Should animal testing be replaced with paying people thousands of dollars to test the products on themselves?!
human guinea pigs for pay will save a lot of animals!
Answers: I think it makes more sense then to torture defenseless animals!
human guinea pigs for pay will save a lot of animals!
I don't believe testing on animals is right. Medicine would still advance without testing on animals, technology has come a long way.
Medical testing on animals is an outdated practice that is flawed. If animal test were reliable than there would not be so many recalled drugs. Many people say that they would rather have a drug tested on animals to save themselves or their children, but since animal testing is often misleading, they are still taking a chance on using medicine tested on another species.
Animals systems are far different than humans. Human diseases do not happen in animals, they are artificially created, therefore not the actual disease. Saying that animals are similar is not enough. If you were in a room and were told the air outside was similar to oxygen, but not quite, would you risk you life and go out? Or if I told you my lottery numbers were similar to the winning ones, would you start congratulating me?
Animals are different in many ways, arsenic can be ingested in great amounts by sheep, but would kill any human.
Animals testing lies, Animals and humans differ in medically important ways, and often animal experiments can produce misleading results. For example, repeated animal studies failed to demonstrate a correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. As a result, public warnings about the dangers of cigarette use were delayed, despite a wealth of compelling human data. Likewise, animal experiments in stroke research led to false conclusions, misleading researchers and wasting time and research funds. Of the 25 drugs which appeared to reduce the effects of stroke in rodents, not a single one worked in human patients.
Species are different and result differ among humans and animals. For example, liver tumors can be induced via chemicals in mice, but the same chemicals do not induce cancer in rats or hamsters. Benzedrine causes bladder tumors in humans, liver tumors in hamsters and middle ear tumors in rats
Animal experimentation has not helped people nearly as much as it has thwarted progress in the life sciences. Because animal research often gives false or misleading results, it wastes valuable time, often delaying life-saving treatments while rushing questionable and possibly harmful therapies to the marketplace. Some of our most significant breakthroughs in medicine have been made without animals. These include x-rays, MRIs and CT scans.
What needs to be done is focus on the people that have developed the disease. Computer technology has come a long way. There are models, programs, etc that are far more reliable than using an animal. The choice here is not between babies and dogs, it's about real science and fake science
We don't have to do cruel tests on animals or humans (even though those who test on animals should take a turn too)...we have tests that are much more beneficial than the tests done on animals yet some companies still choose to perform these cruel tests...it really should be outlawed...maybe someday.
Sure why not its more humane that way right ?
I would be fine with testing products and medicines on violent criminals in exchange for a reduction in their sentences or benefits during their sentences.
for me... I agree...
if you can see those animals... most of them are trying to get away everytime you take them out of thier cages which can only mean they those animals hate it...
while on the other hand...
people has the capability to think and the freewill to do anything they want... if they ever engage in this kind of act they should probolbly know the risk they are going through...
Wait... is your question asking if consumers should buy products that weren't tested first and see for themselves if it's safe? No... that's almost as stupid as testing on animals. There are many safer (and more humane) alternatives to animal testing and people should buy those products instead of the animal tested ones.
If your question is asking should companies pay people thousands of dollars to test the products on them, then still no. Companies would lose a lot of money that way, not to mention all the health problems that the humans would have. Just look at the condition of the animals in animal testing labs... that's not right to do to either animals or humans, even for pay. But, if there must be some form of animal testing, then it should be done on everyone who has tested on animals. Why? Well they were perfectly willing to torture poor little animals against their will... now it's their turn. :)
Animals will continue to be used in pharmaceutical and cosmetic development, whatever your misplaced sentimet.
When it comes down to a medicine with the potential to save my grandchild from a deadly disease and an animal suffering and dying - I'll hold the damn animal while the researcher does his/her thing! And if any fool tried to interfere, there'd be one less fool in the world!
Yes, it is unfortunate that many people still use the argument "if my child were dying and needed the medicine..." but the truth is that the majority of testing has nothing to do with cures. And many pharmaceuticals that appear to be safe in monkeys, rats and dogs end up not being safe for humans.
It would make more sense to test on humans but pharmaceuticals are racing to create the next wonder drug and don't care about safety.
Prevention is key. All major diseases are preventable by a healthy lifestyle.
yes. medication should not be tested on animals. if medication cannot be tested any other way then it should not be on the market. humans can live without medicine, in fact vegans do not need medicine.
Why not?? PPL can voluntarily volunteer, whereas animals don't have a choice.... Oh and I also agree with testing on inmates.... or ppl on death role....
No. I think those who are so adamant against testing on animals should volunteer. Talk is cheap. I am against all testing on animals except for medicines and medical procedures.
**
we don't need animal testing. do some research on how many products passed animal tests and failed on humans! maybe because they're different then humans! we have enough research and other methods to find out the safety of products without torturing animals.
No it shouldn't. The people who would volunteer for pay would be likely to be overwhelmingly from disadvantaged groups - I mean, if you're financially secure you're not going to risk your health or your life for a measly few grand, are you?
Those who volunteer would include people desperate to house and feed themselves and their families, especially in countries with no half-decent benefits system.
So, not only would these volunteers be from the poorest sections of society, but they'd be risking their lives with untested drugs. The prospect is chilling.
Ashley, I know you're a troll and not a vegan, but even you should have some sense of responsibility. Like FlexiVegan, FlexitarianVegan and Commonsense - three other non-vegan trolls - you are happy to suggest on a board you KNOW is read mainly by very young and impressionable people that vegans do not need and should not take medicines.
I'm vegan. I owe my life to drugs tested on animals. Nobody, but nobody, would or should refuse such drugs in the event of serious illness or injury.