an impasse saying '' animal testing is A-Ok but oh no you cant use humans that is wrong'', there needs to be a logical rea! son for that & i personally cannot find one if it uses utilitarianism. Human testing would be nearly equivilant a justification as animals from this POV.....Hence why Singer (bioethicist & utilitarian) gets in trouble for his controversial statements that are perfectly in line with his philosophical belief.It is a highly debatable topic with strong arguments from both sides from the various academic fields, i personally oppose it but recognise that an outright ban starting tomorrow would not work & would jepordise many human lives. There are also cases where animals must be used such as developing drugs for animals in vetinary science. Here is a link from two opposing views on the merits/drawbacks of anima testing in medical sciencehttp://www.newint.org/sections/argument/2011/06/01......Show more

Shelley Stevens: I think its not good to hurt those sweet innocent animals

Rachell Meese: I think at the moment it is the best of several evils. I don't like it, but I ! accept the necessity.

Phillip Modafferi: Yes. The majority of ani! mal tests never yield reliable results and animal abuse, no matter what veil it is hidden behind, is still animal abuse, and I cannot condone it.If everyone who had AIDS wore a condom, the disease would be non existent within a few decades. And cancer tests have been done on billions of mice and yet no magical mouse has been found that can provide an answer, yet money and time is still being wasted on illogical research that has proved itself unfounded....Show more

Berry Gilmore: Consider the alternative: Medicines are first tested on HUMANS.At some point, ANY medicine must be tested on a LIVE participant. NO amount of computer simulation can equal the random environment of a live animal. Without animal testing, thousands provide HUMANS would have to die in the testing process.Another alternative would be to disallow the production of any medicine or procedure which MIGHT interfere with the life process. This would stop the development of ALL medications, especially ! cures for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's Disease, sickle anemia, etc. Stem cell research would ALSO be stopped, as these ALSO have great potential to harm as well as help.Animal testing, as ugly as it is, is a necessary evil for the advancement of medical technology....Show more

Rona Espalin: Of course it's wrong. Those morons need to test on humans since the medicine IS for humans.

Blair Abdi: I hate life- But what about the medicine that we need? For cancer, AIDs, etc. Things that have not yet been cured.

Giovanna Sherlin: absolutely whats the point of it pharmacy drugs are Shi† ancient remedies kick åss

Dexter Dicostanzo: I think it's wrong. It's stupid that they test animals today when older medicine works just fine. I got sick for a LONG time and newer medicine didn't do $h!†. My mom had some older medicine left, I tried that, and I was up the next morning.

Tillie Wynott: @i hate life- I bet that your medicine was a placebo. Let me guess! , you had a stomach virus or a cold or something else where the only re! al cure is time. It would be like me telling you that wearing a red shirt will cure you, it's all in your head.Ever heard of Snake Oil? It was a placebo that scammed people into thinking it worked....Show more

Elden Bardach: I am opposed to testing for medical research. Part of this is because the organisations and corporations which are involved in research are in competition with each other which means they do not share the information they get from testing which means more testing must occur for similar answers. I also believe that death and disease is natural and that we will never be able to cure everything. A big factor in why our species is currently overpopulated is because of medical treatments which have drastically reduced infant mortality and extended the longevity of many more people. This is indirectly responsible for extreme environmental damage since we have no idea how to operate sustainable with such an enormous population on the planet.We should sto! p prioritising the lives of humans above otherwise healthy animals bred for the purpose of experimentation. Human suffering is very sad, but it is just a fact that most people consider human suffering to be worse than non-human suffering. I do not, so I think it is unreasonable to create more suffering in the hope of reducing some human suffering.Opposing animal testing also doesn't mean opposing medicines or treatments altogether. There are countless treatments and medications available RIGHT NOW which would continue to be available if we decided to stop testing on animals. We should stop trying to fight nature and instead see infirmity with different eyes... something which occurs for the good of our species and our planet....Show more

Lou Ravelo: it is wrong the animals cannot consent. they are not our slaves they have a right to life without wanton suffering and cruelty. there are much more humane alternatives that actually produce better results. it should be tes! ted on humans because it is for humans.it is hypocritical: they say we ! test on animals because they are like us..but aspirin causes tumors in mice... but they still use it on humans because they say.. animals are not like us. plus honestly a lot of medicine is for diseases that would be non existent if people focused more on their diet and looking after themselves....Show more

Scot Sepulbeda: OK, let's be realistic for a minute.Like 6% of animal testing is for medicine. The other 94% is for stupid stuff like cosmetics. If you just boycott the cosmetic companies that test on animals, that's 94% you've done to eliminate testing in your life.The world isn't vegan. The FDA will continue to use animal trials as a testing prior to human trials. But there are vegans who are working on tests that are the equivalent of animal studies. Support these people. Veganism isn't all or nothing, it's doing what you can. You don't get to choose if you need the new anti-cancer drug on the market because the other medicines didn't work. You don't get to choo! se if your daughter needs the new leukemia drug that was tested on animals. You don't just stop using medicine because you don't like how it got on the market. You need the medicine, you take it.If you stop using cosmetics tested on animals, that's 94% done.Push for non-animal equivalents for the other 6%. It's gradually being done, if not here in the US, it's being done in Europe. We in the US will take European trials as animal testing, btw. You're not going to make a difference dying, and you're not going to make a difference by abstractly saying whether you're for or against testing.You will make a difference buying leaping bunny, non animal tested cosmetics.You will make a difference advocating non-animal tests for safety/efficacy.Everything else is pure philosophy. Like Theoretical Physics. (anyone else annoyed that Sheldon struts like he's hot stuff on Big Bang Theory, when he's a glorified philosopher who does math? They haven't proven string theory at all yet, very! few tests have been done. Brian Greene, ya'll)...Show more

Ronni! e Sardi: Well it could be tested on you instead.What is that?Stay with testing it on animals?ok.

Cornelius Thornborrow: No I do not think it is wrong. Drugs are developed for the purpose of collective human survival. They are tested on animals to ensure safety prior to usage by humans.It does not surprise me that most vegans are opposed to it, even though most of them have benefited from it. Most vegans seem completely oblivious to their own double standards, and I'm sure you'll get some responses that attest to that fact.

Aron Ramu: Yup. Animal commodification is animal commodification. Torture is torture. The excruciating death of hundreds of thousands to *potentially* save lives, lives threatened in large part due to dietary-related disease as resultant of torturing, killing, and consuming MORE ANIMALS is not ethically justifiable in any way. Interesting definition of "vegan" you have going on there:"Treating sentient beings as things is WRONG! 'Cept when we ! wanna."...Show more