TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Are cats used as lab animals??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are cats used as lab animals?? - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Thread Starter 
Well we do it to cats now don't we? And I think they should have similar rights.
post #32 of 52
Thread Starter 
Well if the cat or animal was perfectly capable of taking care of itself, then I guess they would. Problem is my cats are very domestic, so they wouldn't last too long out there. Thats why I changed it from equal to similar rights, bescause there are some obvious differences.
post #33 of 52
Thread Starter 
Well the right to not be bred for medical experiments is the one that is relevant to this thread, but I'd also like for more harsh enforcement of existing anti-abuse laws and stuff.
Let me ask you a question... Do you think that humans have souls? And if so, do you think that animals have souls in the same way?
post #34 of 52
I see no problem testing on death row inmates. What right should they have?? To me, they gave up their rights when they decided to do the crime, like murder for instance. What a great way for them to help out society by giving of themselves for the better care of all people. I think if asked, a lot of the inmates would volunteer. In reality, drugs are tested on people anyway. Most if not all animal tests do not produce results that are good for people. Why do you think so many drugs have bad side effects? The drug passed the animal test, now it is being used on people. This really is a touchy subject for all who love their animals.
post #35 of 52
this isn't on cats..but it does speak to changes in the medical community:

“There are two things I am certain of. We will use simulators. We will not use dogs,†said Dr. Arthur Garson Jr., dean of the UVa medical school. “There has been no decision to use other animals. If the need to use other animals can be justified, they will be used. Just as it’s always been.â€

The move to eliminate dogs marks a sudden turnaround for UVa, which had used canines in its medical curriculum for at least 20 years. The change came in only a month, after publicity about the issue prompted an outcry from the community, drew denouncements from national and local animal welfare groups and spurred a rift between medical students on opposing sides of the issue.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet...tacodalogin=no
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
As far as I can tell, most people here eat meat or have their cats eat meat. Why do you object to have animals used for research but not for food? Doesn't it make you a hypocrite?
Well, cats are supposed to eat meat and nothing else. That is what they are, meat eaters.
post #37 of 52
Thread Starter 
Well because cats and people eating meat is how nature intended us to be. I don't think lab experiments was part of the deal. Besides I don't the think benefits are plentiful enought to justify the amount of animals that die. There are tons of drugs out there that last for a couple years before they're pulled for killing people, or creating horrible birth defects.
And like Amber said, deathrow inmates shouldn't have any rights. When you murder someone, I say it's fair game.
Why would you prefer if a sugeon had practiced on dogs first?? Because humans are so much like dogs?
post #38 of 52
1) Death Row
Putting aside the ethical issue of testing on death row prisoners there is still the problem of physics. (ah the reply of Rumsfled just appeared in my head) There is not enough people on death row for testing. Unless one changes the law such that all crimes, smoking in a non smoking area, jay walking are punished by death there is nearly not enough people on death row to test.

2) Soul
The soul question or even the question of higher and lower life form is bascially a religious issue. The soul issue is not really an argument against testing since one cannot suggest that the experiments somehow destroy the soul. Furthermore it could be argued that the soul have passed on to a better place or so the story goes.

3) Eating Meat
We eat meat or vegetables for those vegetarians so that we can survive. Using the mice or animals also allows people to survive. For example the Harvard OncoMouse (which I mentioned earlier) could help people to survive cancer just as food helps people to survive hunger.

4) Drugs that turn problematic
The argument Cougar made relating to drugs kill or cause deformities is an argument for MORE testing, more animal testing rather than less.
post #39 of 52
Thread Starter 
No it's not an argument for more animal testing, it's an argument for more research done on the humans. And I never said deathrow inmates have no rights, I said they shouldn't. Yeah about that oncomouse, we wouldn't need so much research going on for cancer if we'd quit putting crappy food in our mouths, getting overexposed to the sun, exploding atomic bombs, etc. The cancer rate is now way way higher than it has ever been.
How would I still be living in a cave if it were not for animal research? Quit putting animal testing and technology in general as one, because it's not true. Hows does a blender have anything to do with animal testing? Ok maybe I wouldn't die if I went vegetarian, but I wouldn't die if they quit testing on cats either.
post #40 of 52
I believe in animal tesing. I think there should be regulations but I think that testing on animals is necessary. It would be great if there was another way but at the moment there's not.

