sphincter wrote:Without animal testing in this system human testing would cease to exist, thus drug testing would stop and we'd stop developing new drugs for society.
If a drug is purposefully made for Humans, then it stands to reason, Humans should be the test subjects. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean vivisecting an "Ashley", or anything, but if the drug is intended for human consumption, animals shouldn't play a part. You said it yourself, there've been cases where animals had no problem with the drug, but Human patients got sick. In a case like that, animals would have no bearing on the results, and shouldn't be used.
sphincter wrote:Testing on animals isn't about killing them, I'm sure some practice is bad and people brake codes and are awful to animals, but you can't paint the whole industry (yeah) with the same brush.
Excuse me if I'm not lenient on an industry that kills animals wholesale. Testing on them
is about killing them. Almost all animal test subjects are killed after testing to examine the organs. Take the LD 50 tests as an example. The test is about finding the lethal dosage that kills
half of it's test subjects. If we were to only test on Human subjects, that
volunteer, unlike animals, it would be a more accurate test, simply because the patient would be able to respond and communicate. These disgusting tests would never be done on Humans (except for the sickening
WWII cases, but that's a different topic).
My point is the means don't justify the end.
Marsupialized wrote:I want a piano made out of jello.
It's the only way I'll be able to achieve the sound I hear in my head.