Should people really find lab testing of soon to be euthanized animals that repugnant?

Well, since we’re feeling generous, why not do that to humans too? There are plenty that are just walking dead. In fact, humans would be much more accurate test subjects.

The reason why people are against animal testing, in the first place, is the torture these animals often go through (not just from the tests but from the so-called researcher’s treatment of them as well). It has nothing to do with being unwanted.

I think the biggest concern that most people have about animal testing is the stories that they’ve heard that make it sound like sheer torture. Whether the animal is going to be euthanized, or not, no one wants them to suffer. Most people are comfortable with the concept of euthanasia because it is supposed to be humane, and in many cases it is done with the intention of alleviating suffering. We’re all going to die eventually, and so will our pets, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t hope that when the time comes that it is as peaceful and painless as one could hope for.

Sorry, I can’t go along with it. I don’t want any animal to suffer needlessly for even one day.

@chyna summed it up for me. That’s exactly how I feel about the situation.

I don’t see how you equate dying with suffering? Or, to try and marry the ideas that more people who are against animal testing should be saving the lives of animals before euthanizing? Sure most animal lovers want to save the lives of animals, especially if the choice is adoption or euthanization, but most of us agree putting an animal to sleep rather than having to suffer is humane. Purposely harming the animal, causing pain, doesn’t sit well with most people, even if the animal is going to be put to death immeditaly after. Some experiments probably are not very painful, but the animals are caged typically, observed, and it is sad that they can be used in this way. I am not against all animal testing, but I certainly am against animal testing that will obviously be painful or cause horrible disease. If we already know a chemical will likley blind the rabbit, why do we need to test it?

Plus, from what I understand mice are typicaly used because they are more genetically similar to humans. Not sure if they have really proven that for sure now that we mapped the genome, but that was what science used to say anyway. I assume also there would be more uproar by the average person if they used cats and dogs.

It is appalling.

Yes.
Very, very, few animal tests give accurate results based on human physiology.
Sure, some “advancements” have been made, but, I say spare the innocents, spray the bleach in the pedophiles eyes. Heh!

An animal suffers for one day and then dies the following day.
An animal suffers for one day and then dies five years later.
What I don’t understand is where the distinction between those situations is. Why are you so keen on letting an animal suffer just because it is going to die soon? It still experiences the pain in the same way.
Not all of us are in a position to adopt 100 cats just to make sure they won’t be euthanized.

It’s not the animal’s fault. Why should the animal suffer for the poor decisions of its owners?

Being close to death does not mean that the animal should be tortured for the purpose of “science”. If I’m at death’s door, I’d want someone to knock me off gently, instead of injecting me with a bunch of shit that will only cause more pain and suffering.

If valuable information can be derived from animal experiments that can be used to ease the suffering and or delay the death of humans and other animals then it is OK with me.

@Plucky – says it all for me. Let those in jail make a contribution __to__ society instead of taking from it.

@Plucky There are plenty that are just walking dead. In fact, humans would be much more accurate test subjects. The moment humans come into play shade of Josef Mengele, Dr. Moreau springs forth.

@ANef_is_Enuf Whether the animal is going to be euthanized, or not, no one wants them to suffer. I guess we should forgo eating live lobsters too? You choose a lobster from a tank and they take it back to the kitchen and while it is still alive drop it into boiling water; that is surely not good for the lobster. Why care about what suffering an animal might go through because it has fur and not going to end up as a delicacy on a plate and not care the same for the lobster?

@JLeslie Purposely harming the animal, causing pain, doesn’t sit well with most people, even if the animal is going to be put to death immeditaly after. If it is a new test or procedure that is not known what level of discomfort the animal would have. Humans sideline the needs of animals all the time, if it is not from the lab, it is taking away their food source or living space with urban sprawl, and if they come into ”our areas”, which is really their areas we are invading, we shoot them. And that serves no possible benefit to mankind at all, that is just selfishly getting them out of our, humans, way.

