Cosmetics - bad; pharmaceuticals - good! (Vivisection)

Member Name: Alternum

Product:	Vivisection
Date:	02/12/00 (359 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Provides reliable info about drugs without endangering human lives

Disadvantages: Cosmetic testing is pointless as cosmetics won't kill people

OK, I'm going to try and present the facts as I see them in quite a simplistic way, for two reasons: one, I don't know many of the ins-and-outs surrounding this issue - just my gut reactions to what I have read - and two, there is always a grave danger of over-complication, which I shall try to avoid!

There are two sides to the coin here: the cosmetics side and the pharmaceutical side. I believe there's a clear distinction to be made between the two, namely that cosmetics exist to make humans look nice, whilst pharmaceuticals exist to prevent humans from dying.

Now, there is, so far as I can see, clearly no excuse for testing cosmetics on animals, and no excuse for killing animals in the process of developing new cosmetics. It's just morally wrong to kill another living being purely for the sake of our own vanity.

On the other hand, we have testing new drugs on animals. Now, the thing is, that these chemicals have a much greater need to be tested thoroughly than cosmetics do. There isn't much danger that a cosmetic will kill someone, but an improperly-tested drug may well do. Should we test drugs on humans then? Of course not. But they need to be tested on living things to ensure that they do what we want them to do. It is a question of the lesser of two evils, and unfortunately in this case the animal loses every time.

When science can come up with a way of testing drugs without using animals, then by all means, that should be used. The point is that such things need to be certified safe for humans, and this is the only way do it.

Summary: