animal research

Nurses General Nursing

Published

  1. How do you feel about animal research?

    • 19
      I agree with it.
    • 32
      I disagree with it.
    • 13
      I am undecided (please provide comments)

64 members have participated

Posted for Debbie

I'm in an ethics class and I have to do a research paper on the pro's and con's of animal research. (12 people have to work on this - rediculous!!! :scrying: )

Anyways...

I'm going to try to create a poll, but if it doesn't work can you tell me if you are for or against animal research. And if you have a stipulation (such as for medical research but not for make-up) please note that also.

Thanks a bunch in advance for any assistance!!!!! :kiss

Debbie

Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.

whats the difference between animal research and me barbecuing animals, except maybe taste

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Ante-Intra-Postpartum, Post Gyne.

I think it depends on what they are testing. If they are testing animals to find the cure for cancer that is one thing, but for cosmetics and other frivolous things...no way.

oolala.jpg

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Women's health & post-partum.

Someone mentioned the RH factor--and what about insulin? Although I'm happy that regulations prevent research being done the way it was in the 1920s.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

There is no realistic substitute for animal research. What happens at a cellular level is best observed and confirmed when those cells remain in their original context--the living body--as opposed to a Petri dish. Computer models only approximate and extrapolate what then must be verified on live subjects.

I do believe that the animals in question should be spared unnecessary suffering. But I react strongly when I see the emotional manipulation used by groups like PETA and ALF to scare and shame and bamboozle people into seeing things their way. I react even more strongly when these special interest groups equate animals and people or even elevate the animals (by virtue of their "innocence") to justify harming humans in the name of making their point.

Years ago, one group (I think it was PETA) had a saying that went something like, "A cockroach is a dog is a monkey is a boy." I heartily disagree.

That said, I do believe we should treat as sacred the lives we are affecting and sometimes sacrificing. We honor the lives we are using, not by abandoning animal research, but by caring for these creatures properly and doing our best to ensure that the only suffering they endure is that which cannot be removed without compromising the study.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC,Hospice/palliative care,acute care.
For the record, KTlpn, I have not seen the videos to which you refer, and I'm sure you're telling the truth that the pictures are out there, but let me suggest the possibility that at least some of them(maybe most ... likely all...) are faked. Now, is that possible? Well, as a matter of proven fact, video "evidence" of animal torture has been faked by PETA and ALF (Animal Liberation Front). I know, in particular, of some notorious pictures of monkey research that were bogus, totally bogus. And the incriminated labs proved their innocence, but you never heard that part of the story. It's not sensational. This begs the second question. Why would the animal rights groups put out fake pictures? Simple. They raised huge, huge amounts of money by ginning up the public's sense of outrage. Those faked pictures were (pardon the pun) their cash cow for a long time.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So you're a conspiracy theorist? Is every pic,video or expose a FAKE? Really? Why can't you admit there they just may be a problem? Why are you taking such a hard line? The government actually has a website and they are in the process of putting the results of their inspections on-line.You'll be able to see for yourself...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Vis. anesthetizing an animal. Pennies. Truly pennies. It's easy, quick and cheap. But... replacing trained lab personnel... you're talking thousands of dollars and time wasted while research can't continue. Why would it mean replacing personnel? Because doing those things to animals sucks. No one I know would want to do it. It's nasty. It's disgusting. It's dangerous. Really KTlpn... how did you come to think that people in science represent some special class of sadists or ghouls? They're just normal folks and almost all of them (that I know) have pets that they love. And, let me say one more time. Data from distressed animals is worthless. You can't replicate your findings. Nothing reaches statistical significance. It is a complete waste of time and money. It is NOT done!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't really know what you are talking about here-I have read about experiments in which animals were denied euthanasia and had to suffer and die naturally so as not to "skew" the results--You can go to the government web site (United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection service) yourself and see the statistics regarding the number of animals involved in experiments that were denied pain control....-state by state>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For the record, I don't have an opinion on cosmetic animal testing. The stakes in that fight are next to nothing compared to the threat to medical research.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So the "stakes "are inconsequential? Just doesn't matter....none of them do,right? Well- I believe it is immoral.....
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Yes, some animals are alive for the time course of the experiment. Sometimes they even suffer pain. If this is done, it's because the research question is a longitudinal one. It involves a pathological, or therapeutic process that has to measured over time. Like, for instance, the growth of a tumor.

There is, thank God, a lot of research going on in the area of pain. I'll be honest with you. Do the animals suffer? Yes. I'm sure they do. It's very hard to get these protocols passed. There has to be a compelling reason for the experimental design. The researcher is monitored. No more animals are committed to the protocols than absolutely necessary.

Is it proper or moral to do this to animals? I think the answer to that question can be found in the faces of patients in intractable pain.

Interested parties might want to go to the American Pain Association website and get up to date on progress that has been made and research that is on-going.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Have you ever seen video's on utube, and I know you can't believe everything you see. But they had to make the video's somewhere, it is absolutely horrifying, I don't know how these experiment teams sleep at night. These poor animals really, we are literally torchering them. Why don't we experience on all the sex offenders sitting in our jails soaking up our taxpayers money!!! Oh yeah that's right they have more rights then the poor animal we want to suffer!!! Karma is a *****!!! You won't catch me ever doing research!!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I don't know enough about *medical* research on animals to say precisely what I think we should do about it. I think that it has certainly been necessary in the past and probably still is.

Medical research is an issue of survival. It's for our own species. We need to take care of each other - those around us who've either helped raise us or will carry on after we're gone. It's easy to feel sad for all the cute little animals, but wouldn't it be more sad to be a cancer patient who's been allowed to die because his fellow man was too afraid to do something unpleasant? Animals are not capable of contemplating betrayal, but people can.

With that said, advancing humane technique and ultimately finding a way to abolish the need for animal research is definitely worthwhile. The sooner the better. Animals don't worry about philosophical issues, but they do have feelings like pain and comfort and contentment and fear.

On a side note, to some nurses who would suggest disease is intended to cull the population: What are you doing in the nursing field? You're already using the fruits of animal research to help heal those who, by your logic, were not meant to survive. Besides, human survival throughout the ages has been based on intellect, not brute strength.

Basically, I'd love to be able to rage against medical animal testing, but I can't.

Cosmetic testing, on the other hand, is barbaric and stupid. If the testing is not based on people's (and other animals') survival, then it is a waste of life. I would question anyone who really cares that much about shampoo.

EDIT: Dang, I thought this thread was recent! Sorry about all that...didn't see that the last post was a week ago and the rest were from October :p

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment