Pro-test

[gnommi]

I've decided to write to my MP (Alan Whitehead), in order to ask him if he would consider signing this EDM, pertaining to the regulation of medical research involving the use of animals and addressing the spread of misinformation and intimidation by anti-vivisection groups.

Comments

[katykitten.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that I still hold this stance - and I ain't no teen

[fisle.livejournal.com]

How would prefer medicines be developed?
Seriously I mean - I'm not just saying that to provoke you.
(I am not in favour of testing for cosmetics, as I don't believe animals should have to bear the weight of our vanity as well as our health.)

[katykitten.livejournal.com]

I won't be provoked - I'm far too tired and everyone has their opinions. I just don't see why they can't be tested on humans fromt he beginning. Why are we more important than other animals?
Don't worry about answering, that was just a statment really :)

[fisle.livejournal.com]

I'd like to answer - I'm not arguing with you.
Unlike a lot of people, I think it is possible to discuss with someone on opposing points without getting personal or being nasty.
I don't consider my stance more valid than yours or anything, I just believe in it more (obviously).

Humans are animals - primates to be specific. Why should testing medicines on our species be considered more acceptable than testing a different one?
Like I say, in terms of biomass, humans are the end result of a lot mor energy investment than rats, guinea pigs or monkeys. Also, with our far more complex nervous system, we are capable of a far higher degree of pain and emotional response to stressful conditions. Our tendency to anthropomorphise animals leads us to believe that they somehow comprehend fear and pain in the same way as we do. While this is obviously more true for rhesus macaque than lab rat, it would be hard to imagine any other organism experiencing pain the way we do. Most organsims have basic needs to feed reproduce and avoid danger. While avoiding danger is obviously not vaible for rat involved in vivisection, the fact that these animals are bred for lab use (i.e. not extracted from the wild in ways that would adversely affect populations) and that the UK has the tightest regulations of anywhere for treatment of animals, means that their most basic life needs are generally being catered for.

Another issue, is where do you draw lines for human use? Would you be happy if your relatives were exposed to untested chemicals? Those people who were in the news recently were participating in phase I testing, which is after the animal avenues have been exhausted already. Some suggest using prisoners, but again, where do you draw the line? Just rapists, murderers etc? Extend to armed robbers? What if someone is mis-sentenced.
It's a whole can of worms.
Personally, I don't particularly like the thought of animals being tested on - I do love animals and I'm not sure I could personally carry out said tests. Having said that though, what are the alternatives? Most of our modern medicines have been safety tested on animals, and in such tests, the death of one rat (or several), may have been analogous to the death of one or more people, in a scenario where testing is carrid out on people.

You're obviously a good person, or you wouldn't care about animals enough to have an opinion, I am more rattled about the people who make threats against animal testing personnel or (worse) students at universities that test on animals, but at the same time, I am curious what the alternatives are, and am inly likely to hear suggestions from those who are opposed to the status quo.

[fisle.livejournal.com]

Also, sorry if you feel like I'm roasting you - I don't mean it that way.

[gnommi.livejournal.com]

The major problem with testing drugs on humans from the beginning is that in practice you can't get enough people together to form a statistically relevant result who will submit to the 1/2 a lifetime's worth of standardised conditions and high likelihood of serious adverse outcome. People just won't comply with that.

The obvious ways to convince people to put up with this might be to have some kind of financial reward system, or to make the "volunteering" procedure mandatory for certain groups. Unfortunately, both of these options are likely to be open to corruption, manipulation and tend to be punitive in some way (this is why you cannot offer people money to become organ donors, for instance).Its far more likely (and is been increasingly the case) that the animal phase of testing will be largely replaced by sophisticated cell and tissue culture techniques.

I don't get upset with people who hold a different point of view to me whatsoever, and I can totally see why some people hold them. I do get upset with people who want to intimidate or manipulate me into having a different one though! I've been called evil (and other things) by animal rights campaigners before, merely for explaining politely that a lot of their information was outdated, misrepresented or just plain fabricated. Its a bit upsetting that some vocal anti-vivisectionists who would normally hold a more reasoned viewpoint have pretty much been taken in by lies put about by extremists. I guess that is my main motivation for this. Stating your opinion is one thing, but pressurising others to share it by unethical means is another.