TOK- Animal Cruelty you

[Black Bird Lockheed]

For TOK presentation I was researching on animal cruelty. Well I have conducted poll on my blog http://www.wisdomtitan.blogspot.in/

And the question was:

ANIMAL TESTING SHOULD BE BANNED COMPLETELY. BUT IT WILL DELAY THE PROGRESS OF RESEARCH

And out of 7 people 6 people disagreed, which I was suprised. So do you guys support ' Animals must suffer for us motto' ?

A medical research can be progressed quickly through animal testing for discovering life saving drugs, but if we follow other ways in which the animals do not need to be tested the research outcome will take a very long time.

So to whom you will give priority : the life of animals or humans?

PS Pls ignore the title error. Thank You!

Edited August 13, 2013 by akash jishnu

[cjy]

Firstly, this isn't REALLY a TOK presentation. Secondly, what a terrible statement. Yes, animal testing should be banned for cosmetics but not for medicinal purposes.

[Black Bird Lockheed]

Firstly, this isn't REALLY a TOK presentation. Secondly, what a terrible statement. Yes, animal testing should be banned for cosmetics but not for medicinal purposes.

No that is not my formal TOK statement, that is a part of research work I am doing for TOK, and by the way don't you think instead of testing new drugs on innocent animals we must test it on humans. Again it is debatable.

Edited August 13, 2013 by akash jishnu

[cjy]

Firstly, this isn't REALLY a TOK presentation. Secondly, what a terrible statement. Yes, animal testing should be banned for cosmetics but not for medicinal purposes.

No that is not my formal TOK statement, that is a part of research work I am doing for TOK, and by the way don't you think instead of testing new drugs on innocent animals we must test it on humans. Again it is debatable.

They do human trials. After animal trials they do have human trials.

[Luka Petrovic]

In the least they test it in Africa advertising "free medication" in the slums. That way id something goes wrong, it will not be recorded and will be blamed on some third world disease like AIDS or yellow fever. So in reality someone or something will be harmed... I guess one way people could get around it emotionally but not ethically or morally in my opinion is using clones or some other organism artificially bred for lab testing.

[Sandwich]

Find me somebody who is willing to have a drug tried on them before it's been through animal testing and then we can change the way drugs are developed. Find me people who are willing to establish the LD50 of a drug, even! Although ideally we wouldn't have to test for LD50, I think they're trying to phase it out somewhat.

Short of testing them on humans directly, there wouldn't be a delay in drug development, there would just be no drug development.

It's also worth noting that drugs have been through a decent amount of testing before they even make it as far as animals nowadays.The process of development is considerably less random than it used to be.

[MainRostand]

It is true. Drugs need to go through an incredible number of tests of different types and nature before they even get to the stage when they are proved on animals. Even so, these medicines sometimes enter clinical trials where their range of effect is measured and attempted to use as beneficial agents.

If these didn't go through animal trials before, do you imagine the number of deaths that it would involve? It would not be ethical either, and people that don't have terminal diseases wouldn't really be encouraged to try them at all.

On another note, I do think that make-up being tried on animals is not a practice that should be encouraged, as the beauty industry cannot be placed at the same level than medicine.