Page 1 of Animal Testing OK?

Apart from testing for cosmetic reasons, which is not moral, is testing for medical research OK?
Do animals experience pain? The theory goes that you have to have an ego (an *I*) to know pain. Beyond the ego there is no pain.
When an animal yelps, winces, is this not just a neurological reaction, or even habit/autonomy?

Quote:
Do animals experience pain?

yes, of course they do. Nerve endings = pain

Quote:
The theory goes that you have to have an ego (an *I*) to know pain. Beyond the ego there is no pain.

which theory is this? Possibly one devloped by someone who feels there should be a greater gap between `intelligent` and `God-fearing` humans and other creatures.

Having said that, I agree with you about testing cosmetics being immoral.

As for medical tests, well that`s a bit of moot point to say the least. Has anyone got any concrete proof that all medicinal products which cure potentially deadly human diseases could have been developed without the use of animals as guinea-pigs (no pun intended)?



My collection

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:36

A quick wikipedia search shows that ego is
Quote:
the organized conscious mediator between the internal person and the external reality.

Not really understanding that, but i presume it`s just some bollocks theory with no possibility of empirically testing it`s validity and therefore no basis for a law anywhere.

Also, i find it difficult to believe that a baby would have one of these, which under this (crazy) argument would mena that testing on babies would be ok.

Of course animals feel pain. Humans are animals

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:43

Quote:
which theory is this? Possibly one devloped by someone who feels there should be a greater gap between `intelligent` and `God-fearing` humans and other creatures.

Nope, psychology.
And certain schools of philosophy.
Babies would seem to have a developing ego.
I am of the thought that you have to have an ego to experience pain, ot at least suffering.

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:48

I assume this was triggered by the animal testing fiasco in Oxford? Funny story (really) the mrs was telling me that theres a 16 year old who is protesting the protesters. They sent a news crew out to this guy and he seemed a little unhinged (my words ;)), especially given the fact that he was making a big public display against a notoriously violent pressure group. He was walking around oxford with pro-animal testing placards and so on and generally lapping up the attention he was getting.

Anyway, we all expected that the next time they sent a news crew out would be when this lad got his hair cut with a baseball bat. But no..... thanks to the wonders of the internet the Anti-Vivisectionists found out his second favourite pastime.

Now all over their website are links to videos this guy has posted of himself beating it into a cup.

Ah.....the march of technology...........

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:53

Quote:
I am of the thought that you have to have an ego to experience pain, ot at least suffering.

Just wondering - have you got any pets?


--

www.soundalikes.com/

Quote:
I assume this was triggered by the animal testing fiasco in Oxford?
Got it in one.

Into a cup. Hmmmmm.
Hello Google. ;)

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:56

Quote:

Babies would seem to have a developing ego.


So logically, you are of the opinion that babies only "develop" the ability to feel pain at about the same time their "ego" develops.

Interesting.....but crazy

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 14:57

Ego = pain?
I forgot to mention Buddhism too.

This item was edited on Thursday, 2nd March 2006, 15:13

Testing cosmetics is wrong.

Anyone who has ever, or will ever need to, take a pill, from paracetamol upwards, has no right to complain about animal testing, as ALL drugs have to go through this process BY LAW, worldwide. It wouldn`t be done if it wasn`t necessary, and alternatives are continually being expanded, but if all tests were stopped, those promising new pills for breast cancer, leukemia etc. would never see the clinic.

How could you get people to volunteer as subjects to test a substance that might cause cancer, liver damage, cardiac arrest etc. when administered? The risks would be so high, no new treatments would ever get through development. Testing for these potentially fatal effects in animals (usually rodents) is the best that can be done at the moment. And if we stopped it here, all that would happen is it would be outsourced to other countries with poor or no guidelines on the humane treatment of laboratory animals.

The argument that some animal tests failed to show the potential risks when humans were exposed is also flawed, as only the substances which were "clean" from animal tests were ever given to humans, those which were never given were withheld precisely because the animals had shown clear signs of toxicity.

It`s not perfect, but it`s the best we`ve got.