107
by kenoki_Archive
as far as i can tell, almost everyone involved in this debate, including skronk, are equally involved in a circular, purely speculative, logic and none of these has adequate insight on the scope or practicality of the matter. instead everyone is working off of the idea that one or the other is more compassionate.
Here are the two most prominent hypotheticals seen in this discussion (sans questions of morality).
Hypothetical A) medical testing on animals is an absolute necessity (even if only supplemental) in our age until other methods are proven to be as, if not more, effective in understanding disease and treatment of those diseases all across the board.
a) in a world where scientists/researchers/medical professionals are wholly consumed with a genuine goodwill for mankind and a thoughtful reverence for all life - wherein animal testing is thought of as a necessary sacrifice rather than a means to an end, thus limiting its use to research worthy of the animal's suffering.
Hypothetical B) medical testing on animals is completely unnecessary in this age due to the advent of computer/medical technology and research, and analogous with sacrificing virgins to the volcano for the safety of the village.
a) should any animal be needed for testing this should be done on humans as a matter of streamlined practicality, efficiency and compatibility, as the sources of disease in other species, and its treatments, are completely dissimilar to our own and there is no measurable benefit in comparing the two.
i don't believe either of the above two hypotheticals can be brought into the same ring - they are assuming we live in two separate worlds - neither of which have been wholly proven in this forum - and thus arguments of morality and compassion ensue because we have little else to rely on.
of course if hypothetical B was true, we would all agree animal testing is ridiculous and anyone who disagreed would be on the quick path to hamster mutilation and serial killing. however, this is not the case. if hypothetical A were true, well, skronk and boombats would still be talking morals and the opposition would likewise respond with ridiculous what-ifs that could imply one is a baby-killer.
arguing the finer points of morality, scruples, ethics... truly - unlike the circulatory, respiratory, nervous and digestive systems - this is a human-specific function.
the boombats-skronk argument relies on the notion that any form of invasive animal testing for the benefit of man is cruel, unacceptable and unjustifiable - and justification is most certainly the key to this debate. as in hypothetical B, at times these claims are bolstered with the idea that animal testing has been completely outdated by computer technology and stem cell research.
skronk goes so far as to suggest science use cash incentive to lure human candidates for testing [not an original idea nor a particularly bad one, however should - hypothetically - people wholly supplant animals in medical testing we would be farming from the lower caste of society (see: plasma donors). thus raises the question/dichotomy of will vs. need, as in does one surrender will in the face of necessity].
parenthetical in mind, is that any more compassionate than 'saving the animals'? does the whole of man inherit the sin, in this case the poor? if your answer is yes, then i suppose this is left to a matter of opinion (and in mine, your's is fucked).
because i tend to fall in line with earwicker and (to my disgust) sphincter's general stance it's slightly more difficult to find a great deal of fault, as i believe both would be the first in line to say that if (and when) there is a better (realistic) method than animal testing in any specific area without posing a greater threat to our own kind, we should exhaust that method. that is the key to their debate. it is not that those for animal testing are just "into it" or could give (forgive the pun) a rat's ass about how or why this is done. regulation does apply, i think foremost. this aspect, however, gets lost to critics who would rather paint an image of animal testing (even in the most ideal situation) as cruel, baseless, and inconsequential to the furthering of our understanding of disease and its cures.
the subject of human testing: someone mentioned that unlike animals humans can react in a language we can understand and respect. for instance, "my side hurts," or "i have been vomiting." that would be helpful, for sure, in the case of side effects, but does not necessarily contribute to the entire process of wellness.
as with bunnies, mice and monkeys, these humans (who would initially be subjected to the most skeletal forms of beta testing outside of a computer model) would also be subjected to highly invasive procedures outside of CAT scans, X-rays, blood tests and MRIs - and you could not just use one person but, i would speculate, hundreds (and this is just for one type of disease, when there are countless) in order to ensure the safety of distribution to the masses. now of course, with our current FDA regulations and medical standards, safety is relative to diagnosis and recipient... but, i'm talking best case scenario.
so, to summarize my flaky post: there is really no end to this debate, which is what makes it so tricky and easy to butt heads. we all have an ideal picture, only a fraction of which is relevant to the world we live in... and there are a million ways to be reek of compassion on both sides, all at the expense of something or someone. so no one wins, until all our diseases are cured and no one/nothing has to die as a result of them.