VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: No more animal testing!!! Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-15-2011 12:39 AM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
but for a lot of things tested on animals are there other alternatives

I don't like the word alternatives. Think 'non-animal methods'.

I was diagnosed with MS in 98. 4-5 times a year an approach suggested by an animal-based study 'might' provide a cure within a decade. But it never happens. If it did I would have been cured a couple times over.

The latest study - out within the last few weeks - found that mice with EAE (the 'model' for MS, since only humans actually GET the disease) see a drastic (90%!) improvement in symptoms when treated with viagra. The coverage I saw mentioned that there are people who happen to have MS who happen to be taking viagra but makes no mention of if their experience has been investigated. Easier to get 'scientific' evidence that you can draw charts and graphs with looking at mice. Physics envy, ya know.
06-14-2011 05:44 PM
sequoia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Just to be more precise: this isn't really "animal testing." This is in a different category of using animals as training models for physicians. This area of animal use will be done away with long before "animal testing/research" is.

I say this only because I've seen people at times mistake the significance of this to mean that "animal testing" is gone from some universities because they stopped using cats or dogs to practice with breathing tubes or whatever.

Yes, I realized that after I made the thread Thank you!
06-12-2011 07:17 PM
Vermicelli The problem with the idea of testing on death row prisoners (apart from the fact that probably a decent chunk are innocent) is that they are not really in a position to make a free choice. Sure they can accept or refuse, but you're using someone's circumstances to influence them into a decision they would otherwise not make, and I think that's unethical. I reject the death penalty also, BTW.
06-12-2011 07:05 PM
Irizary Just to be more precise: this isn't really "animal testing." This is in a different category of using animals as training models for physicians. This area of animal use will be done away with long before "animal testing/research" is.

I say this only because I've seen people at times mistake the significance of this to mean that "animal testing" is gone from some universities because they stopped using cats or dogs to practice with breathing tubes or whatever.
06-12-2011 01:13 PM
sequoia
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegkid View Post

The answer is quite simple. People on death penalty should be able to volunteer for testing of drugs, with a reward to their family, and only on their permission.

Hmmm...I'm not sure whether or not I agree with that. I'll get back to you
06-12-2011 01:39 AM
AlixJ18
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegkid View Post

The answer is quite simple. People on death penalty should be able to volunteer for testing of drugs, with a reward to their family, and only on their permission.

Ooh i like, but the legality would be called into question a lot, like paying to have a life taken, or trading, it probably wouldn't go over well lol, oh and probably counts as cruel and unusual punishment, not sure anyone would want to do it either.
06-11-2011 09:06 AM
vegkid The answer is quite simple. People on death penalty should be able to volunteer for testing of drugs, with a reward to their family, and only on their permission.
06-11-2011 03:01 AM
Mia82 As someone with 2 gorgeous cats in her life, reading that made me cringe!

Actually, attitudes like that do a lot to make me skeptical of traditional medicine in general.
06-07-2011 07:46 PM
rpw001 I just got an eye-opener about animal testing in Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1990 edition). I have been opposed in principle to animal testing and tried to avoid products that were tested on animals, but I had not read much literature on the subject. Reading the chapter on vivisection, I was appalled at how pointless and fruitless so many of the tests were and how cavalier the scientists and doctors were about the pain they inflicted on the animals. I am glad to hear about PCRM's recent successes.
06-07-2011 05:34 PM
Rhys No, I would say animal testing is not necessary or even completely accurate. There are alternative methods that have been/are being developed but despite that, it's law that medications must still be tested on animals. It would be great if animal tests were phased out in favor of alternative and more accurate methods. Some alternatives I know of are computer simulations, DNA chips, using human tissue samples, microfluidic chips, microdosing. I'm sure there are many more.

Great e-mail from PCRM, by the way.
06-07-2011 05:33 PM
sequoia
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlixJ18 View Post

Good i'm glad there was an alternative for this, but for a lot of things tested on animals are there other alternatives? Because things like medicines or cures for diseases have to be tried on a live thing right? I always struggle with my opinion on it.

http://researchkills.org/
06-07-2011 05:19 PM
AlixJ18 Good i'm glad there was an alternative for this, but for a lot of things tested on animals are there other alternatives? Because things like medicines or cures for diseases have to be tried on a live thing right? I always struggle with my opinion on it.
06-04-2011 12:43 AM
sequoia I just got this email from the PCRM:

Quote:
I've just received word that after months—in one case, years—of hard work by PCRM and our members, animals will no longer be used in training programs at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.


Nationwide's use of cats required pediatrics residents to repeatedly force breathing tubes down cats' throats, causing tracheal bruising, bleeding, scarring, severe pain, and risking death. PCRM urged Nationwide faculty to replace the use of cats with human-based medical simulators—and they finally heard us.

PCRM's campaign at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine spanned almost three years. Our media outreach informed the local community that pigs were being used and killed in the school's Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) courses. And our action alerts generated such a strong response from supporters like you that Vanderbilt's IT department contacted us to say that its server was overwhelmed by the number of e-mails! Now we have learned that our perseverance has finally paid off.

Lastly, after an eight-month campaign, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) recently informed us that it has stopped using pigs in ATLS courses and now uses the TraumaMan System simulator, which is already used by more than 95 percent of ATLS programs. PCRM members sent more than 19,000 e-mails to UPMC—and it made a lifesaving difference!
According to our surveys, only nine ATLS programs in the United States and Canada and only 14 pediatrics residency programs in the United States still use animals. We won't rest until we bring these numbers down to zero!


Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off