Jump to content

Life saving treatments and medical advances

Recommended Posts

Some medical research that is funded by charities involves testing on animals. I understand that some people have strong feelings that animals should never be used, regardless of how many lives can be improved or saved.

 

I've thought about this following a previous thread where animal testing was given as a valid reason for not supporting a charity. It's understandable that people who do feel strongly won't support these charities. I wonder if that also means they would refuse life saving treatment for themselves or a loved one if it was linked to research and development carried out by one of the charities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a difficult one. I try to live my life with the mantra of 'do the most good for the greatest number' and animals would be included in that vaguely. For me let's say 10000 monkeys were painfully tested on and just one human life saved I would not consider that a 'fair' trade off, would be difficult to give exact numbers as it would depend on the type of testing being used and the benefits given by that testing so I'm sure my argument could easily be shot down.

 

Also, animal testing is extremely outdated. Animals do not have the same physiology as us, even apes are quite different in some areas and therefore there are no guarantees that a drug that appears effective on an ape will have the same impact on humans. There have been several high profile cases in the last decade where humans have been killed by drugs being tested that have been successfully tested on animals proving the point. Computers have advanced incredibly in since animals have been used for testing. Computers can accurately simulate billions of tests in a few hours using data based on humans and not animals which is likely to be more accurate that relying on testing on something with non identical DNA and biology. I and many others suspect that animal testing is still carried out solely for historical reasons and fear; fear that if a human died after testing a drug given the all clear by a computer there would be even more uproar than when it happens after animal testing. I guess this is down to the fact that change scares people even if that change is provable better.

 

So, in summary, if animals testing can demonstrate a rough net benefit to the world (not just humans) then crack on, but as computers become more and more powerful and adaptable I genuinely struggle to see how the numbers can add up in support of animal testing in any form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a difficult one. I try to live my life with the mantra of 'do the most good for the greatest number' and animals would be included in that vaguely. For me let's say 10000 monkeys were painfully tested on and just one human life saved I would not consider that a 'fair' trade off, would be difficult to give exact numbers as it would depend on the type of testing being used and the benefits given by that testing so I'm sure my argument could easily be shot down.

 

Also, animal testing is extremely outdated. Animals do not have the same physiology as us, even apes are quite different in some areas and therefore there are no guarantees that a drug that appears effective on an ape will have the same impact on humans. There have been several high profile cases in the last decade where humans have been killed by drugs being tested that have been successfully tested on animals proving the point. Computers have advanced incredibly in since animals have been used for testing. Computers can accurately simulate billions of tests in a few hours using data based on humans and not animals which is likely to be more accurate that relying on testing on something with non identical DNA and biology. I and many others suspect that animal testing is still carried out solely for historical reasons and fear; fear that if a human died after testing a drug given the all clear by a computer there would be even more uproar than when it happens after animal testing. I guess this is down to the fact that change scares people even if that change is provable better.

 

So, in summary, if animals testing can demonstrate a rough net benefit to the world (not just humans) then crack on, but as computers become more and more powerful and adaptable I genuinely struggle to see how the numbers can add up in support of animal testing in any form.

 

You may find this worth reading: https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-matters-magazine/research/richard-mindham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well not really. He is basically saying that his desire to go skiing gives him moral superiority over animals suffering. I do not agree in most cases, especially when computers can do the same testing if not better without harming a single animal.

 

Here's some articles (not from PETA!) about how computers can already replace animal testing:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/23/tech-end-animals-drugs-testing

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19453215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that animal testing should be reduced, especially when there are safe alternatives. Nothing in either link i could disagree with. That still leaves the question about those who are totally opposed accepting treatment that has involved animal testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computer simulations are good, and getting better, but animal testing is still required before human trials take place, I'd love to see animal testing being eliminated, but it still has a place in the development of drugs & other medical interventions.

 

An open question - Would you volunteer to take an untested drug that's only been tried in computer simulations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Computer simulations are good, and getting better, but animal testing is still required before human trials take place, I'd love to see animal testing being eliminated, but it still has a place in the development of drugs & other medical interventions.

 

An open question - Would you volunteer to take an untested drug that's only been tried in computer simulations?

 

If I had a terminal condition, absolutely. In fact I'd rather take a drug tested on a computer than on animals as I believe that to be a safer way to test as well as more ethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where were the components of the new drugs tested before there complexities and behaviours could be plotted on a computer?

 

A computer or programmer didn't wake up and think if i inject element x and element y into someone it'll behave in certain manner.

 

So no one can say they are using a product that has never been tested/researched on animals,they can only claim that the current "recipe" of drugs hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some medical research that is funded by charities involves testing on animals. I understand that some people have strong feelings that animals should never be used, regardless of how many lives can be improved or saved.

 

I've thought about this following a previous thread where animal testing was given as a valid reason for not supporting a charity. It's understandable that people who do feel strongly won't support these charities. I wonder if that also means they would refuse life saving treatment for themselves or a loved one if it was linked to research and development carried out by one of the charities.

 

This thread has clearly been started following my comment to you about supporting BHF. I try my absolute best to never ever support or buy anything that funds testing on animals. I buy an ethical guide to shopping each year which lists all shops and brands that do and don't test on animals so I can be safe in the knowledge of the items I buy are not tested on animals. I also look out for the leaping bunny on products which shows the product and none of it's ingredients have been tested on animals.

 

I have a close friend who has recently been diagnosed with cancer and before her treatment she asked about animal products and tests that have been done on animals for the treatment she was due and she did refuse more than one of the options due to this, and I would do the same, so the answer to your question is that yes I would, and other people do refuse treatment based on whether it has been tested on animals.

 

I'd also like to point out that alternatives were offered to her following her refusal, so there are options out there I just suspect they are more expensive to carry out and therefore aren't the first option for patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had a child dying of cancer I'm sure you wouldn't be bothered whether the drug had been tested on animals or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had a child dying of cancer I'm sure you wouldn't be bothered whether the drug had been tested on animals or not.

 

I don't have a child, but you have no way of knowing whether I would or wouldn't. Some people refuse treatment on a religious basis so why would that be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a child, but you have no way of knowing whether I would or wouldn't. Some people refuse treatment on a religious basis so why would that be any different.

 

You have a good point there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.