Welcome to Gaia! ::

I believe we already have a topic covering this...I don't quite remember what it's called, but try looking through our older topics. I don't think I deleted it.

3nodding

would it really be right to test animals to help other animals, without it being their concious decision?

But it would be more accurate to test on animals in order to find a medicine to help other animals. I agree with you in not testing on animals for humans' benefit, but if it's for the good of other animals of the same species, I support it. For humans we should use real humans. We need to cut back on our population anyways. But yes, I agree that testing on inmates on death row seems fine. The only case where it wouldn't work would be for a pyschological (sp?) disorder that the prisoners don't have or can't have. But for most of those psychological things humans are the only species known to get them, so we have to use humans there anyways.

I dunno. Possibly, unless the body won't show a reaction to a drug after receiving it if it's brain is dead. I wouldn't know. I haven't done much research on the human body and brain.

How?

Well, if a person is braindead, their bodily functions are usually regulated by a life support system, so everything is electronically regulated, so you really couldn't see how it would affect someone.

I'll present a counter-argument to the whole animal testing thing also, though I don't necissarily agree with it all of the time.

The reason that we can't always test drugs on humans, besides society's moral standards (I don't agree that people are more important than animals, but obviously many people do), is simple practicality. Humans have rather long lifespans, and extremely long reproductive processes, plus they only bear one offspring at a time. Rats, on the other hand, live only around 3 years, are sexually mature a few months after they are born and their gestation period is around a month (if I remember correctly, it's been a while since I've had rats). They also have larger litters at once, so you would be able to get a better idea of whether a drug would affect the offspring of the recipient. If we tested drugs on humans, the progress of medicine would slow by centuries because we would have to wait several generations for drug testing to be considered conclusive for retail. This would make progress almost impossible. By testing drugs on animals first to get an idea of the affects, we can make faster medical advancements.

My own position on animal testing is irrelevant, but if you want to know, I am currently undecided on the issue. The arguements for testing of certain things (like the example I gave above) make much more sense. However, the environmentalist inside me is screaming and hitting me with sticks for considering supporting animal testing.

Arguments in my brain are always interesting.

However, I NEVER support the use of animals to test stupid things like cosmetic products. That's just rediculous, and makes me angry. Also, certain drugs do not need to be tested on animals, and conclusive evidence should never be made purely on animal testing (which I don't believe it is, before a drug can become commercial it has to go through extensive research on humans as well).

Anyway, I thought we needed a bit of counter-argument here. I love playing devils advocate. biggrin