I dissected a cat in 10th grade. It was interesting and I really did learn a lot from it. It didn't bother me any more than going to the cadaver lab did. Death is a reality of life.
post #41 of 52
Testing on Animals for medical reasons may be ok, but not for any other reason. The cosmetic industry and many companies who make cleaning chemicals also test on animals, this is dead wrong!!! What makes this type of testing useless is the fact that most household cleaners are deadly poisons. So what good did the animal testing do? What, the stupid lab technicians said hey, this chemical killed this dog/cat or this one burned out this rabbit's eyes, I guess it is ok for human use? Boy, that took a college education didn't it? I use all natural cleaners that are NEVER tested on animals, same with any other products, like soaps and so fourth.
post #42 of 52
Brandon, I very much agree with your arguement on animal testing. I would much rather see humans used instead of animals and instead of death row inmates.............how about animal abusers??? Yeah, maybe in a perfect world. It really is sad though and I will gladly protest or try to get any of this abuse stopped in anyway I can and have already tried. I would never want any animal to suffer for my benefit. I also agree why should humans be thought higher of than animals. I don't like that thought process.

The sad fact is that most likely we will never find a cure for most terminal illnesses anyway. Perhaps researching alternative medicine is a better option for curing some diseases.
post #43 of 52
Just a little reminder to everybody: This is an opinion forum, and obviously people's main concerns, beliefs, eating habits, etc., differ. Please refrain from including derogatory remarks in your posts. They serve no purpose, and will merely result in editing and/or official warnings.
post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
No it's not an argument for more animal testing, it's an argument for more research done on the humans. And I never said deathrow inmates have no rights, I said they shouldn't. Yeah about that oncomouse, we wouldn't need so much research going on for cancer if we'd quit putting crappy food in our mouths, getting overexposed to the sun, exploding atomic bombs, etc. The cancer rate is now way way higher than it has ever been.
How would I still be living in a cave if it were not for animal research? Quit putting animal testing and technology in general as one, because it's not true. Hows does a blender have anything to do with animal testing? Ok maybe I wouldn't die if I went vegetarian, but I wouldn't die if they quit testing on cats either.
On one hand you want more testing on humans on the other hand you complain about the dangers of usage of medical treatment on humans.

One thing about cancer is that while it can be attributed to part of the way one lives, there is something extremely interesting about cancer. Research on the prolonging of life have shown that as the animal age the more susceptible it became to cancer. People started living longer and cancer started appearing more widely.

Of course it is easy to say that one would reject a treatment if one does not need it. But for the people who would die or whose life would degrade without it is a whole different issue, much like Ronald Reagan and Christopher Reeves. This reminds me of the campaign against Nike or was it Addidas several years back when it had a factory in Bangladesh for using workers and paying them a very small amount. The campaign for the "rights" of the workers succeeded and the company closed down thus these workers lost their jobs. A check back on them have shown that a number of the female workers had to work as sex workers to support their family and children could no longer go to school as a result. It is easy to condemn when one is not faced with any difficult decisions to make.

Quote:
The sad fact is that most likely we will never find a cure for most terminal illnesses anyway. Perhaps researching alternative medicine is a better option for curing some diseases.
"Fact?" Are you not perhaps assuming too much? Whether is it alternative medicine or not it is still science and one still requires testing.
post #45 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalee
Brandon, I very much agree with your arguement on animal testing. I would much rather see humans used instead of animals and instead of death row inmates.............how about animal abusers??? Yeah, maybe in a perfect world. It really is sad though and I will gladly protest or try to get any of this abuse stopped in anyway I can and have already tried. I would never want any animal to suffer for my benefit. I also agree why should humans be thought higher of than animals. I don't like that thought process.

The sad fact is that most likely we will never find a cure for most terminal illnesses anyway. Perhaps researching alternative medicine is a better option for curing some diseases.
thank you

That nike or addidas thing is different though. The workers were working for a tiny wage, but to support themselves. Perhaps if they were being bred to make shoes and soccerballs...
And when I was talking about the dangers of medical usage, I was complaining about the waste of animal lives that went into the possibly useless research for the drugs that are being pulled off the market for killing people.
John, definetly right about the household cleaners and stuff.

Thanks everyone,

Brandon
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
And when I was talking about the dangers of medical usage, I was complaining about the waste of animal lives that went into the possibly useless research for the drugs that are being pulled off the market for killing people.
Unless one has the ability to peer into the future one will not know whether would a treatment be successful or not. (Actually if you have this ability, you would be rich) Companies do not often publish their failures but from what I gather 9 out of 10 pharma research do not succeed. The animal lives were sacrificed so as to prevent human lives from being loss as a result. So in a sense, animal testing is only "wasted" (so as to speak) if the product is successful.

