Medical Research on Lab Animals

Are you for or against medical research on lab animals?


  • Total voters
    15

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
Are you for or against medical research on animals?

Why?

While I don't like killing animals for no reason, I can't deny that a lot of medical advancements have come out of medical research done on lab animals.

I have to say that I'm probably for it for the most part. I'm not talking about torturing or even necessarily killing the animals. Often times the animals live but there's no denying that a large portion of them end up dying during the tests. I'd rather have animals dying than people though and modern medicine has come a long way through lab animal research.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#2
I'd say I'm split on the issue. I can see the benefits, but at the same point I think it's cruel. It also depends on the animal. A mouse, I could care less, a cat or dog... this goes back to the why some animals are treated better then others thread. I think it's wrong to test on a pet.
 

Oooh_snap

Living on the 0th floor
V.I.P.
#3
I am for it because I know it is necessary for the advancement of medicine. I would like to see it go away because overall I think it is horrible to do this to poor animals. But until there is a new discovery that will make it known whether procedures and medications are safe on people it will be continued on animals.
 

wolfheart

Registered Member
#4
I hate the thought that animals are tested on,but i also think it is a necessary evil,it is not the best solution but one that will continue until the scientific world finds an alternate way of testing new medicines.
 

RATTIE

Registered Member
#5
Surprisingly enough, I'm against it for too many reasons to mention and I don't want to think about.

But just wanted to point out, for all the animal testing done, which has left Rats prone to SO many illnesses, the vets are incredibly limited in their knowledge of how to treat them and with what.
I don't actually understand how that can be.
They're constantly testing on them, have been for years, yet they don't know very much about them and their illnesses at all?

To be perfectly honest, there's an endless supply of nonces who could be put to better use!

(No offence meant and I'm sure it'll be an interesting discussion but I wont be re-visiting this thread.)
 

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#6
Being a Roman Catholic, we follow a set of rules from the 'Catechism [Kat ek is mm] of the Catholic Church'

On the matter of animal testing, this is what it says:
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives. 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
So, yes, I am for animal testing, so long as it's done correctly and for the right reasons.
 

Blueyes

Registered Member
#7
Testing on animals is very closely legally limited at our facility and I can only assume at other accredited facilities as well. The animals that are tested are not in any pain what so ever as they are given whatever is needed to alleviate that should the need arise for them to be in surgery and given drugs after surgery as well. But none of the animals are let free after the experiments, they are all humanly euthanized so technically none of the "rats" should be put into the general population although we use more than juts rats.
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#8
If we don't use animal testing, what are we going to test on? I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not lining up to be paid to test highly experimental drugs and medical procedures.

The benefit to testing on animals outweighs any kind of moral issue. If even 5,000 rats die to find one life saving technique, it's worth it, since that technique could hypothetically save an infinite number of lives in the future.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
I agree on basically the same ways Dino does. As long as it's to help save and preserve the integrity of human lives and within reasonable limits, then I'm for it. Strapping a dog with a new prototype kevlar vest and dropping a few clips at the dog is the kind of experimentation we don't need . . . but hey, it'd be a great new form of capital punishment!
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#10
I agree on basically the same ways Dino does. As long as it's to help save and preserve the integrity of human lives and within reasonable limits, then I'm for it. Strapping a dog with a new prototype kevlar vest and dropping a few clips at the dog is the kind of experimentation we don't need . . . but hey, it'd be a great new form of capital punishment!
Yeah, I don't agree with non-medical testing on animals. Cosmetic tests on animals are inhumane in my opinion, since the only benefit from these animals being kept in captivity and possibly developing horrible allergic reaction is a new blush that resists tears or some shit. :p

And if we need to test bulletproof vests, you can head down to the butcher and buy a slaughtered pig for that stuff.