I am ashamed to be human
- Thread starter Slut_boy
- Start date
BrainyBeauty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Posts
- 653
S_B, here' s the long tutorial for the other point of view...
This is not a black and white proposition.
Like most issues there is a vast gray area.
Animal 'rights' activists insist that the 'use' of animals for medical/scientific testing is wrong. That we have no dominion over other species. That there are alternatives.
Proponents of the research side believe that this is the only viable means for progress.
Of course, the truth resides somewhere between and encompasses both viewpoints.
From reading previous posts, it appears that the consensus favors - or at least is less vocal in its opposition to- using animals in medical/drug/therapeutic experiments, while almost unanimously shunning testing for detergents/cosmetics/non life-sciences applications.
Computer models can be utilized to determine certain parameters- e.g., allergic reactions, efficacy, purity, and strength. Similar results can be achieved on textiles, fabric, human skin, hair, plants and the atmosphere without compromising the health/safety of humans, animals or the environment.
However, there are certain tests that require physical, three-dimensional evaluations in living organisms. Toxicity being the prime example. Many drugs do not present conclusive findings in laboratories or computer simulations.
Medical bioethicists agree that when conducting clinical trials in human subjects that certain criteria are met. First and foremost is full disclosure. The entire process is called Informed Consent.
Before any clinical study begins, potential participants are given all the known facts including results of animal studies, laboratory findings, and previous human studies, if applicable. They are told of possible risks, side effects and adverse reactions. Potential subjects are thoroughly examined, evaluated and chosen for suitability. They must meet certain height/weight restrictions and other medical guidelines.
After they are chosen, they again are presented (yes for a 2nd time) all the facts regarding the entire process. If in agreement, they sign a consent form. This is then reviewed by an independent and impartial governing body- not affiliated with the pharmaceutical manufacturer or company OR the doctor or hospital or contract research organization conducting the trial- before any experimentation begins. (Same group who initially approves the study protocol- this is the IRB or Institutional Review Board)
Pre-clinical trials are composed of lab tests and animal studies and are performed to assess safety and biological activity. Evaluations of toxic effects and the metabolism of the product in the body are done at this point. They are also testing to determine optimum high and low dosages, drug effect on conception and fetus and any cancer-inducing potential. They need to determine the time of absorption and the transformation into other substances by the body, its excretion and distribution to organs and body fluids in animals first. These are critical factors that absolutely cannot be conducted on humans! And, as someone pointed out, I cannot imagine any parent giving consent to testing on their fetus. But, it still has to be done. Yes, in animals.
It is true that drugs do not always behave the same in humans as they do in animals. For clinical studies, drugs undergo series of evaluations in both healthy volunteers as well as in patients with a targeted condition or disease.
In cases where there is a 'rush to judgment', most notably in recent years when either the public or the pharmaceutical manufacturers exert pressure on the FDA to speed the regulatory process, problems arise. You will see a situation like phen-fen. (BTW-Did you know that the average time it takes to bring a new drug to market with all these tests is 12-15 years? It would be even longer without animal data.)
Other times, the nature of the cumulative effects of a drug may take years or even decades to appear. Someone mentioned Thalidomide- that is a good example.
What initially appears to be a miracle drug can turn out to be deadly in the long term.
Let me point out though that animal testing is subject to stringent rules not dissimilar to human studies. Scientists are bound by the study protocol to proceed in 'humane' conditions. Since an animal has no way of providing consent, there will always be disagreement about the ethics involved here. It probably won't persuade the anti-vivisectionists that some species are bred specifically for this purpose. (again non-consent) But, I must admit, I prefer this option over the alternative.
S_B, I don't think anyone here is in favor of cruel, pointless experimentation, Most companies are trying to utilize alternatives. Researchers are designing less invasive testing methods. But, please, do not succumb to the manipulations and 'heartstring tugging' that animal activists propagate. The pictures and 'evidence' are (a) old and (b) sometimes manufactured and are shown specifically to elicit reactions such as those demonstrated here.
