Testing on Animals

[TeePee]

These days, everyone hates Testing on Animals for consmetics. The vast majority thinks animal testing of medicines for use on humans is OK. But what about medicines for animals? Should animals be tested on (with a minimum of suffering) so that Fluffy can get his yearly 'flu shot? But then surely a few suffering in tests is better than thousands suffering and dying?

Of course this brings up another issue. While the money is in Fluffy's healthcare, the wrong disease in working animals in the third world could be a disaster for the human populations.

[turkster]

TBH I dont know what I think.

Seeing as they cant really volunteer I would say yes some animal testing should take place for animal drugs in necessary/important circumstances.

But knowing humans (and commercial pressures) I doubt any ethical considerations would be adhered to for long .

[J4MES]

Perhaps humans should be tested on for animal products, to provide some balance...

[wedge22]

What i find odd is the animal rights protesters that would rather see humans die than animals, they are a bunch of fruit loops. Why dont they go and get a job.

[Clingy]

What i find odd is the animal rights protesters that would rather see humans die than animals, they are a bunch of fruit loops. Why dont they go and get a job.

Makes me so proud to be part of such a tolerant community

It's like saying all ppl from Bury St Edmunds are old and decrepid and stick of pee! mmmm...hold on they do

[[exit]]

How would you like it if somebody's dog came up to you and gave you a jab to fight fleas after tipping a whole box of them onto you?

You would not like it would you?

But there has to be someone to test on, otherwise the health of the human public would be put at risk. i think that clones should be made, tested on, then destroyed, then no feelings are hurt.

OH no, that costs money for the companies, better go back and start animal testing again!!!

[wedge22]

It's like saying all ppl from Bury St Edmunds are old and decrepid and stick of pee! mmmm...hold on they do

You are nearly right there mate, good thing I am not from Bury then

We should test this stuff on animals because its for animals. In fact it would be a good idea to test stuff for humans on humans, the sort of humans that are the scum of the earth. This list would include rapists, murderers and the like, harsh but a good way to get accurate results.

[turkster]

But there has to be someone to test on, otherwise the health of the human public would be put at risk. i think that clones should be made, tested on, then destroyed, then no feelings are hurt.

Why would clones not have any feelings to hurt? .

[Curfish]

i dont agree with cosmetic testing and things like that, but im all for testing medicine on animals, probably most of us have benefited from medicine tested on animals maybe even had their lifes saved by medicine tested on animals

[chriscom]

i dont agree with cosmetic testing and things like that, but im all for testing medicine on animals, probably most of us have benefited from medicine tested on animals maybe even had their lifes saved by medicine tested on animals

And thousands have had their lives ruined by taking medicine that was passed safe after being tested on animals.

[Flibb]

And thousands have had their lives ruined by taking medicine that was passed safe after being tested on animals.

Compared to the millions that have been saved by modern medicine

[JimmyBoy]

test on humans instead, there are plenty of good for nothing waste of space im not going to get a job because i cant be bothered not because i cant types in the world that steal and cheat their way thru life, test on them !!

[Big RICHARD]

I'm gonna be honest. Like most of the human population, I am selfish. I would MUCH rather that drugs were tested on animals than ME. I see myself as being above animals, as arrogant as that may sound!

Cosmetic testing is different IMO. Cosmetics aren't gonna save anyone's life, cancer drugs are!


Simple as.

[chriscom]

Compared to the millions that have been saved by modern medicine

But its remains highly arguable whether the testing on animals saved the millions.
Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, but they also react differently from one another. It is precisely the ignoring of this difference that continues to be very costly to human health.

One has to question the whole process when The British Medical Journal reported that four out of every ten patients who take a prescribed drug can expect to suffer severe or noticeable side effects.

[Alex]

Chav testing... its the way forward!

On a more serious note, my opinion would be again along the lines of 'medicinal use only' kinda idea. Though I'm not so sure with pills for colds etc, but testing out differing cancer therapies, therapies for alzheimer's and parkinson's etc, ie anything we can't cure and need to come up with more radical therapies for.

[Flibb]

I am surprised that all drugs don't have some side effects, but in the majority of cases the side effects are preferable to being dead.

I doubt if a new drug for colds has been found in the last 10 years, all the ones we see are mixtures of old drugs. Also don't forget that all chemicals are tested on animals for lethal dosage, so even animal friendly products have had their constituent parts tested.