It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Myths about animal research

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Beheading for theft is too strong, but i think for murder they have it right.
yet, your family, wife or child might be found a cure for cancer etc if they use him as a human model research instead, if he die for that, nobody care, but better if he save life first.

Better to trust new treatment for your child that is tested on human for human, than treatment only tested on a dog, child is not a dog. You wouldnt take your child to animal Dr if sick? course not, yet we happy to trust drugs, only tested on animals, and pay tax to feed/house murderers?
this dosent make sense to me.

If a man takes life, he has no human right, if my brother murder somebody, I would put him to death myself.

[edit on 013030p://19061 by instar]




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Beheading for theft is too strong, but i think for murder they have it right.
yet, your family, wife or child might be found a cure for cancer etc if they use him as a human model research instead, if he die for that, nobody care, but better if he save life first.

Better to trust new treatment for your child that is tested on human for human, than treatment only tested on a dog, child is not a dog. You wouldnt take your child to animal Dr if sick? course not, yet we happy to trust drugs, only tested on animals, and pay tax to feed/house murderers?
this dosent make sense to me.

If a man takes life, he has no human right, if my brother murder somebody, I would put him to death myself.

[edit on 013030p://19061 by instar]


Not for theft but murder and if rape its stoneing to death



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas

Originally posted by instar
Huh, the state does decide , often! why use lethal injection when these scum can be of real use to humanity? its a wicked waste. imo, if you rape/murder etc, you forfeit human rights. why pay my tax dollars looking after, housing and feeding these scum, they are supposed to pay for their crime, not us!



I know its hard but sometime it will make a lot of problems. Because you have human right and stuff like that, The guy even have a family to protect his right.

In islam if a guy is murder someone he is beheaded easy a that and if he steals. you will think its creal but it normal because usual the process is taken carefully and there is another person next to that. You have to make the guy to rest and make him calm and you have do it at one blow.

As for longing at it as crulity i think not because if youjail these people they hunt there victims and victims family as well as it will make other a reminder


You'd have a point if we could guarantee that every death row inmate was actually guilty of his crime.

As it is..we can't do that.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Huh, the state does decide , often! why use lethal injection when these scum can be of real use to humanity? its a wicked waste. imo, if you rape/murder etc, you forfeit human rights. why pay my tax dollars looking after, housing and feeding these scum, they are supposed to pay for their crime, not us!


You know, I've often thought of this myself. Why not use Death Row inmates as drug trial guinea pigs? Who knows, it might even prolong their lives a bit.

As for any doubt about their guilt, these days DNA testing can prove guilt beyond any doubt in cases where samples are available, so that argument isn't really valid.

What better way to pay a debt to society than to be sacrificed for its betterment?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Just posting because I thought the idea of testing on prisoners to be very interesting.

You know though, that concept runs into so many problems that way. I'd be all for it, but obviously the general population would not.


We have to try to balance the animal population remember though, there are a lot of them, if only we could get rid of them without a slow tortured death.

Humans would work best for tests for humans.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by Ksnazdnzon]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   


As for any doubt about their guilt, these days DNA testing can prove guilt beyond any doubt in cases where samples are available, so that argument isn't really valid.

What better way to pay a debt to society than to be sacrificed for its betterment?


Unfortunately that's just not true.

Only some of the death row cases are proven or disproven with DNA evidence; there have been even recent cases of new - nonDNA related - evidence proving the innocence of a previously convicted inmate.

Perhaps more to the point though...that's not how drug trials work. Before human testing is performed, the drugs are tested for such gems as LD50 rates and other toxicity issues. Sometimes the animal subjects die inadvertently; sometimes they die as a deliberate result of testing. Are we really saying that this would be "ok" to do to a population whose guilt might one day be questioned, if not overturned?

Until and unless we are able to provide a harder guarantee that convictions are right, and just, it seems inhumane to risk the lives of people who might be innocent.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower


..... where samples are available, so that argument isn't really valid.


Unfortunately that's just not true.

Only some of the death row cases are proven or disproven with DNA evidence;.....


If you read my post carefully I said "where samples are available". I certainly wouldn't advocate the use of every Death Row inmate in drug trials. But, where there is DNA evidence and guilt is scientifically proven beyond any doubt, I don't see a problem.

It would certainly be helpful in the later stages of testing to use human subjects rather than animals, not only from a medical point of view but also ethically. You can, of course, argue the ethics of using human subjects for testing but, remember, we're talking about sub-human offenders here.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
That's the part I have difficulty with - viewing people as "sub human".

It's a very, very slippery slope, to me.

For every serial killer who is guilty of repeated, premeditated, well-planned atrocities (assuming there's a general consensus that people view such killers as "monsters"), there are fifty others on death row who were often operating under much different circumstances. Under the influence of drugs? - is a gang member who kills to avenge the murder of his baby sister the same type of criminal as the serial killer? Is he as "sub-human" for committing one act, compared to the guy who plans and kills twenty teenage girls? How about the guy who is on death row for shooting the guy who raped his daughter? Is he the same "type"?

What exactly defines "sub-human"? Moreover, with every crime having unique elements, how would we be able to discern which prisoners fit the bill, for the sake of human testing?

It's such a subjective definition, that it would simply be arbitrary and consequently unjust.

To further the discussion though - if the death penalty is abolished....would the suggestion still stand?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
"Why not use Death Row inmates as drug trial guinea pigs?"

Well I think they skipped over the jails and went straight for the college kids.. give them a few bucks.. and

"EPA Reviewing Human Pesticide Experiments"

Do a google and lots of info..



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kensfarm
"Why not use Death Row inmates as drug trial guinea pigs?"

Well I think they skipped over the jails and went straight for the college kids.. give them a few bucks.. and

"EPA Reviewing Human Pesticide Experiments"

Do a google and lots of info..


And such clinical trials usually involve two things.

Consent, and money.

Using prisoners, I'd imagine, wouldn't involve either (at least, in the context of the discussion).



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
Animals created in this Earth to help us humans.


Rubbish I am sorry. We have no right to exploit animals they are not here as fodder for humans although that is what we have done in the name of money, greed and stupidity. We will never agree however so best we agree to disagree.

By the way just look at how many drugs that have been passed as safe after testing on animals only to find out later they are not.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I must admit to a certain degree of ambivalence regarding this subject. On the one hand it is apparent to most people that vivisection can help to prolong human life and provide us with many cures to modern ills. However, that doesn't mean I have to like the idea that flopsy has his head in a vice and is getting acid dropped in his eyes!!

I once read an article in the 'New Scientist' which was discussing the idea that a test subject under stress may exhibit somewhat anomalous behaviour, compared to, say, if it were in it's natural habitat. I sometimes wonder if such stresses as must be felt by the animals within research establishments affect the quality of data gathered.
Another point made was that animals are not humans, so testing a substance designed for humans upon an animal is not a like-for-like test which, from a scientific point of view, is less than satisfactory.

As I say, personally, I don't like it, but I have benfitted from such practices. The only way I can make myself feel better about it is to make sure that I treat any animals that come into my direct sphere of influence with the respect they deserve.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Exploiting?

Does your definition include eating animal flesh and/or utilising their skins? (without this, early man would have come to a rapid full stop very, very quickly).

Does it consider that even the earliest humans used animals to test whether or not certain herbs/plants were safe for consumption? And to reverse this point, it became blindingly obvious (albeit after the fact....) that the flesh from animals who had ingested certain substances could also poison humans. This was (and is still, to many cultures) an invaluable form of animal testing.




By the way just look at how many drugs that have been passed as safe after testing on animals only to find out later they are not.