@Coloma Sure, some “advancements” have been made, but, I say spare the innocents, spray the bleach in the pedophiles eyes. Probably the same reason we don’t put convicted murderers in an arena death match for pay-per-view, to pay for the prison system. That would be barbaric, we surely can’t be like the Romans, can we?

@Mariah Why are you so keen on letting an animal suffer just because it is going to die soon? Who knows if the test will cause any suffering at all? It could, it might a little, or it may not cause any. It could be a temporary dye tested. It might cause burning or hair loss or whatever but better to test it on an animal than have it harm a human. If the animal were not to be euthanized but placed for adoption then it would be of no use to run any test on it. If the animal was going to die soon at any point, a few days more where it might not suffer but actually do some good would make its life worth something than ending up in feed or something.

@WillWorkForChocolate If I’m at death’s door, I’d want someone to knock me off gently, instead of injecting me with a bunch of shit that will only cause more pain and suffering. I don’t think any doctor short of Josef Mengele would subject any human to that. If they were desperate and believed it the only way to save the life of someone who wanted to live, then I could. Even if doing so would cause discomfort. Better to be a live uncomfortable than dead with no pain.

@rooeytoo Let those in jail make a contribution _to society instead of taking from it.* They could make a bigger impact building roads, and levies. But then again, we don’t want to be like the Soviets, Chinese, or WWII Japanese getting stuff done with de facto slave labor, plus too many unions would be out of business so they would never go along. What of the person subjected to test only to be find he/she was innocent and wrongly convicted? Can we spell _whopping law suit?

@Hypocrisy_Central You asked a question that we all have our ideas, our answers, our beliefs that we added to this question and you want to come back on each of our answers?

@Hypocrisy_Central Oh come on. Lobsters? That is your response to @ANef_is_Enuf? Not everyone eats lobsters that way – and where in their post did you see anything about eating lobster? Jeez, even when I ate meat, I would never eat a lobster that was boiled alive. I’m not even going to go into a detailed response of your reply to me. I can’t believe you equated human testing, in this regard, with the Nazi’s and a fictional character in a book. Ugh. I’m also not even going to touch the rest of your replies ..I’ll let everyone else have the frustration fun. (shakes head)

@Hypocrisy_Central Your response to my comment makes absolutely no sense. Causing discomfort by trying to save someone’s life has nothing to do with being a lab rat and being injected with different shit on a daily basis.

@Hypocrisy_Central maybe you choose a lobster out of a tank to be boiled alive. I don’t.

@Hypocrisy_Central – I know it would never go, the ACLU and others are always concerned with the rights of prisoners (often more than the victims). Same with road gangs, I remember seeing them when I was a kid. Jail was punishment then, end of story. I know sometimes the wrong person ends up in jail, but do we give all prisoners a life of leisure because they might be there accidentally?

What I really meant though was to give prisoners the option to offer themselves as testers for a fee. I am sure many would volunteer if there were remuneration involved.

Human’s as well as other animals benefit from medical research involving experiments with animals. Most of the wonders of modern medicine such as cancer treatments, treatments for diabetes, special surgical procedures, genetics advances and new medications could not have been developed without the use of animals. Contrary to what some people claim, most of these medical research experiments can not be done with computer models or by using bacteria alone because the human body is far too complex.

Believe me, I do love animals. My two cats see a veterinarian more often than I see an M.D. One of my cats has arthritis in her right front elbow. She has gotten tremendous relief of pain and swelling from a new non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drug which most certainly was developed through the help of medical research using animals. Before the drug she could only limp around slowly on 3 legs. Now she runs and jumps and plays again.

I, like millions of other lucky people am alive and well today only because of the wonders of modern medicine. It is obvious to me that medical research using animals has paid off and will continue to do so as long as it is permitted.

