Do You Agree That Vivisection For The Development Of New Drugs, Stem Cell Organs, Etc Can Be Regarded As Equivalent To Utilising Animals For Human Needs?

[willbewhatiwill]

It is submitted that vivisection for the development of new drugs, stem cell organs, etc is equivalent to slaughtering animals for food & for other animal products, using them to do certain tasks and/or as pets, etc.

Specifically bred (or kept alive) animals are kept to achieve specific purposes – like for vivisection, livestock in farming, for sport, working animals. Animals bred for specially for the sole purpose of experimentation, food or work are often kept in less cruel conditions than if those animals were living wild, fending a living for themselves. Animals living wild usually suffer death by disease, hunger, predation, etc. That’s life. Sometimes human civilisation needs are also urgent.

The efficacy of drugs should be grounded on sound biochemical, pharmacological & medical principles, logic, objectivity; tested by controlled drug trails, not on haunches & flawed scientific theories, principles & understanding. Scientific knowledge demands concrete proof & evidence, as well as open to exhaustive learned peer reviews in Scientific Journals, conferences, etc.

Drugs often have side-effects & should not be prescribed indiscriminately on a long-term basis for non-life threatening or innocuous conditions. One of main principles of pharmacology is that drugs can be agonists (enhancers) or antagonists (inhibitors).

Animal farming for food is essential. Likewise, animal vivisection is essential in pharmacological R&D for new drug agonists (enhancers) or antagonist (inhibitors) of specific biochemical metabolic pathways & processes.

Drugs (as analogues & agonists) attached (lock & key fashion) to biological substrates (in cell receptors in membranes, DNA, enzymes, precursor macromolecules, etc) can switch on or off certain biochemical pathways hence providing the desired chemotherapeutic interventions.

[Berniecuddles2]

no not you islay the question being asked stop being paranoid xx

[willbewhatiwill]

lbaqwerty,

I always join in the discussion but I was unable to join in yesterday afternoon and evening.

[losgigs]

Short answer - yes. As someone who worked in pharmacological research for several years and worked on drugs to lower blood pressure and muscle relaxants still used in anaesthesia today, what else could I say? Why the extended question? - many people won't bother to read it in full.

[albaqwerty]

^^ it's wot he does.
and often.

[Islay]

Just thought I would check Bernie before I gave you the short edge of my tongue again!!

[willbewhatiwill]

losgigs,
I am bursting with sentences to put online?

[Berniecuddles2]

promises promises xx ;-)

[Lie-in King]

I'll bet the long winter nights fly past, chez willbe.

Did the attainment of your Lex. Legis Diploma require any precision, any use of your (indeed, anyone's) proofreading skills at all?

You'd do well, I think, to stop boasting how everything is written by yourself. If these were my Q's, I'd be shoving the blame elsewhere, sharpish. For instance, towards the initiator of this petition -

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/33093

To your OP (although why I'm bothering, I'm unsure) - yes.

[nailit]

//I always join in the discussion but I was unable to join in yesterday //
You could always pop back to this post but suspect that you wont as you cant defend your position regarding fox hunting.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Question1563940.html

[willbewhatiwill]

Lie-in King,

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/33093 is my petition! Check it out.

[losgigs]

Oh right, thanks alba. Haven't been on here for a while so haven't had the pleasure(?) of reading these posts. This one just caught my eye :)

[MallyJ]

Surely the answer to any question that starts with 'do you agree' is always going to be yes or no...that doesn't open up much discussion. Graduates don't plagiarise?? no more or less than other groups of people, don't you agree?

[albaqwerty]

A Q starting with 'what do you think/what is your opinion...' is going to enable a debate
(would have thought graduates would have known that)

losgigs, you've not missed much lol x

mallyj, Yes, I agree with you

[cassa333]

Didn't bother reading the extended post but to answer the op question.

Yes it can be regarded as untilising animals for human needs.

That was the easy bit.

The next is whether you agree that human needs outweigh the 'rights' of the animal.

[willbewhatiwill]

MallyJ, "Graduates don't plagiarise?? no more or less than other groups of people, don't you agree?"

Certainly not me. Most Universities have plagiarism software to check (or score for degrees of similarity in phrases with published articles.

[Old_Geezer]

Not a direct equivalent as it can be for the needs of other species.

I'd rather vivisection didn't exist, but when researchers who are clearly more knowledgeable of the issue than I am tell us that for some things there is no substitute then one feels it isn't easy to condemn it. One trusts it is kept to the minimum and only performed when necessary. Plus that suffering minimised, avoided wherever possible.

Unconvinced all your arguments are sound though. There are difference between individuals of the same species, more so between different species. Ultimately testing on humans is necessary, as the thalidomide experience indicates.

[Peter Pedant]

oh god I read this biological mush and it does my head in
seems like a standard cut and paste job to me
OK

Drugs ... attached ....to biological substrates (in cell receptors in membranes, ...) can switch on or off certain biochemical pathways

OK - care to name one ? or is this just pious wishes ?
which is used to treat an important disease

[Lie-in King]

"...is my petition! Check it out."

Obviously I have checked it out. It ran for 6 months, received 2 signatures & died - more than 4 years ago. Fair enough, you're admitting that you are C & P'ing & amending as you go, rather than writing these convoluted threads on the fly.

You're still not doing it very well though, are you? Are you hoping to resurrect your ill-fated petition if you can point to AB as a source of lots of like-minded folk? Good luck with that, if so.

Ta-ra, I'm done with your nonsense.

[albaqwerty]

thalidomide was awful.

I do accept that tests need to be carried out on animals and human beings. Sometimes the results are completely horrific and tragic.

It's ok, imho, for a human to volunteer to be a 'testee' but only if they aren't pregnant for example, as it's not just them who may suffer any nasty side-effects.

[Old_Geezer]

Non-pregnant individuals would not have uncovered the problem :-(