And look how many thousands of drugs have successfully helped and saved the lives of millions of people. The number of safer drugs (by any reasonable definition) far, far outweighs those which are later removed from the market.

There is perhaps a middle ground here. I'm sure most people would find it much better if animals weren't used for cosmetic testing purposes, for one thing. But I'm not sure if doing away with all animal testing would accomplish anything at all other than an increase in human suffering.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
That's the part I have difficulty with - viewing people as "sub human".

It's a very, very slippery slope, to me..........

.........To further the discussion though - if the death penalty is abolished....would the suggestion still stand?



Forgive me if I'm wrong here, I don't know a great deal about American law, but isn't Death Row reserved purely for the worst of the worst?
Surely somebody who had committed murder due to extreme provocation, as demonstrated in your examples, would not receive the death sentence: please correct me if I'm wrong because my argument is more or less based on this premise.

When I think of Death Row, I think of serial killers, psychotic uncontrollable murderers, child killers, indiscriminate terrorists, etc. people who's crimes can truly be described as inhuman and to whom the label "sub-human" can be applied with some justification.

The state has already decreed that they die for their crimes so why not make some use of their deaths? Is it any more barbaric to use them for medical testing than to strap them to a chair and slowly electrocute them or pump them full of a cocktail of poison?

As for your question regarding the situation if the Death Penalty were to be abolished. Obviously that changes everything because the whole idea is based on the fact that the inmates are already under sentence of death and, therefore, using them as test subjects is just another way of administering that sentence.

If this sounds cruel and callous please remember that we're talking here about cruel and callous offenders.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Alas no, not every death row inmate is guilty of child molestation/murder or serial killer/multiple murder crimes. As it is, even the definition of a heinous crime deserving the death penalty will vary from state to state, and indeed, from case to case. We have an arbitrary system where (for example) an economically-challenged black man who commits the same crime as his affluent white neighbour has a much higher chance of receiving the death penalty - until these imbalances have been adequately addressed, there will be no sense of fairness.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, if we could only guarantee (for one thing) that these death row inmates are actually guilty - then perhaps there might be a case. But even today we are seeing sentences being commuted and in some cases actually overturned, due to new evidence, DNA evidence perhaps, and various other reasons.

When money is more important in obtaining legal counsel than the fight for justice, we cannot guarantee justice will be served.....and if that's the case, we'd be inhumane ourselves to experiment on such a population.

Though I'm hesitant to see the thread turn into a pro/anti death penalty argument, the very reasons why the death penalty system is flawed are the same reasons we cannot reasonably use such prisoners as human guinea-pigs.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I think that there are a lot of myths about animal testing. Some of the frivolous testing lead to the myths that apply to the more serious stuff.
For starters the few labs that I have worked with or been in actually cared about the animals. Many of the animals were converted to pets when the "testing" was done.

Many of the animals are already on "death row" themselves. Many were rescued from the pound in the last hour pardon. Many have terminal illnesses. My cat recently was put to sleep because she had diabetes and was not very friendly. There was NO way I could give her a pill or shot every day (and keep my fingers attached to my hand). Many of these animals that would otherwise be put to sleep because they are ill (pounds do not generally adopt out animals that aren't in perfect health) are in fact given a second chance at life because of an experimental drug. And what is the difference if the Rat in the Equal test is given some Equal every day for a year to test for cancer or if the animal is fed to a snake? The usual end for a rat.

In most medical tests, please bear in mind, the goal is to NOT have the animal come to harm because of the medication. If they do come to harm, that means they failed and it is back to the drawing board.

Frankly, the animal abuse I would worry about more is the next door neighbor who hasn't cleaned the rabbit cage in 3 weeks because they "Just don't have time" and barely toss a handful of food in. Or the dog that is left outside without shelter or water. And the number of goldfish that are starved to death every day.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Thanks for pointing out the inconsistancies in the American legal system, I guess there will always be mistakes. However, I still maintain that some system could be devised whereby use could be made of these miscreants.