Researchers are not evil madmen intent upon torturing cute little chimpanzees, dogs and bunnies! They are intent on finding cures for diseases and, yes, for providing solutions for environmental problems as well. No one wants to sacrifice 10,000 mice just for a shampoo that fixes split ends. No one desires to see a cat die just so we can have a better smelling laundry detergent.
But they are determined to save lives by inventing/pefecting pharmaceuticals for humans. They are certainly not without compassion!
Please do not condemn the industry or the entire human race because a radical organization shows you 'evidence'.
Some of these exact same drugs that are tested eventually wind up in the veterinarian's office as well, my friend. They not only save the researcher or the PETA member, but they can save the lives of their dogs, cats and lab rats too!
There are always 2 (or more) sides to every story. As I said...it is NOT just black or white.
This is not a black and white proposition.
Like most issues there is a vast gray area.
Animal 'rights' activists insist that the 'use' of animals for medical/scientific testing is wrong. That we have no dominion over other species. That there are alternatives.
Proponents of the research side believe that this is the only viable means for progress.
Of course, the truth resides somewhere between and encompasses both viewpoints.
From reading previous posts, it appears that the consensus favors - or at least is less vocal in its opposition to- using animals in medical/drug/therapeutic experiments, while almost unanimously shunning testing for detergents/cosmetics/non life-sciences applications.
Computer models can be utilized to determine certain parameters- e.g., allergic reactions, efficacy, purity, and strength. Similar results can be achieved on textiles, fabric, human skin, hair, plants and the atmosphere without compromising the health/safety of humans, animals or the environment.
However, there are certain tests that require physical, three-dimensional evaluations in living organisms. Toxicity being the prime example. Many drugs do not present conclusive findings in laboratories or computer simulations.
Medical bioethicists agree that when conducting clinical trials in human subjects that certain criteria are met. First and foremost is full disclosure. The entire process is called Informed Consent.
Before any clinical study begins, potential participants are given all the known facts including results of animal studies, laboratory findings, and previous human studies, if applicable. They are told of possible risks, side effects and adverse reactions. Potential subjects are thoroughly examined, evaluated and chosen for suitability. They must meet certain height/weight restrictions and other medical guidelines.
After they are chosen, they again are presented (yes for a 2nd time) all the facts regarding the entire process. If in agreement, they sign a consent form. This is then reviewed by an independent and impartial governing body- not affiliated with the pharmaceutical manufacturer or company OR the doctor or hospital or contract research organization conducting the trial- before any experimentation begins. (Same group who initially approves the study protocol- this is the IRB or Institutional Review Board)
Pre-clinical trials are composed of lab tests and animal studies and are performed to assess safety and biological activity. Evaluations of toxic effects and the metabolism of the product in the body are done at this point. They are also testing to determine optimum high and low dosages, drug effect on conception and fetus and any cancer-inducing potential. They need to determine the time of absorption and the transformation into other substances by the body, its excretion and distribution to organs and body fluids in animals first. These are critical factors that absolutely cannot be conducted on humans! And, as someone pointed out, I cannot imagine any parent giving consent to testing on their fetus. But, it still has to be done. Yes, in animals.
It is true that drugs do not always behave the same in humans as they do in animals. For clinical studies, drugs undergo series of evaluations in both healthy volunteers as well as in patients with a targeted condition or disease.
In cases where there is a 'rush to judgment', most notably in recent years when either the public or the pharmaceutical manufacturers exert pressure on the FDA to speed the regulatory process, problems arise. You will see a situation like phen-fen. (BTW-Did you know that the average time it takes to bring a new drug to market with all these tests is 12-15 years? It would be even longer without animal data.)
Other times, the nature of the cumulative effects of a drug may take years or even decades to appear. Someone mentioned Thalidomide- that is a good example.
What initially appears to be a miracle drug can turn out to be deadly in the long term.
