Welcome to Gaia! ::

Is it ethical? Not ethical ever? Is only medical testing valid?

We have a vegan thread and a PETA thread, but not one specifically about this topic, so I started a new one. Also, this thread should put us on page 3 of the SubForum!

I'm going to apologize upfront because I don't really have time to have an extensive debate right now (exams and all) but I figure since my views on the subect are the less popular ones I should throw them into the melting pot. Maybe someone can play devil's advocate with them later.

I disagree with medical testing. Especially animal testing for products.

The basic reason why is simply, we're torturing animals for our own purposes. Yes animal testing results in medication and treatments for humans, but it's medication and treatment for humans. We're taking animals, keeping them captive, and torturing them for our own benefit.

Some people bring up the fact I'm not for making eating animals illegal, however I do view this as different. Killing an animal quickly (I believe there should be regulations, however on the environment the animal lives in as well as the manner of its death), to consume and sustain ones self is completely different than keeping it and preforming tests on it.

I do not understand the human belief that we are superior to all other living beings and should be allowed to do with them what we please. If humans want cures for things, they should be willing to test on themselves at least then there would be consent. If the idea of testing on other humans disgusts you, than why? The testing helps THEIR species, and they have the ability to say yes or no to the tests.

I'm against product testing, but not medical testing.

I don't believe humans are superior to other animals and we can do whatever we want to them. I believe humans are biologically superior to other animals and therefore have responsibility. Let's be honest with ourselves, if a rat understood that testing on humans could double or even triple its lifespan, it would do it. Same with pigs. It's part of our base instinct to survive and thrive. Of course, we don't have to give in to that instinct, but if you weigh it out that that either thousands of rats will suffer and die or millions of humans will suffer and die, neither one of them giving consent to this suffering and dying (I don't know many 5 year olds who kneel before their beds at night and go, "God, please when I wake up, let me have leukemia." I don't know any 40, 50, 60 year-olds like that either...), I'm going to go for the rats taking the blow.

I know, I know, I'm cruel, I'm awful, I'm a bad person, but quite frankly, I like being alive, and I know that I'm alive partially because of animal testing. I know other people who are alive because of it. For the same reason that someone coming into my house and saying, "I'm going to shoot either your cat or your brother!" would make me say, "Let my brother live," despite the fact that I love my cat dearly and I actually find her to be much better company, I say animal testing for medical reasons is a necessary evil.

If there was an alternative where neither one would die, I would be extremely happy and oppose medical testing on animals completely. The thought of buying poor people off with food and small sums of money to utterly exploit their bodies causes me to be more repulsed than animal testing.

Plus, then there's the issue of testing involving very young animals; how do you do the same tests with humans without doing the same thing you do to animals? The, using their bodies in ways that may very well cause pain when they did nothing to deserve it and didn't ask for it, thing? You can't do fetal testing on a consenting human adult. You can on a consenting human adult's fetus, which is fine if a fetus isn't a person, but if you believe a fetus is a person, then no, it's no better than doing it to animals.

Alright, I'm not even going to attempt to reply to everyone individually and so I'm going to try and respond in one big generic blob. One again apologizing if I don't respond.

I'm not implying the living conditions of the animals, so much as the actual tests that are preformed on them, which I would contitute as torture. Things such as submerging mice in water, after treating them to see how long they're able to stay under water until they drown (testing for a treatment for stroke, attempting to see if they could elongate the time a person could go without oxygen). Preforming surgery on the brains of mice/rats in order to see what happens in those parts of the brains. Causing results such as them not knowing when they're hungry so either eating way too much, or stopping eating. And those are only "valid medical tests" not even delving into cosmetic testing. If these tests were to be performed on humans they would be classified as torture.

The tests may benefit them as well, however THEY are not the ones looking for these benefits. Humans are. If humans want the benefits of tests they should either, find alternative ways to test or be willing to take the blow themselves. Not only this but it's HUMANS who get to decide whether or not an animal gets treated. If there was medical testing with the stipulation that all animals would get treated for the things they've helped find a cure for, I might be inclined to agree. However these things only benefit animals if humans decide that they get to.

I would classify animal testing as "abuse." Domesticated animals are property in a sense because they, to a large extent, can no longer fend for themselves in the wild. That doesn't give us the right to use them in our own personal exploits. ESPECIALLY when those exploits are for completely superficial purposes, such as cosmetics.

I can understand some people's draw to animal testing when it benefits them, I really can, however that's not much of an arguement. "Well I want it, so it should be legal!" I understand the basic instinct to survive, I mean Hell most people would have an abortion if their life was threatened by pregnancy, even if they're pro-life and even if they WANT that child. Obviously people are willing to make a lot of sacrifices in order to sustain their own life, even person sacrifices. That doesn't prove anything about animal testing, what-so-ever. I mean quite truthfully if I had the choice between toturing a puppy and watching my sister die I would probably torture the puppy. That doesn't make it right. Just like the fact that I would probably attempt to kill anyone who raped/murdered my sister doesn't make the death penalty right.