@Plucky Oh come on. Lobsters? That is your response to @ANef_is_Enuf? Not everyone eats lobsters that way – and where in their post did you see anything about eating lobster? Jeez, even when I ate meat, I would never eat a lobster that was boiled alive. She spoke to the suffering the animal would go through even if death was at hand, ”no one wants them to suffer.” were her words. Lobsters are the only food I can remember that is alive moments before you prepare it for a meal. The point I was making is that suffering can’t be the all in all, because some people swear by fresh live lobsters from the tank. I am sure many of those have the same feeling abut some fluffy big-eyed dog suffering because of a test done in the lab. It seems off, to care about an animal suffering just because it isn’t a meal.

@WillWorkForChocolate If I’m at death’s door, I’d want someone to knock me off gently, instead of injecting me with a bunch of shit that will only cause more pain and suffering. Is what you commented. I could not see what the death of humans has to do with soon to be euthanized pooches and kitties. It is more akin to end of life care, or euthanasia. A dog or cat that is terminally ill may not even know it is terminally ill. The concept of drifting off to peaceful permanent slumber may not even be a concept they are aware of.

@ANef_is_Enuf Though people keep trying to get me to try fresh boiled lobster because they say it is to die for, I hate sea food so you would never catch me eating one..

@rooeytoo What I really meant though was to give prisoners the option to offer themselves as testers for a fee. I can actually see that, and it would be more effective because it would be actual humans it is used on. Again, emotions always seem to trump good solid logic. Even if the prisoners agreed to it, many would see it as some unholy bribe. That there would be no way a person would agree to it if they didn’t have 127yrs in prison or double life without. And seeing it would more over be the poor that ended up in prison not the rich white collar criminals people will see it as another way the rich and powerful pharmaceuticals are bending the poor man over and giving it to him dry. I don’t know what they would call it. Many I am sure would feel that even though these people did some pretty horrible crimes, they are still human and should not be forced to barter their life, or health for the chance to reduce their freedom; unless it was significant enough to give them a real chance to gain freedom before they died.

That would lead to a second level of crap if one prisoner volunteered to do it for a chance to reduce his life sentence to 20yrs, let say, and it didn’t kill him. Now he has a chance to be free before he died if he were young, then you would have those who would say the victim(s) were shortchanged.

Logical in concept, but the emotions would derail it.

@Plucky Pretty much that is how lobster is cooked in most cases, especially if the lobsters are live at a restaurant. Live lobster thrown in bowling water.

@Hypocrisy_Central But wasn’t your premise that we know the animal will suffer?

@JLeslie When you toss anything living into boiling water you can almost always expect there to be some suffering. To go out with the ideal of dining on lobster your meal is coming by way of a lobster boiling to death, I would guess it suffered even if it subsumed quick. With an animal in the lab you can’t be sure it is going to suffer before it dies. What if they were testing a particular antacid, diet supplement, or allergy medication, there is nothing that says the animal will writhe in pain before it is sent off to be gassed, or whatever.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I were in Hong Kong, when served a big plate of shrimp and they were all still alive. Each of them had a long wooden pin through the length of their body, so they could individually be cooked in the hot pot and still be at their freshest. We noticed in horror and threw them all into the hot water once.

Anyways… I cannot answer this question without answering what I think of animal testing. My opinion on that is neither 100% in favor nor dead set against it.

Animal testing is one of those devil’s choices. If testing was sure to prevent more suffering than it causes, I might be in favor. I am however not convinced all animal testing is fully necessary, nor do I think that all testing is done in a respectful way, minimizing the animal’s suffering in the process.

So… I would say in some specific cases it could objectively be better to do as you suggest and use an animal for testing, before it dies. (In general, these pets will not offer good test subjects, though. Their history isn’t fully known and they may have all kinds of diseases or experiences the researchers don’t know about. So likely whatever they are going to be used for is crude tests that can be done in an alternative way.)

