Vaccines for all

[MargeB]

Should animal rights activists have access to vaccines against disease? No vaccines have been developed without animal testing, yet these people would ban all animal testing and some actively seek to thwart it.  

[Peter Pedant]

for chrissakes, marge of course they should.

whether they would wish to avail themselves of them is another question,

and in fact of more interest is whether they should be able not to have their children vaccinated, since it is in the child's interests

[mfewell]

Yes, when they are in a concentration camp they should be allowed to glimpse vaccines through the barbed wire. There won't be a problem with children because the adults will all have been sterilised. This is New Britain.

Seriously though, doesn't this just drive drug research abroad, like everything else Britain used to do well. I believed we had the most stringent controls over animal experimentation. Another shot in the foot.

[Gef]

I understand your question marge but I think it would be difficult to mangage. Animal testing for things like vaccines, antibiotics etc I agree, Testing for shampoos, skin creams etc I'm not so sure.

[MargeB]

Yeah, it was more of an 'issue raiser' than a functional suggestion. A big breeding farm has been shut down and Oxford Uni is hitting difficulties because of direct action. So........

Put it this way. If you have a child, and he/she develops a serious illness, how would you feel if you know that the child will die because animal rights protesters blocked some scientist's legal endeavours to find a vaccine/cure/treatment? And that protestor, who would go to great lengths to block the discovery of these treatments, goes on to use other treatments which were discovered by animal research.

[silly moo]

Yes, if only to help protect the rest of us from disease.
Society needs (I think ) about 85 - 90% vaccination if it is to work.

[kags]

I wouldn't want to see anyone depr-eived of a vaccine should they need it, because of their political or ethical stance. If whether or not you are a hypocrite is going to become a factor in deciding who gets medical care then we are all up sh*t creek. That said, if I thought that the actions of an animal rights activist had deprived one of my children of a drug that could save their lives I'd go after the lot of them with a machete. Hypocrites of the world unite (but only if the union is of benefit to me).

[kags]

Invented a new word there - should be "deprived"

[Oneeyedvic]

In a Pickle - Thalidomide was never (and erroneously) tested on pregnant rats. If it had have been (as it subsequantly was) it would have been found to be unsafe.

A prime example as to if Animal testing had been carried out properly, a tradgey could have been prevented!

[georgit79]

PP- why should they be allowed vaccines if they want to boycott the means of producing said vaccines?

[kags]

The Thalidomide disaster happened more than 40 years ago, and as Oneyedvic has pointed out, the tests done prior to offering the drug to humans were not done on pregnant animals. This was a terrible mistake, but took place in a world where it was also felt to be ok to smoke 40 a day and drink as much alcohol as you wish when pregnant. Whilst not wishing to minimise the terrible impact the drug had on those it affected, I think it is now an outdated arguement.

[january_bug]

I posted about animal testing and the guinea pig farm just a little lower down the page in news. 

[jimmer]

Marge

 

Just because "no vaccines have been developed without animal testing" it does not follow that without animal testing no vaccines would have been developed. Everybody in the UK should have access to whatever healthcare they need. Animal rights activists are not trying to rid the world of medicine.

 

jim

[Oneeyedvic]

jim

actually, it does follow that 'without animal testing no vaccines would have been developed' because there is law in place prohibiting drugs that have not been tested on animals.

Very simply, who would want to take a drug that has not been tested to the best of the science community's ability.

 

Yes, if it was life or deth, great, you would take anything, but what about the vaccinations etc. And what about testing on pregnant animals like in the case of thalidomide. If you used human guniea pigs who only took the drug as they thought they were going to die, how many of them would be pregnant. Would it be seen?

Animal testing is here to stay full stop. There are a lot of things I disagree with but I certainly would not attack innocent people (delivery drivers, builders on sites etc) or rob someones grave.

These people are terrible

[littleoldme]

The media would have us believe that new drugs go straight from the animal testing stage into the pharmacy or the hospital. In fact, animal testing is just one part of a rigorous testing procedure embarked on once a new compound gets the go-ahead - first animals, then (if there are no ill effects) healthy volunteers of varying ages, races, genders and circumstances, then (if still OK) volunteers* who are suffering from whatever the drug is supposed to cure or treat.

Are the animal rights people suggesting that new drugs should be tested on humans first? What if the drug turns out to have horrendous side effects? The fact is that all the theory in the world can't tell you for certain that a drug will be safe. Animal testing may not be 100% foolproof, but it can save lives or at least unpleasant side effects. Besides which, targetting pharmaceutical companies and breeding farms is pointless - new drugs currently have to be tested on animals by law - the pharmaceutical companies couldn't forego this even if they wanted to.

Make no mistake, I'm totally opposed to the wholly unnecessary animal testing carried out by cosmetic firms and the like - you don't need the death of a rabbit to tell you that eating 50 lipsticks is a bad idea - but that to me is a very different scenario from the development of important and sometimes life-saving drugs.

*"Volunteers" in this sense may sometimes mean the relatives of patients too ill to give consent themselves.

[Grunty]

I just hope we never again hear that we will never be swayed by terrorism.

[january_bug]

Grunty - but you know there's a difference between a private entity shutting down because of being terrorised, and "we" the nation, as represented by HM Government, a public body, bowing to pressure from organised terrorists.  So it's not really the same and I don't personally feel that your statement holds much water.  Sorry. 

[jimmer]

First let me show my hand. I'm quite happy drugs are tested on animals. As a meat eater i feel would be hypocritical of me to hold any other stance. As an animal lover (no sniggering) I do hope that animal suffering is keep to the absolute minimum. The so called 3R approach. (review, reduce, replace)

However there is a counter view that is held by many people that because of the differences between humans and animals,  animal testing is misleading and does not lead to safer drugs. In-fact quite the opposite, that animal testing is used to keep unsafe drugs on the market.

I have a real problem with people lumping all animal rights protesters into a single murderous mob. Extremists of any kind should be defined by the laws they break. I don't see anything wrong or immoral in being an animal rights activist.

 

jim

[MargeB]

Yeah, obviously those who work for pressure groups that seek to question use of animal testing are doing a good job, that pressure has to come from somewhere. We live in a pet loving democracy, it can't be too hard to use democratic means to sway public opinion. A hardcore group of idiots go around breaking the law, it gives everyone a bad name.

I think the three R's are Reduce, Refine, Replace, by the way.

[jimmer]

oops, sorry marge you're quite right. My memory is but a fading, errrr, memory.

 

jim