CSLF Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766446' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:14 AM']Animal testing is preferable to human testing. Without animal testing there would be no new major surgeries, no new drugs and a lot more dead people. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal.[/quote] In my pondering about this post I two thoughts in particular struck me: If you consider the source of the small pox vaccine, I think that God already has some of the answers out there for the things that humanity hasn't done to itself. New drugs means environmental impact, which means it effects other people, which means they get sick, which means we need new drugs... Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1767009' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:37 PM']True, sorry for not clarifying, a lot of the side effects have occured in clincial trials, not mass market. -Katie[/quote] People who take on drug trials agree to that risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1768277' date='Feb 1 2009, 01:44 AM']People who take on drug trials agree to that risk.[/quote] Yes, that's true. My point was that something that tests safe on animals isn't necessarily safe for humans, as many clinical trials show. I don't necessarily think that clinical trials are too great either, as there are tons of variables and such and perhaps some aren't conducted for lengthy enough periods of time, as we do still see many drugs with FDA approval later being pulled off of the market due to lawsuits from people who have had horrific side effects. Conversely, some things that are toxic to some animals are beneficial to humans. Ex: Penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, but obviously has contributed to saving lives. I'm not trying to villify people who believe in animal testing-I disagree but respect them as people and I know their intent is to save human lives. All I'm saying is that I think we can save human lives without using animals. I know most people here disagree with me, that's alright. -Katie Edited February 1, 2009 by Tinkerlina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='CSLF' post='1767608' date='Jan 31 2009, 01:20 PM']In my pondering about this post I two thoughts in particular struck me: If you consider the source of the small pox vaccine, I think that God already has some of the answers out there for the things that humanity hasn't done to itself. New drugs means environmental impact, which means it effects other people, which means they get sick, which means we need new drugs... Any thoughts?[/quote] There is a pill for that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSLF Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1768389' date='Feb 1 2009, 04:30 AM']There is a pill for that too.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweens8403 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1766501' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:56 AM']Animal testing for the sake of medical advancement is fine by me, so long as it is done humanely. Animal testing for the sake of beauty products is unnecessary.[/quote] That's how many antidysrhythmics came to be. And there's no doubt that they have saved thousands of human lives. They have also come up with new methods of doing CPR by testing them on animals. Again, human lives are saved. Some of you other medical folks may have heard of the "plunger" CPR adjunct? They're doing tests in some EMS agencies now and getting fantastic results. They initially tested it on pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 [quote name='sweens8403' post='1768570' date='Feb 1 2009, 02:18 PM']That's how many antidysrhythmics came to be. And there's no doubt that they have saved thousands of human lives. They have also come up with new methods of doing CPR by testing them on animals. Again, human lives are saved. Some of you other medical folks may have heard of the "plunger" CPR adjunct? They're doing tests in some EMS agencies now and getting fantastic results. They initially tested it on pigs.[/quote] Poor Babe...and Wilbur. Mice is what is generally used for medications, at least from what I heard. Yes sometimes it is ineffective. But we have to take into consideration that drug companies are out to make money. As unethical as it is, they will push drugs. Sometimes these drugs are not ready to be marketed but they will be marketed anyway. It is a scary world and needs to be evaluated constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now