More about Animal testing
Mar. 26th, 2006 06:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmmm_teaHave been thinking a lot about my previous post (and been meaning to post these thoughts on it for about a week...).
So, many new medicines can save many lives, which is definitely a good thing.
However, does this justify damaging another life to develop these?
I think there's a general idea that the lives of the humans who will benefit is far great than those of the animals that will suffer. Closer to home, etc. You just need to look at the press lately to see this is the case. However, if you remove personal bias (ie the pure selfish ideas of it being my species so I'll be the one to benefit as will those around me), then I can't see any reason why this should be the case. I can't see any other animals as having less right to live than me.
In that case, are the lives of the meny more important than that of the one. If the one is consenting to take the risk then yes probably, however, if not, I can just see that as a very dangerous way of justifying anything. Where do you draw the line with this? Consent seems the only sensible place, which pretty much rules out animal testing altogether as they can't.
As I say having new medicines has to be a good thing, but does the effect it has on the lives of those it helps justify any possible negetive results of the testing? The more I think about this, the less convinced I become.
So, many new medicines can save many lives, which is definitely a good thing.
However, does this justify damaging another life to develop these?
I think there's a general idea that the lives of the humans who will benefit is far great than those of the animals that will suffer. Closer to home, etc. You just need to look at the press lately to see this is the case. However, if you remove personal bias (ie the pure selfish ideas of it being my species so I'll be the one to benefit as will those around me), then I can't see any reason why this should be the case. I can't see any other animals as having less right to live than me.
In that case, are the lives of the meny more important than that of the one. If the one is consenting to take the risk then yes probably, however, if not, I can just see that as a very dangerous way of justifying anything. Where do you draw the line with this? Consent seems the only sensible place, which pretty much rules out animal testing altogether as they can't.
As I say having new medicines has to be a good thing, but does the effect it has on the lives of those it helps justify any possible negetive results of the testing? The more I think about this, the less convinced I become.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 07:12 pm (UTC)It sounds like you consider the life of a human and a non human to be equivalent. Is this the case?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 07:15 pm (UTC)Yes, definitely, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be equivalent.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 08:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 09:58 pm (UTC)I generally try and avoid it and feel very guilty when I do.