posted on October 29, 2001 10:51:39 PM new
Earlier today I watched a documentary which presented the views both in support and against experiments performed on animals.
Some of the footage was very graphic and disturbing.
In many cases I was appalled and yet could also side with the views that although distateful, it was considered neccessary in the quest to refine surgical techniques and assist in the cure of human disease.
I have been unable to decide if this issue is right or wrong.
In instances where the experimentation serves no medicenal benefits to human kind then experimentation , I think, should be banned. Human vanity has no right to deny the right of any other living animal to live its normal life.
However, when this is perhaps the only way of developing techniques to enhance the quality of human life, then yes, I can see a need for this kind of work, no matter how distasteful, to continue.
The issue has left me straddling the fence, unable to take a for or against point of view.
What are your opinions?
[ edited by Mylanta on Oct 29, 2001 10:53 PM ]
posted on October 30, 2001 03:32:03 AM new
Mylanta - Actually, I agree with you. IMO, there is no 'right-or-wrong' answer.
My brother-in-law is a doctor. When he was learning (to be a doctor), they did surgery on dogs. Practice surgery. By the time he did his first <whatever>, he had already practiced it. Do I think this is good. Yes - I'd rather he practice on a dog rather than a person.
On the other hand, I've heard of experiments which (again, IMO) were clearly 'over-the-edge'. Offhand I can't come up with examples but I do remember that they were bad.
I don't agree with certain group's methods but they have shed light on a distasteful subject - and it needed it.
But don't listen to extremists on either side. I still remember reading one article (years ago) which bemoaned a certain series of experiments and the fact that the experimental animals had an average life span of 'X' years or months. (I think it was mice but - whatever.) Anyway, I remember thinking "You idiots, their average life span in the wild is *less* than that!!!".
Also, I think things have improved dramatically in the past few years. I think animal experiments are more carefully considered now as to whether they 1) really need to be done and 2) how best not to hurt the animals involved.
posted on October 30, 2001 05:20:42 AM new
Like every issue you can find extremes wher some think we should all commit mass suicide because it was unnatural for us to develope big brains and start "altering the environment" - of course it is CUTE when beavers and praire dogs alter their environment.
The other extreme is to use 'em up like any resource and don't worry about the extinction of a species if no immediate use is apparent.
If a snail darter is too small to get a fillet off of what use is it? Without great brain power who cares if it HURTS? That is just an instinctive reaction.
I always seem to see some middle ground and think both extremes are nuts.
posted on October 30, 2001 06:14:18 AM new
If using animal parts was the only way to keep my child alive, I'd do it.
If performing surgury on animals is the way to become adept before they allow Dr.s to cut on people, O.K.
If trying vaccines on animals, or creating vaccines from animals ensues that people don't die, then do it.
Lab rats that sample cancer fighting medicine, or radiations, or genetic alteration are saving human lives.
I'd never torture an animal, mine appear to have no further function in life besides eating and sleeping. I watch for animals on my rurals roads so I don't accidentally kill one. I believe in wildlife sanctuaries, and repopulating. I believe in protecting endangered species and fishing/hunting limits. I believe in punishing transgressors: poachers, kids who torture kittens, unhealthy or illegal puppy mills, people who keep animals they don't care for, lab animals who aren't properly cared for; animals are assigned certains rights, and I think they deserve protection.
There are bad labs, purposeless testings, and these should be stopped. But stopping them by means of firebombs is wrong. Eco-terrorism is wrong. If you can't make your point any other way, then maybe you don't have a point.
Keep trying to find better ways, but if it comes down to a choice between my child and a chimpanzee, and one has to die, then my choice is clear.
posted on October 30, 2001 12:49:56 PM new
Ok, I know I'm going to get flack from this but here goes. How about serial killers and child molesters? They would make good guinea pigs. Experiment on them. AND, yes I do understand that they are most likely someones' father, husband, son, brother, nephew, cousin, and so on. Sorry about that. Better to be helping mankind than to waste my tax dollars. Now before you get all upset, let me clarify that I'm not talking about one time offenders. I'm talking about lifers who have no chance of parole and have been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of multiple crimes. Say Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, ex-husband. You see where I'm coming from? I have no use at all for people like that. Just my two cents.
posted on October 30, 2001 12:57:45 PM newAnyway, I remember thinking "You idiots, their average life span in the wild is *less* than that!!!".
Yes, I imagine they are so intensely grateful that they are living longer that they don't mind being subjected to caustic agents dropped into their eyes, electric shocks, being given deadly diseases, being burned, shot, poisoned, subjected to damaging psychological "tests" and a whole host of other things... That's the life of Riley they're living, isn't it?