Once the appointed execution hour has arrived, with no sign of a last minute reprieve, then the inmate has no chance of avoiding the inevitable and is as good as dead anyway. At that point he/she could be transferred either to the execution room for the sentence to be carried out or taken for testing.

It's important to remember here that the inmate, once executed and whether guilty or not, is past the point of no return and could not possibly benefit from any last minute revelations. In fact, commuting the death sentence to use as a test subject could well work in the inmates favour, allowing them more time for any possible new evidence to come to light.

Something else has just occured to me: what happens to the test subject once the testing has been completed? Assuming it wasn't fatal, we would be left with a live, post-execution date, still guilty person. Maybe at that point, they could be transferred back to Death Row and the sentence could then be carried out.

Sounds very inhumane and heartless doesn't it? But then, humans are a very inhumane and heartless species.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
If the prisoner is then sent for testing purposes....and he's allowed the possibility of new evidence...doesn't this imply that new evidence might be brought to light anyway?

What if it happens after execution?

Have we made another huge miscarriage of justice?

It's these questions that honestly keep me from supporting the notion, you know?

Whilst I'm not arguing that there needs to be punishment and justice served...until we can guarantee that no man will be unfairly convicted and/or executed, I'm hesitant in supporting such drastic measures.



Edit: regarding being inhumane and heartless - perhaps the premise is we (as a society) are meant to be better than, or above, the inhumane and heartless acts carried out by such criminals. If we're to use the same methods, in full knowledge of the heartlessness therein, can we reasonably expect anyone else to do otherwise?



[edit on 1-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
If the prisoner is then sent for testing purposes....and he's allowed the possibility of new evidence...doesn't this imply that new evidence might be brought to light anyway?


It doesn't imply that at all, it actually allows him more time for a reprieve than he would normally have had. Remember we're talking about the period of time after the date on which he would die anyway.


Originally posted by Tinkleflower
What if it happens after execution?

Have we made another huge miscarriage of justice?

It's these questions that honestly keep me from supporting the notion, you know?


After the execution the whole thing becomes irrelevant anyway. Whether he was used for testing or executed at the appointed time, if new evidence clears him after the execution then, yes, it would be a miscarriage of justice, but it would have happened anyway.


Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Whilst I'm not arguing that there needs to be punishment and justice served...until we can guarantee that no man will be unfairly convicted and/or executed, I'm hesitant in supporting such drastic measures.


Can we ever guarantee that? Regardless of what we do with our convicted criminals, there will probably always be wrong or unsafe convictions. Their method of execution has no bearing on that.
Do you see what I mean, once the sentence has been carried out, by whatever means, it becomes irrelevent?


Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Edit: regarding being inhumane and heartless - perhaps the premise is we (as a society) are meant to be better than, or above, the inhumane and heartless acts carried out by such criminals. If we're to use the same methods, in full knowledge of the heartlessness therein, can we reasonably expect anyone else to do otherwise?


I'm afraid that whilst the Death Penalty is in force, we (as a society) can't truly claim to be above the inhumanity of the criminals. After all, isn't taking the life of someone in the name of justice nothing but legalized murder?

I, too, don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of the death sentence. I have my own opinions as does everyone else. But, whilst it is there, I think the possibilities for medical advancement should outweigh simple, state ordained punishment executions.

[edit on 1/7/2005 by sufferer]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Why bother carrying out the sentence at all? If we are looking at this in a purely business-like way, a convicted kiddy-raper aged 30 might have a good 60 years ahead of him, that's a LOT of drug trials...

But where do you draw the line? Personally, I'm all in favour of animal testing, having weighed up the pro's and cons. As somebody else said, you don't like to think of Flopsy with acid being dripped in her eyes, but you will accept the post-operative blood transfusion, thank you very much...

Woo Hoo, my first post on ATS...now how do I edit my profile???


[edit on 13-7-2005 by Marcu5]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join