The People's Petition

[mstislavl]

I believe that the animals tested on should still be treated well, but I also appreciate that many human lives have been saved thanks to Animal testing.

http://www.thepeoplespetition.org.uk/signup/

Comments

[farraige.livejournal.com]

Good or bad, this treatment still results in death, and this is what people show a remarkable tendency to overlook.

ironically

[gerasirdis.livejournal.com]

The lack of treatment also results in death. The biggest irony is, that animal testing ban hits the animals hardest. Two words: veterinary medicine.

[mstislavl]

life results in death anyway. at least these deaths (of lab animalas) are useful for somebody. btw, phase 1 of clinical trials of any drug is testing it on animals. people opposing animal testing should refrain from use of any phamaceuticals and anti-cancer treatments.

Nutty Argument: pretending to switch sides :-)

[gerasirdis.livejournal.com]

And for that they have an argument (its value marked with subject)- let's eliminate animal testing step altogether: "all we need is more research on (paid?) volunteers, animals do not volunteer, therefore their use is unethical". On top of that, "things work different for animals and humans", which is sort of true, at least sometimes. As for "useful death"- Hitler would be proud :-).

[farraige.livejournal.com]

and so they would if there were an alternative. somebody propagating this line of view sounds like John Prescott who advocate getting the nation out of their cars but aren't prepared to introduce more trains and buses and make them cheaper. (I know you've never lived outside of cities, but there are some areas that only get two bus services a day.)

if: catch 22

[gerasirdis.livejournal.com]

>>people opposing animal testing should
>>refrain from use of any phamaceuticals
>>and anti-cancer treatments
>and so they would if there
>were an alternative.
And this is asking for the impossible. Animals are used for research ONLY when there is no alternative. If there was a working alternative developed without animal testing, no one would bother to come up with yet another cancer treatment developed using (expensive, time consuming and heavily red-taped) animal testing.

Re: Animal testing...

[mstislavl]

thanks for your balanced opinion. as for cosmetics - these tests can hardly cause animal death and relatively harmless if you compare them with testing new drugs.

[farraige.livejournal.com]

after a new mascara, eye lifting cream or eyeliner are tested on a rabbit (rabbits are chosen because they lack tear ducts and can't wash the irritant away) their cornea is eroded and a blind animal is put down.

ditto for washing powders and facial cleansers

Dugs and cosmetics: let's straighten our priorities

[gerasirdis.livejournal.com]

Now this really puzzles me. All in all, drugs that haven't been tested properly could only kill tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, if it were a common disease. On the other hand, if something goes wrong in cosmetics department, number of victims could easily run into tens of millions or even more. So why are we willing to go an extra mile for few potential victims, and yet we are reluctant to take exactly the same precautionary steps to (possibly) save many more?