We should all know, perfectly well that a human contracting a disease is completely different than actively torturing and killing other living things. It sucks, and I'm sure a lot of the friends I have would not be alive without medical testing. I'm not saying they deserve to die, but what I am saying is that the animals do not deserve to be tortured in order to cure something that has nothing to do with them.

I view animals testing no differently than I view embryonic stem cell research... well that's not completely true. I would probably abolish animal testing BEFORE I would try and abolish embryonic stem cell research. At least the embryo can't feel what's happening to it, and doesn't have do deal with things like fear of what's happening, unlike the animal. Does that mean I would want to replace animal testing with embryonic stem cell research? No. I'm still against that as well. However I do not see how paying someone to be tested on is worse than testing on animals, beyond the fact that humans want to perpetuate their own race and thus have higher sympathy for other humans. It sucks that it would probably be exploited by big companies, but then maybe people would reassess medical testing and start FORCING companies to find alternative, reliable methods of testing. I understand there are difficult factors to control in humans while testing, because we are so diverse but really that's not the animal's problem.

I really do not believe that humans have a right to live, beyond our legal system. I do not, in any way believe humans have a right to live, by toturing other animals.

Also, I would like proof that animals would test on us if they were capable. Otherwise it's a completely baseless claim.

Sorry if I missed anything in here.

Edit: I would also like to point out that animal testing is not just on rats and mice. There are also dogs, cats, rabbits, primates etc.

But if your only option was torturing a puppy or your sister dying, and you tortured a puppy, that doesn't make it right, but should that option be taken away so that the only option is your sister dying, period? I honestly do not see the difference in situation of a person dying from a disease (in most cases) and an animal dying in a medical procedure beyond the cause of the situation.

I agree that it's all emotional, but so is protesting animal testing; that's based on sympathy with the animal, the pain the poor thing will face, the life of suffering, how cruel and terrible it is.

I'd like to know what alternative methods there are that have proven to be as reliable as animal testing. It is required that other methods be used before animal testing is even begun in a lot of countries, but considering how many animals die even after the first two methods, they don't seem to be very effective.

You don't believe humans have a right to live, but I'm wondering why animals have a right to not be tortured in pursuit of information and medication that will lead to saving more lives (animal and human) than it will end.

My proof that animals would test on us is that they kill each other for survival all the time. They do the most horrible things they are capable of doing to each other. Why would it suddenly be different if they had the ability to do it to humans in order to prolong their lives? Would animals evolve further from humans to the point where they unanimously decided to fight their baser instincts and say, "Let's die years earlier because it's wrong to hurt the poor humans." It's not a baseless claim to look at something that does all it can to survive even at the cost of the lives of others, even their own offspring, and say they'd continue doing it. It's not able to be proven, but neither is evolution, it's a very likely theory.

I know they test on larger animals, but that's like saying abortion's okay because of the level of awareness the fetus probably has at the time. Would animal testing be more appealing if we sedated all of these animals so they never felt a thing? Would that make it okay that so many of them die, because at least they're never in pain? If we can breed animals incapable of feeling pain and suffering from these experiments, is it alright?



Humans do die during tests, and it's much better than thousands of humans dying after the product is released. Our bodies are different from those of other organisms, and yes, we can react in very different ways, but there are certain things that can be screened for in animals knowing what we do know so that when it does move on to human testing, less humans die in the testing than later on. I don't agree with dissection in classes, the same thing can be achieved with a computer simulation.

Because we are humans and humans make the laws to protect humans.
Because most abortion techniques do not result in an entire dead unborn human.

Yes, this will go in circles, just like any other debate (like, abortion: I view a fetus having an inherent right to live, someone else will view a woman as having an inherent right to bodily integrity). But that's how every debate goes when there are two or more sides with valid points, so that's nothing new, really. This has at least three sides.

I agree with you on product testing, but that's also very different than animal testing in that we've already paved the way through the basic compounds used in products; the level of safety for humans doesn't increase if we test on animals first at this point, and you'll notice I never argued that we need animal testing with cosmetics. Medical testing is different. We've already got to use two alternative methods of testing before going on to animal testing; the problem is, none of the methods mentioned in there can do anything to tell us certain things, like what happens as medicine is metabolized or how it affects reproduction.

There's also the issue I mentioned; how to figure out the effects on embryos, fetuses, and infants. They can't exactly consent to procedures, and isn't that the problem you have, that animals don't deserve it and don't consent to be used as experiments? Why is it any better for human children to be used as experiments? Because their moms can say, "Why yes, inject that into my child and let's see what happens, now where's my $500?"

Biology > Emotion. Biologically speaking humans are far superior to our animal relatives. If evolution is to be assumed correct, then we have evolved to a greater state then they have, our minds and intellects dwarf theirs. Our ability to exercise our intellect, again, dwarfs theres. While they react mostly to instinct, we can resist our urge to do so with minimal effort in order to act in a more rationalized, smarter, and more productive manner. Because of this, again, assuming evolution is true, it can then be assumed that using animal testing in order to find ways to make our lives more comfortable, longer, and more enjoyable is nothing more then a form of 'survival of the fittest.'