Let me point out though that animal testing is subject to stringent rules not dissimilar to human studies. Scientists are bound by the study protocol to proceed in 'humane' conditions. Since an animal has no way of providing consent, there will always be disagreement about the ethics involved here. It probably won't persuade the anti-vivisectionists that some species are bred specifically for this purpose. (again non-consent) But, I must admit, I prefer this option over the alternative.
S_B, I don't think anyone here is in favor of cruel, pointless experimentation, Most companies are trying to utilize alternatives. Researchers are designing less invasive testing methods. But, please, do not succumb to the manipulations and 'heartstring tugging' that animal activists propagate. The pictures and 'evidence' are (a) old and (b) sometimes manufactured and are shown specifically to elicit reactions such as those demonstrated here.
Researchers are not evil madmen intent upon torturing cute little chimpanzees, dogs and bunnies! They are intent on finding cures for diseases and, yes, for providing solutions for environmental problems as well. No one wants to sacrifice 10,000 mice just for a shampoo that fixes split ends. No one desires to see a cat die just so we can have a better smelling laundry detergent.
But they are determined to save lives by inventing/pefecting pharmaceuticals for humans. They are certainly not without compassion!
Please do not condemn the industry or the entire human race because a radical organization shows you 'evidence'.
Some of these exact same drugs that are tested eventually wind up in the veterinarian's office as well, my friend. They not only save the researcher or the PETA member, but they can save the lives of their dogs, cats and lab rats too!
There are always 2 (or more) sides to every story. As I said...it is NOT just black or white.
To BrainyBeauty
Thanks for the reply. I understand the point that you making. Its interesting to me that you say something to the effect that "nobody on this board is in favour of cruelty to animals". I accept that. But this post goes beyond what people expressly state and into what they tacitly say (or say by implication).
I hate to use the "egg" example again - but I am afraid that it sums it all up for me. Shyguy tells us about the Danes marking their egg boxes: okay so that allows consumers to buy "free-range" eggs instead of "battery" eggs. By doing that people are expressly rejecting any support for the battery farming operations. But many here may use Revlon hair products - whilst simultaneously telling us how they aren't in favour of animal cruelty. But they tacitly give their lend their support by financially keeping Revlon alive. Actually Revlon is just an example: I am not actually sure what their stance is.
The point: you are right that nobody here expressly says okay to cruelty - but the silent voice still resonates, I think sometimes even louder.
Thanks for the reply. I understand the point that you making. Its interesting to me that you say something to the effect that "nobody on this board is in favour of cruelty to animals". I accept that. But this post goes beyond what people expressly state and into what they tacitly say (or say by implication).
I hate to use the "egg" example again - but I am afraid that it sums it all up for me. Shyguy tells us about the Danes marking their egg boxes: okay so that allows consumers to buy "free-range" eggs instead of "battery" eggs. By doing that people are expressly rejecting any support for the battery farming operations. But many here may use Revlon hair products - whilst simultaneously telling us how they aren't in favour of animal cruelty. But they tacitly give their lend their support by financially keeping Revlon alive. Actually Revlon is just an example: I am not actually sure what their stance is.
The point: you are right that nobody here expressly says okay to cruelty - but the silent voice still resonates, I think sometimes even louder.
G
Guest
Guest
My name is Kim, I'm Slutboy's girlfriend. I was amazed to read that some people out there try to justify animal experiments in the name of medical advancement. We are not made the same way as animals are made, we have different physiologies. How can testing a drug or surgical procedure on animals help to determine the response in man? It has been proven that information cannot be applied to humans... aspirin kills cats...digitalis (a drug heavily relied upon to treat heart conditions0 raises blood pressure to dangerously high levels in dogs...and of course THALIDOMIDE (the anti-nausea drug prescribed to prevent nausea during pregnancy) which produced horrific birth defects in humans was extensively tested on animals and declared safe for human consumption with devastating results. The list goes on and on, demonstrating that if anything animal experiments actually hamper science and medical technology.And as for the pschological experiments, one brilliant vivisectionist invented a machine which is capable of hitting dogs on their hind legs 22 times a minute to see if it will cause the anilmal to suffer stress. What could the outcome possibly have been??
