|
|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 15, 2006 18:21:45 GMT
I've always believed this should be carried out on prisoners serving time for serious offences. People that quite frankly if they were to die no-one on the outside would give a toss about.
Given what's happened to the six young men this week they might end up having to do it as I would think it will effect the numbers volunteering. Well hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 15, 2006 22:28:43 GMT
I've always said that medical research should be carried out on animal activists.
If they don't want the poor little guinea pigs, rabbits and beagles getting it then I'm sure they will happily volunteer themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by medibot on Mar 15, 2006 22:36:37 GMT
Extreme views you somehow find yourself siding with there...  Especially the animal research one considering the violence carried out in the name of protest and more locally, the people who petition Sutton High Street who are reliant on "shocking" pictures of the abuse that supposedely goes on that i remember being exactly the same now as from when i was 7, they had 11 years to get some new evidence. I suppose it is all about how you value life, is it right to kill a few dogs to save 1000's of humans? |
|
|
|
Post by Giggy of Telford on Mar 15, 2006 22:54:16 GMT
I've always believed this should be carried out on prisoners serving time for serious offences. People that quite frankly if they were to die no-one on the outside would give a toss about. Agreed, at the moment they sit in a cell giving nothing to the country while costing us the tax-payer money, atleast that way they'd be doing something constructive. My view on animal testing is it is a necessary evil and more feasible than people dying due to no cure. What really is evil is some things done in protest, such as digging up that dead relative of a guineapig farmer. |
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Mar 15, 2006 23:19:32 GMT
I've always said that medical research should be carried out on animal activists. If they don't want the poor little guinea pigs, rabbits and beagles getting it then I'm sure they will happily volunteer themselves. Couldn't agree more! Tie it in with the convicted felon stuff, make it a sort of compulsory community service for animal activists! You know! Like speeding drivers are offered a couple of lectures in exchange for not getting points on the licence, your animal activist could be offered custodial, or an exchange with the animals the tried to "Free"  |
|
|
|
Post by medibot on Mar 15, 2006 23:35:42 GMT
Its a modern kind of hooliganism for some of them, a new way to be violent with a little more moral highground than "that bloke supports a different footy team to me".
|
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Mar 16, 2006 0:00:21 GMT
What a load of bollocks. If the current tragic situation proves one thing it is that drug testing on animals is irrelevent to treating humans. The drugs used in this experiment will, by law, have been tested on animals before they could be tested on humans, presumably with little or no reported ill effect on those animals. Every drug that has had to be withdrawn for whatever reason will have to have been tested on animals before being allowed onto the market with sometimes disastrous results, eg thalidamide, or are you all too young to know about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 16, 2006 1:00:03 GMT
What a load of bollocks. If the current tragic situation proves one thing it is that drug testing on animals is irrelevent to treating humans. The drugs used in this experiment will, by law, have been tested on animals before they could be tested on humans, presumably with little or no reported ill effect on those animals. Every drug that has had to be withdrawn for whatever reason will have to have been tested on animals before being allowed onto the market with sometimes disastrous results, eg thalidamide, or are you all too young to know about that? Not entirely sure where you are coming from here. Are you saying that drugs should not be tested on any mammal before we inject or throw them down human throats? Maybe you think that we should not test and develop any new drugs in order that we don't subject any living being to anything nasty. Or perhaps you, and all the other animal rights protesters will be perfectly happy to allow the drugs companies to test them on yourself, after all we don't want to harm those poor guinea pigs do we? I feel really bad for those volunteers who have fell ill, but then again they took a rather nice sum of money from the drug company knowing that they just might suffer a bad reaction, isn't that what testing is all about? |
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Mar 16, 2006 9:25:33 GMT
Sorry, I thought I was stating the obvious. There is little correlation between the effects of untried drugs on animals and the effects of those drugs on humans. The history of drug development is littered with drugs that appeared to be efficacious when tested on animals but then turned out to be ineffective or worse, toxic when tested on humans. Drug companies routinely under report side effects, or ineffective results as they have too much invested to not be allowed to manufacture their new products and they are under no legal obligation to report all their results for peer review, hiding under the veil of commercial confidentiality. Testing on the target species is the only way to discover whether or not a new drug will or will not prove to be effective. It has nothing to do with animal rights.
Incidentally one of my daughters is studying medicine and another had her heart rebuilt at the age of six weeks when it was the size of a walnut, due entirely to the techniques developed by operating experimentally on animals. I thank each and every one of those animals for their contribution, however I am opposed to unnecessary cruelty to all beings, sentient or not. As for volunteering myself, no thank you. How about volunteering your pets?
PS for those of you wanting to use prisoners there is a precedent, his name was Adolf Hitler.
|
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 16, 2006 10:26:37 GMT
After what my cat did to my hand yesterday they can have him.
I'm ducking out of this one, not that I can't argue my corner, just that it might get a bit emotive! These sort of debates can turn nasty.
|
|
pies
Stale bacon bap
Super Sexy Sutton
Posts: 230
|
Post by pies on Mar 16, 2006 10:56:38 GMT
From what i heard on the news last night, it appeared that these drugs had an adverse effect on some monkeys they had tested it on before anyways (albeit nowhere near as serious). It's quite a sobering thought, since i have given serious consideration to medical testing before.
|
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Mar 16, 2006 11:31:36 GMT
I'd be TOTALLY against the idea of using prisoners unless they volunteered (how right you are, ojiveojive- Hitler did advocate that). I think capital punishment is bad enough, but I won't go down that road.
Having to use animals is unfortunate, and I wish we didn't have to, since they don't understand what's going on and could have all sorts of horrific things happen to them. But the fact is that we humans are higher on the food chain. Cats torture mice when they catch them, presumably for sport. Humans harm animals to save themselves. We have to choose between risking harm to our own species or another, and no natural instinct or natural good sense would make the former prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Mar 16, 2006 16:06:37 GMT
Not only did Hitler advocate it, Josef Mengele ran the eugenics experiments using prisoners, jews and the 'subnormal'. One of the places I regularly holiday in France has a butcher's called J. Mengele, how weird is that? I deliberately used the term 'unnecessary cruelty', ie why do cosmetics manufacturers have to rerun experiments known to cause harm and distress to animals every time they reformulate a product using the same ingredients. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 16, 2006 16:08:13 GMT
If you note in my original post I did say prisoners serving time for serious offences. Therefore the Hitler argument is somewhat flawed as inmates of Auschwitz and other concentration camps were there through Hitler and the Nazi parties twisted ideals.
Let's be right about it, when a drug gets to the stage of human testing the chances of fatal or even severe side effects are miniscule.
The type of offender I'm on about are the likes of
Ian Brady
Peter Sutcliffe
Ian Whiting
Ian Huntley
Donald Nielsen
Beverley Hallitt
These sort of fine upstanding people who have tortured and murdered defenceless chidren. Or people who in their mind were not fit human beings for some twisted reason.
NOT PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THE OTHER SIDE IN THE LAST ELECTION.
|
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Mar 16, 2006 16:29:35 GMT
Frankie it wasn't only people in concentration camps that were experimented on but ordinary prisoners and the 'subnormal' too. As for your list of prisoners? Evil every one of them but there are a number of convicted child killers and others that were later found not to have committed any crime, particularly mothers adjudged to have murdered their own children who not only went through the hell of being convicted of the most heinous of crimes that they hadn't committed, but also were brutally treated by other prisoners whilst serving sentences that they didn't deserve. The moment you use another human being, however evil, however guilty, for experimentation you are lowering yourself to the level of Mengele and as someone who doesn't believe in god (see other posting somewhere) I would say 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you'.
|
|
