Stand up to cancer and animal testing

[OoerBlah]

First of all, I'm genuinely sorry for anyone who has lost someone they love to cancer. But I've been watching this thing and feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Initially it was just that cancer is so incredibly difficult to treat even after all these many years of research that it just seemed so mawkish and pointless.

But then I realised where all these millions of pounds will ultimately be going - to fund research which will no doubt be on millions of defenceless innocent animals and for what? Haven't we been doing that for years already and where are we.

People die. All species die of any number of illnesses. Why do humans feel entitled to use other species so mercilessly in the vain hope of prolonging our own lives?

Anyway. Sorry, but I'm not contributing to the further mass genocide of creatures who in no way deserve to live and die solely for human benefit.

flirtygirl

No, humans don't have the monopoly on suffering. But you do realise that they only found out that paracetamol can be life saving for dogs by testing on them, don't you?

In several cases, failed human drugs have actually had effects on the animals and have been marketed to vets instead. Equally, drugs we use for headaches or a sick stomach can be used to save the life of a cat or a rabbit. We've also found out more about cats because we found out their bodies process drugs differently and they can't tolerate paracetamol. It was only through animal testing that we found that out.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need animal testing but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

The OP is entitled to her opinions she needs to learn how to put them forward in a compassionate manner instead of basing her argument on "Everyone dies." Everyone does indeed die, as do all animals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to make everyone's lives (animals included) as free from pain and suffering as possible.

I am a nurse and I'll be damned if I'll watch the babies I care for suffer and die because some people believe that the treatments we use for these children shouldn't be tested on animals.

And the OP shouldn't be surprised that several people have told her to fuck off.

I think that when faced with life and death situation, a lot of people would throw their moral and ethical concerns out of window.

As for donating to charities, it optional. Support those things that you believe in.

I'm genuinely sorry for anyone who has lost someone they love to cancer

Tbh OP, you don't sound particularly sorry, or maybe you've just never had that experience, in which case, your "genuinely sorry" doesn't begin to cover how it really is.
It does tend to be people who've not actually lost anyone to cancer who come up with these gems. Try losing your mum, dad and brother to cancer and then see if you hold the same opinion. Bitter? Yes I am. I'd have willingly held down the family pet for research if I thought it could have brought me just an hour more with each member of my darling family.

Ida Good post.

I too am against animal testing - for cosmetics and household chemicals - just not needed anymore.

But for medicine, I feel it's a necessary evil at the moment.

I am going to lose my mum to cancer.

But I still won't donate to cancer research, they are, I believe, the biggest users of vivisection in the UK.

I don't know what I would do if I was diagnosed. DH has already stated he would not wish to be treated by drugs tested on animals. Obviously my mum can do as she chooses and I will support her.

Animal testing is something I really struggle with. Academically speaking, I don't think human life is more valuable, especially given how humanity has fucked over the animal kingdom forever and a say. But I'm sure I take stuff tested on animals all the time.

I won't use toiletries that have been. Why the fuck anyone thinks an animal should suffer so they can have glossy hair I can't think, but they obviously do, given the amount of products sold that are or contain products tested on animals.

We do however, have prisons full of people who won't ever be getting out who have negatively affected society with awful crimes, with no problem violating other peoples rights, why can't we test on them?

So you would be willing to violate their rights? What makes that any different from them violating other people's rights?

There would be outrage if prisoners were subjected to medical treatment without their consent. It is hugely unethical.

Testing on people without consent is being done, just public isn't informed.

But why is it so unethical and outrageous to test drugs on people who have committed crimes rather than innocent animals? I do struggle to understand the moral distinction that makes even the most reprehensible human somehow worth more than any animal.

Yes, if someone has violated human rights to the extent of, for example, murdering another person, I fail to understand why it would be more unethical to test on them that on an animal that has done nothing to anyone.

It depends on what actually you want to research.

Human testing - ffs. Read upthread about the last people who did tat.

"People die. All species die of any number of illnesses. Why do humans feel entitled to use other species so mercilessly in the vain hope of prolonging our own lives?"

Op. I sincerely hope to God, that you never sit in a Doctor's office and get told that you have cancer.

Without the drugs (tested on animals), one of which has been developed in the last 7 years, my chances of living are 29%. Line ten of us up, with the same prognosis and seven of us will die.

With the drugs, my chances are 59%. Line ten of us up and four of us will be dead.

I'm a mother. My daughter doesn't want me to die. She needs me, even if it means that animals have to die.

Fuck it. I'm a lifelong vegetarian. I don't want to die, and when you find out your prognosis , all the principles go out the window if it means leaving your child alone.

Grow up. We're the top of the food chain and it's the selfish gene.

Human testing - ffs. Read upthread about the last people who did tat.

Exactly

Well, yes, human testing is indeed a shocking concept. What some posters are interested in is why it is always so knee jerk awful to consider human testing, and why does that not apply to animals? Actually, I think Ghandi said you can judge a society by how it treats animals, so I do think we should explore the ethics rather than just go down Godwin's route to shut it down.

Surely one problem with forcing testing on prisoners is one of the problems with the death penalty - what if it turns out that they were innocent? If the tested drugs have permanent negative effects you can't cure it just like you can't bring someone executed back to life.

Also do we really want the state to have the power to force this on people? In the past it's not just been prisoners who have been treated like this. If you allow one vulnerable group to have this done to them, how long before someone comes up with a reason why it should be extended to other groups.

The OP clearly isn't coming back...

I love animals. Before kids I probably would've given everything I own for my dog, and I've had long periods of vegetarianism etc.

But I would kill the cutest animal in the world with my bare hands if it saved one of my children's lives.

The testing is inevitable and necessary, IMO. But it's right that we feel torn and have a problem with it too. Some things are partly right and partly wrong - this is one of them.

Any species would and maim kill without thinking if it would save their child. We're no different. We try to dress it up in ethics committees, but that's what it comes down to.

Using animals is a huge hassle and not something that's done if there are alternatives.

I would like assurances that sedation and analgesics are prescribed generously for animals that suffer for our sake.

Testing on people (ethics aside) wouldn't work. You can't know their genetics in the way you can with (eg) mice (which are generally genetically identical); you don't know what medications they've taken over their lifetime, and you can't breed specific genetic variants without waiting a heck of a long time. Even if it were ethical, it wouldn't be of any scientific use

The OP hasn't posted again, I find that interesting

Stuff the people suffering from cancer, think about the poor ickle wickle cutesy mousey wousies.

I'm all for animal testing if it means breakthroughs in cancer treatment - people more important than animals.

As someone who is currently undergoing cancer treatment, without that testing I would already be dead.

Every animal eats other organisms. We are part of a food chain.
The Jains fudge by eating only seeds & leaves & fruit... but really, even they still eat other living things.

Are lab animals really not used to test drugs used for hypertension, stroke recovery, bipolar and everything else? Why pick on just cancers.

I think animal testing really unpleasant. Hurtful and cruel.

But really? If you or heaven forfend your child would die without medicines, and your child was pleading with you not to die/ not to let them die, please, mummy, would you REALLY choose an animal above your life/ your kids' future?

Given the personal is political, and given the choices I know I'd make if I or one of my precious ones diagnosed with something awful, I know I will never, ever be an anti-vivisectionist.

Oh can we just fucking not with the 'big pharma cover up' bullshit please? Seriously? It's embarrassing.

Animal testing is unpleasant, for sure. But losing a human loved one when a drug could have saved them, more so.

It's a necessary evil.