Somehow, subjectively, I cannot imagine that I could get along with a pet owner that would send of his/her pet for testing, after having allowed that pet to become part of the family first. All equations of ‘overall utility for the wellbeing of all’ become invalid to me, when I know a person or a pet.

@Hypocrisy_Central I don’t eat lobster, or veal for that matter. I had not thought about shrimp possibly being cooked the same way until @whitenoise mentioned it. More and more I am loath to eat animal because of humane issues. I have the added incentive of being cursed with bad genes regarding cholesterol, but that is another topic.

I agree with @whitenoise I think I said it above, I am not completely against animal testing. Some tests I have read about seem unnecessary and cruel. From what I understand, present day, measures are taken to reduce an animals suffering when they are given diseases. Still, it horrifies me when I really think about it. It seems to me a lot of testing is to see how sick an animal gets, the side effects from drugs and chemicals given in megadoses. When I take large doses of medication I feel awful, and that is usually at maybe double a dose, I can only imagine at 20 times. Is that really necessary?

When I took anatomy and physiology in high school we dissected cats. I remember saying I found it a little upsetting, and the response was those cats are breed to be killed, like cows for food. That is even more disgusting to me. Create a living thing to kill it? It amazes me how people think. I am a hypocrit, I eat meat, but turn a blind eye for now on how that meat got on my plate. Too much of American beef is killed in a way that really does not sit right with me. Chickens live in conditions I don’t like. Fish basically suffocate when they die. It does not matter that the animal will be dead a minute later, I don’t want it to suffer. Food for me, or helping create safe medical treatments, it is all kind of along the same lines.

@JLeslie Yes, I am aware of the lobster practices in restaurants. Not everyone eats them at a restaurant though.

@Plucky How are they killed otherwise? Do you know? I don’t know. Do they just chop the head off or something?

My mom made lobster once, she threw it in the boiling water alive, she was freaked when she did it. She never made lobster again.

@JLeslie Maybe they bash it over the head like a crab.

There is not much argument that the history of animal testing has served humans, and other animals, quite well. The problem though…is that we are at a stage where we do not need to use invasive animal testing. There is a such thing as humane animal testing. I know it won’t change overnight. But we can, at least, begin to start making it the norm to use more humane methods ..rather than the exception.

As a starter, organizations such as ASPCA and CCAC have been trying to get researchers to adopt a new mode of animal testing. It’s based on the three R’s: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. It’s a long read, but here’s one of the sources.

This same website (linked above) states in their summary: “The use of animals in research, teaching and testing is not a right but a privilege. It is incumbent upon every researcher to ensure that privilege is not abused. Even though animals are, in most cases, bred for research, that does not mean that we may use as many as we like in whatever way we like. Each animal is an individual and should be treated as such. We must be careful that they are not subjected to needless pain or suffering. Excessive numbers should not be used just because they are there. They should not be used at all if an equally suitable model system could be used to obtain the same results. Every possible step must be taken to reduce or prevent pain and suffering.”

@JLeslie How to humanely kill a lobster.

@Plucky That still does not sound humane.

@Hypocrisy_Central Ugh, now I am glad I eat very little shelfish. I would say maybe the Jews had it right to avoid shellfish, but the kosher laws for killing animals, which are supposedly supposed to be humane, are not so humane; actually outlawed in some countries. Vegan is sounding more and more attractive.

@JLeslie I know, but it’s supposed to be better than boiling them to death. It hard to know for sure, though, if lobsters feel sensory pain as we do. Many believe they do not. I guess I’d rather freeze the lobster than dunk it in boiling water though – just in case.

@Hypocrisy_Central Dude, I was putting myself in the animal’s shoes when I left my comment. That’s what I meant by “If I were at death’s door, I would rather be knocked off gently, than be injected with shit that would cause more pain and suffering.”

If there were such things as past lives, I used to be a cat. So fuck testing for the benefit of science. If I’m a dying cat, I want to drift away gently on the clouds of heart stopping drugs, instead of being a damned guinea pig.