Do we have the right to play 'god'? (Vivisection)

Member Name: ~*pink-pilgrim*~

Product:	Vivisection
Date:	04/11/07 (356 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: New medicines can be found for life-threatening illnesses

Disadvantages: Some animals are treated badly and some have cosmetics tested on them

I have swung from one end of the spectrum to the other with this review. It is hard to give a balanced review with so many conflicting stories and pictures out there. My overall opinion is that animal testing is a necessary evil until an alternative is found. I don’t want to sound cold hearted and cruel but without these animals the human race would not develop. Illnesses would not be cured and new diseases would not be found. I am for medical testing only, and strongly believe that any other form of testing is wrong and I refuse to by any product tested on animals that have suffered. I hope you enjoy reading this review and that it is as balanced as possible.


VIVISECTION
-------------------
The term 'vivisection' basically describes the dissection or cutting of a living organism. When you attend hospital for surgery that will involve an incision this can be called ‘vivisection’. In this review however I will refer to vivisection in the form of animal testing.

This does not only involve the cutting or slicing of a living animal but can involve the insertion of chemicals and poisons into the eyes, ears and nose of a living animal, the intravenous application of a drug, chemical or poison, the consumption of a drug, chemical or poison or the inhalation of a drug, chemical or poison.

We also need to remember that animal testing is not a new concept. Since the ancient times of the Greeks and Aristotle animals were tested on for research. Pavlov and Skinner tested their theories of behaviour and conditioning on dogs. Even animal testing can help fellow animals. Veterinary companies need to test products too. Whilst it maybe funny to get their own back, these products are not tested on humans but the animals themselves. Animal testing may not seem like part of your everyday life but it is. The next time you take eye drops, ear drops, medication, hay fever tablets, cough medicine or Paracetemol that product was once tested on an animal. If it had not been tested you could be very ill or even dead now. Despite what you think about animal testing you have to admit that without it you would be a little bit stuck. I can’t imagine life without Paracetemol or my asthma inhalers come to think of it.


LAW
--------
British law states that for drug testing the drug must be tested on two animals each of a different species one of which must be a large, non rodent animal. This law is there to protect humans from dodgy drugs, poisonous lipstick, blinding mascara or burning bleach.


HYPOCRISIY
-------------------
I feel that people who wear leather shoes, fur coats and eat meat have little right to complain about vivisection. Which is why I am not going to preach to anyone that vivisection is wrong. I personally do not disagree with vivisection. I accept that it is an important part of developing in medical research. I have recently finished a course of antibiotics and steroids and am thankful to the many animals that died for me to get better. I see it as a sad but necessary part of our culture, especially now when more and more people are filing for compensation when things go wrong.


HUMAN TESTING
--------------------------
I seem to remember last year six men underwent a drugs trial for an anti-inflammatory drug. Unfortunately things went wrong and the men suffered multiple organ failure. I seem to remember following the story on the news. One man was described as the ‘elephant man’. At the time there was a lot of controversy over the issue, people were angry that humans were testing drugs…BUT the drug was being tested for the first time on humans after being deemed safe by scientists in an animal testing lab…yes this drug had been tested on animals with NO side effects. Which brings me on nicely to one of my biology lessons on genetics.


GENETICS
---------------
I think back to my biology lessons where we talked about the genetic make up of a human and that of an animal. It differs so much, from digestive organs to enzymes, cells and blood. I personally would prefer people to start coming up with other ways of testing medicines. Surely what is safe for a rat could kill us; surely what’s safe on a dog could harm us. Why are we playing such a dangerous game when in the 21st century there has to be other methods? I do not feel that research companies are doing enough to investigate other methods of research and are ignoring the facts that there are other methods out there.


THE PRICE OF VANITY
----------------------------
Unfortunately some girls out there disgust me and make me feel physically sick. My mate once said that she didn’t care what happened to the animal as long as her mascara was safe. In this case if people want to be so vain maybe they should take part in clinical trials themselves. If they think their beauty needs are above the life or death of a defenceless animal then maybe they should see how it feels. I did read somewhere that animal testing on cosmetics is now banned in the UK and that they do use alternative methods, which to me is a step in the right direction.


LIVING CONDITIONS
-------------------------------
I have no problems with vivisection for medical research AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE TREATED HUMANELY…I DO NOT and will NEVER agree with some of the pictures I have seen. The living conditions and suffering of the poor animals is purely gutless and makes me sick. I believe that it is important and could save lives.

I have seen some nasty pictures of hamsters in tiny cages with no sawdust or comfortable bedding (surely a basic right?), they are awake during the day but are nocturnal creatures. I cried when I saw it. How could we as humans be so cruel? I agree that vivisection is a necessary part of medical research but why not allow the animals to enjoy what short life they have? If I kept a pet in some of the conditions these medical research labs do I would be prosecuted for animal cruelty. I understand that many of the pictures issued are for effect and do serve as mere ‘Propaganda’ but it does actually happen.

In my eyes the pro-vivisection websites are as bad as the anti-vivisection sites, they both tell lies, I just don’t know who to believe. I do know however that an undercover video showing the mutilation and terrible living conditions of some of the suffering animals is heart wrenching.

There should be better governance and supervision over these conditions. If an animal is suffering and is dying after a ‘bad experiment’ it should be put down and not left to suffer in pain and agony. Why do poor little mice, dogs, cats, monkeys need bleach poured into their eyes when a warning will go on the side of the container warning people not to get it in their eyes anyway. Surely with technology today we do not need to cause all this pain and suffering for a household product? If many companies can produce safe products that have not been tested on animals why cant they all do this? There is no excuse, cost SHOULD NOT be an issue. I am willing to pay a higher price on a product for piece of mind that it has not been tested on animals I always look for the ‘BUAV’ seal of approval.


PROTESTS
----------------
Unfortunately not all anti-vivisection campaigners have behaved responsibly whilst getting their points of view across to the public. Episodes of violence, threats and malice have given decent organisations a bad name. BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) are working towards making conditions safer, preventing and stopping unnecessary testing of chemicals and stopping testing on primates. I can see from their website that they are not unreasonable; they do not mention abolishing medical research but do suggest that more is done to promote other methods. An animal in an animal testing lab dies every 12 seconds, this may seem a lot but animals die every year from cruelty, neglect and illness least these poor animals are contributing quality research to our lives.


SUMMARY
----------------
My point of view is clear and it is that “Until other methods are found and deemed reliable testing on animals for medical research is important, but living conditions should be humane and suffering should be minimal. I love animals and feel sad to see the suffering but know it is important to preserving life. We owe a lot to the animals that have died in the past so that we can have organ transplants, medical care and even lovely long lashes. I just hope it isn’t long before an alternative method is found to save some of the animals born into a "life of suffering”.

Summary: I have no problem with testing for medicine but definitely NOT cosmetics or household products!