Of course, one problem with this argument (drug failures) which I was alluding to with regards to Nike is that this is a "shoot oneself in the foot" argument. On one hand there are some people who die from drug failure yet on the other hand there are millions who survive because of success of medical treatment. It is like saying one should ban the use of cars because people are killed in vehicular accidents.
post #47 of 52
Thread Starter 
Hmmmm I think they would be wasted if the drug was not a success. If anything, try to improve the methods of testing so that it does not require so many animals to come out with a useable drug. I think that it gets down to how much you value the lives of cats compared to humans. I can't really argue much on it, because I don't know awhole lot about the rate of drug failure, animals used, etc.
post #48 of 52
Sure there are studies that will still need live subjects...but in this day of technical advances....I would hope that the medical community is looking at ways to reduce and even eliminate the use of animals for certain research.

Katie
post #49 of 52
There already are a number of safeguards to make sure that research done on animals meets certain standards (at least there are here). In order for a study to be approved by an animal care committee (or something similar, institutions have their own), it must meet the guidelines formed by Canadian Council for Animal Care. Before a study is approved, the researcher must submit an animal utilization protocol, which is a form outlining why the research should take place, how the animals will be used, etc. There is also a section discussing how the researcher has explored and implemented any alternatives to animal testing, as well as how the researcher plans to minimize pain to the animal. Here is a link to an example of an animal utilization protocol (this one is from the university of guelph):
http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/acs/...aup-msword.doc

And a link to the page before it, where you can choose which word processor you want to use to open the file:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/acs/forms/AUP.shtml

Take a look and see what you think....if you have any questions, or are having trouble understanding anything (there is some jargon, sorry), feel free to pm me.

Well, that's it for this message (my first IMO!!!).
Leli
post #50 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leli
There already are a number of safeguards to make sure that research done on animals meets certain standards (at least there are here). In order for a study to be approved by an animal care committee (or something similar, institutions have their own), it must meet the guidelines formed by Canadian Council for Animal Care. Before a study is approved, the researcher must submit an animal utilization protocol, which is a form outlining why the research should take place, how the animals will be used, etc. There is also a section discussing how the researcher has explored and implemented any alternatives to animal testing, as well as how the researcher plans to minimize pain to the animal. Here is a link to an example of an animal utilization protocol (this one is from the university of guelph):
http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/acs/...aup-msword.doc

And a link to the page before it, where you can choose which word processor you want to use to open the file:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/acs/forms/AUP.shtml

Take a look and see what you think....if you have any questions, or are having trouble understanding anything (there is some jargon, sorry), feel free to pm me.

Well, that's it for this message (my first IMO!!!).
Leli
Thanks for the link, I'm reading over it right now
Edit: Do you do work in that field?
post #51 of 52
About 5 years ago, we had to dissect a cat. I wasn't a cat lover back then, but felt sad for the cats. Know why? Obviously they were stray cats. And some heartless people thought it would be a good way to earn money from these homeless cats. What they did was strangle the cat and slit its throat, and they were delivered in piles. It was really sad, even some cats were pregnant. Almost all of us in class weren't big cat lovers, and thinking back, if I were the cat lover I am now, I wouldn't want to touch the cat.

Last I heard they discontinued this course.

Some medical doctors are soo inhumane! They use cats, do some experiments, and stitch them back up. It's so frustrating!! Don't they know there's a law here that prevents exactly that??? People just don't follow the law! Ignorance is no excuse!
post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar
Thanks for the link, I'm reading over it right now
Edit: Do you do work in that field?
I was just in that animal testing thread again and noticed you had asked me a question. Sorry I didn't reply right away, but I totally forgot to check it again after I posted....silly me. Anyway, in answer to your question, I don't work in that field at this time, but I am a student at the University of Guelph (well, I am for a few more months, then I'm off to pursue some form of carrer) where a lot of research takes place. Because this is a university that has a veterinary school, much of our faculty is involved with animal research. I've toured the animal care centre, and they are well looked after. I mean, regular volunteers for play, living conditions designed based on the best situation for the species, etc, not just good nutrition and health care. This research is not all (or even mostly) for human benefit, but is often species specific or can be applied to a number of species. I understand your point of view - the idea of unnecessary pain in animals is certainly upsetting. Unfortunately, testing on death row inmates or other humans is just not feasible for most reseach projects...this is because MOST of the testing on animals is not at a treatment phase...basic reasearch, species specific research, etc is critical before we get anywhere near that. You'll be glad to know, however, that (here at least) there are many safeguards in place to minimized the discomfort that an animal is in. If you'd like more info, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have, or get the answers if I don't know them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Are cats used as lab animals??