That's Kim for you. I am working late tonight and she's going to a jazz concert with her friends - so she stopped past my office (with a pizza) and made her first post. We don't have the internet at home. Here in SA local telephone calls are pretty expensive and so its costly to spend time on the web unless you are on a network (like I am here at the university).
Young Knave
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2000
- Posts
- 823
How principled are you slut boy?
I wonder, how far would you carry your principled stand? If you had cancer, would you refuse treatment on the grounds that such treatments were developed utilizing animal experimentation? What about a life saving drug if you had tuberculosis, say? And are you a vegetarian? Just curious.
I wonder, how far would you carry your principled stand? If you had cancer, would you refuse treatment on the grounds that such treatments were developed utilizing animal experimentation? What about a life saving drug if you had tuberculosis, say? And are you a vegetarian? Just curious.
BrainyBeauty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Posts
- 653
A friendly rejoinder
My dearest S_B:
How I love to debate with you! What a pleasure it is to discuss a topic with someone who appreciates the nuances of subtlety and who knows how to argue a point! You listen to opposing viewpoints with an open mind and yet have the ability to serve and volley the ball right back and keep it in play. What a joy!
Yes, I did understand your point. People do not follow through on their convictions. However, I believe it is highly probable that this is due to the fact that they are unaware of all the facts more than it is a case of deliberate action or inaction as you suggest. Just like you were unsure in your Revlon example. It is difficult to determine which companies are environmentally/animal friendly. So while they say they are opposed to cruelty, they are sincere. They just may not know what companies sell products that evolve from that process.
It is also another thing entirely to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Not many people are willing to do that. We talk a good game. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. But don't condemn us for that. I love animals as much if not more than most folks but I am not a vegetarian and I wear and use leather and animal products in my daily life. Does that make me a bad person? Or a hypocrite? I think not.
Also, you must admit that there is a big difference and distinction between what the others have implied in their posts and what you have inferred from them!
Ahhh, the basis for all good misunderstandings!
To your girlfriend Kim: Hello. You seem to be very passionate in your beliefs. I applaud you for that. But I humbly disagree. Unfortunately I cannot engage in a debate with someone whose perceptions are so inexorably entrenched. If you were able to step back from your emotions a bit more, you would realize your arguments have little basis in truth or in merit. But no matter how persuasive my argument or illuminating the presentation of facts, you will be unmoved. And I certainly don't want to insult you or get into a fight with you! There can be no satisfactory conclusion for either of us if you are unable to see the alternative positions.
I am optimistic that we can find some common ground though - like the fact that we DO agree that testing is not a perfect system. Many times we discover new information that supersedes previous, long-held beliefs. As a dynamic group, we adjust, fix, and hopefully learn from these mistakes. As I said in my first post, sometimes it takes years before we can identify problems.
I just want to address a couple of your comments:
If you had read my post closely you would have seen that I am advocating a reasonable point of view. Not once did anyone in this thread advocate 'psychological' testing. I am not sure where you come up with this? Who performs such things? (I do not dispute the fact that it may have occurred in the past) If anyone does, they are not sanctioned by any legitimate company, university or laboratory. Nowhere will you find any work published that tolerates that. Not in any scientific or medical journal!
Yes, we CAN justify animal testing in the name of medical advancement. I would also like to point out to you that several animals do indeed have nearly identical physiology as humans- in terms of how drugs move throughout the body. Pigs, chimps, and certain breeds of rats. And yes, they are used specifically because we CAN apply the information to man.
More than that will fall upon deaf ears. But I welcome any further dialogue if you wish to email me.
My dearest S_B:
How I love to debate with you! What a pleasure it is to discuss a topic with someone who appreciates the nuances of subtlety and who knows how to argue a point! You listen to opposing viewpoints with an open mind and yet have the ability to serve and volley the ball right back and keep it in play. What a joy!
Yes, I did understand your point. People do not follow through on their convictions. However, I believe it is highly probable that this is due to the fact that they are unaware of all the facts more than it is a case of deliberate action or inaction as you suggest. Just like you were unsure in your Revlon example. It is difficult to determine which companies are environmentally/animal friendly. So while they say they are opposed to cruelty, they are sincere. They just may not know what companies sell products that evolve from that process.
It is also another thing entirely to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Not many people are willing to do that. We talk a good game. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. But don't condemn us for that. I love animals as much if not more than most folks but I am not a vegetarian and I wear and use leather and animal products in my daily life. Does that make me a bad person? Or a hypocrite? I think not.
Also, you must admit that there is a big difference and distinction between what the others have implied in their posts and what you have inferred from them!
Ahhh, the basis for all good misunderstandings!
To your girlfriend Kim: Hello. You seem to be very passionate in your beliefs. I applaud you for that. But I humbly disagree. Unfortunately I cannot engage in a debate with someone whose perceptions are so inexorably entrenched. If you were able to step back from your emotions a bit more, you would realize your arguments have little basis in truth or in merit. But no matter how persuasive my argument or illuminating the presentation of facts, you will be unmoved. And I certainly don't want to insult you or get into a fight with you! There can be no satisfactory conclusion for either of us if you are unable to see the alternative positions.
I am optimistic that we can find some common ground though - like the fact that we DO agree that testing is not a perfect system. Many times we discover new information that supersedes previous, long-held beliefs. As a dynamic group, we adjust, fix, and hopefully learn from these mistakes. As I said in my first post, sometimes it takes years before we can identify problems.
I just want to address a couple of your comments:
If you had read my post closely you would have seen that I am advocating a reasonable point of view. Not once did anyone in this thread advocate 'psychological' testing. I am not sure where you come up with this? Who performs such things? (I do not dispute the fact that it may have occurred in the past) If anyone does, they are not sanctioned by any legitimate company, university or laboratory. Nowhere will you find any work published that tolerates that. Not in any scientific or medical journal!
Yes, we CAN justify animal testing in the name of medical advancement. I would also like to point out to you that several animals do indeed have nearly identical physiology as humans- in terms of how drugs move throughout the body. Pigs, chimps, and certain breeds of rats. And yes, they are used specifically because we CAN apply the information to man.
More than that will fall upon deaf ears. But I welcome any further dialogue if you wish to email me.
Thanks for the compliment BB. As for Kim, well she's only ever visited this BB twice so she probably won't respond - but I'll print off a copy of your post.
Young Knave, I am principled. Yes, I am a vegetarian. I have never needed severe medical attention before - but I can tell you that I use no products manufactured by companies that test on animals as far as I am aware and I do make an effort to find out. I also don't consume any animal products (butter, milk, eggs) because of the discomfort associated with the farming operations. Hey, but that's just me.
Anyway, please don't think that I am taking objection to those of you that do - this is a personal decision. I respect yours. Please try to understand.
I am sure that we have exhausted topic: there is more that I could say although I am sure that you are all grateful that I haven't.
[Edited by Slut_boy on 11-17-2000 at 04:48 AM]
Young Knave, I am principled. Yes, I am a vegetarian. I have never needed severe medical attention before - but I can tell you that I use no products manufactured by companies that test on animals as far as I am aware and I do make an effort to find out. I also don't consume any animal products (butter, milk, eggs) because of the discomfort associated with the farming operations. Hey, but that's just me.
Anyway, please don't think that I am taking objection to those of you that do - this is a personal decision. I respect yours. Please try to understand.
I am sure that we have exhausted topic: there is more that I could say although I am sure that you are all grateful that I haven't.
[Edited by Slut_boy on 11-17-2000 at 04:48 AM]
