h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Ethical Issues With Vivisection - A740594
Author: werekitty (Keeper of Werebeasties, Lexx and Kai) - U193430

Hi, changed the title as recommended and went through it to try and take out some of the more zealous comments + bias, plus I guide Ml'd it. Whaddya think?

Hi there,

If you want to present from one point of view that's fine - I think the content of this entry is very good.

However I find it quite difficult to believe that the other side has never presented an argument. You've mentioned Huntingdon Life Sciences - well, you might not like what they say, but there is an entire section of their website devoted to ethical issues where they put their point of view.

For instance, you've given two quotes against vivisection - are there any for it, or justifying it for the greater good? Similarly, all your reference materials are anti-vivisection sites - did you not use any pro-vivisection sites?

You talk about testing on humans or skin cultures as the alternative to testing on animals - isn't there anything more to say about this? What are the risks and the dangers to humans? Can everything be tested on skin cultures, or do you need an actual human being for some of the tests? What are the legal issues - can people sue a drug company if they are used in a drug test and something bad happens to them? Would there be enough volunteers for all the testing, or would the prohibition of animal testing radically slow down the development of new drugs?

And what about the ethical issue of the relative value of human life and animal life in the minds of many (most?) people?

Basically, I think that if your entry really is about the 'issues' rather than a campaign to end vivisection, you will have to deal with the other side of the argument, and I don't feel at the moment that you have done so, apart from a list you taken from some website.

Gubernatrix

have you got the hls website?
I googled for the positives for one hour and 27 minutes, then I got sick of looking...

http://www.huntingdon.com/hls/EthicalIssues/EthicalIssues.html - there ya go

I agree with Gubernatrix, the entry needs more balance. Including all the 'arguments against' is fine, but there are also many arguments supporting vivisection which an entry outlining 'Ethical Issues' should deal with.

If you don't feel like adding a different perspective, perhaps 'Arguments Against Vivisection' would be a better title

Werekitty can you just take a minute to listen(well read if we're going to be literal) to what I'm going to say.. I know you'll just think of me as a brainwashed scientist, one of the ones who doesn't know enough about Animal Testing...

But when I in the first year of my A level's I was like you, I used to believe all animal testing was wronge, I used go on protest marches, spend my saturdays getting people to sign petions on the high street.

For three years I avoided all meat and dairy products, wore shoes that weren't made of leather. I passionately believed that animals should be treated equally to humans in all sense.

Then I came to univesity to study medicine, I would rather have done vetinary but you have to kill two animals as part of the course and there was no way I could have done that!

I made friends with people in biology who did tests on animals, the majority of the tests weren't like the ones that you describe on your personal space. They were carried out on animals under anasetic who really did suffer very little. And the people who did them weren't green eyed monsters either, they cared about animal suffering but they genuinely believed that the research they were doing was in the good of humanity.

I've now come to this conculsion..

If an animal is to be killed then surely it is better to kill it for the benifit of humanity than for something to fry and add to your breakfast so you are at greater risk of coronary heart disease.

(oohps accidently pressed post message)

If you believe that animals are morally equal to people then that's fine that's your moral view.

Are you vegan? the milk industray means that calfs are produced year on year and the males killed before they area 7 days old far more calves are slaughtered than are animals die in laboratory's.

At the moment if you truely believe that animals are equal to humans then it makes sense to tackle the meat and dairy industies which cause a lot more suffering to animale first.

Only when we live in a truely vegan society can we IMHO decide whether it is worth stopping research on animals that would benifit humanity.

Until then we are being hypcrocrites, campaining against the evil in the lab then goign to home to suport an industry that causes more suffering to animals.


and now? I support most animal testing as long as it's for the benifit of humanity, (no you can't do everyhing on skin culture, you can't test the drugs effects on the brain on a skin culture) but I don't support killing animals for our own pleasure, (ie. eating meat).

AS for you article! well done its' well if emotively written I do think you need to make it more balanced, your middle section where you list scientfic achievements doesn't really make sense, you do need to do more on the ethics of the debate

good start though

I agree with what's been said before - this needs to be much more objective (no reference to the numbers of people being killed by disease etc), and I have to say that the ethical arguments are a bit simplistic.

"Firstly, ethically: It is wrong to cause pain or to remove freedom (unless the creature you are removing it from will benefit eg. putting a cat in a box to transport it to the vets)"

But most people don't think that it's wrong to remove freedom when it won't benefit the "creature". What about putting criminals in prison? What about me keeping spiders out of my bath and dangerous animals out of playgrounds etc? Also, if it is wrong to cause pain, then it must be because pain is a bad thing. Therefore is it not also wrong to fail to prevent pain? And isn't that what is happening by not carrying out scientific research into diseases? I could go on.

I don't know enough about the empirical facts about vivisection to make a full counter-argument, though I could produce ethical arguments that support the use of animals in experiments. Perhaps one day I will write a guide entry about the arguments of Peter Singer - required reading for anyone interested in animal rights IMO.

Perhaps the best way forward is for this to become a collaborative for-and-against entry thrown open to the whole community and then edited by someone with an open mind on the subject.

What does everyone think?

Otto

I agree, but I left it in collaborative writing for ages and ages and I didn't get one post...
This is way less zealous than the last version, and Z I did not mean to target your friends, if they are gentle and kind with the animals they vivisect then that is good, it is military testing, product testing that I oppose, and the medical research performed by large companies which have a long history of abuse such as name calling beatings and carelessness, especially carelessness where animals die because they are excess through overbreeding, etc.
I do not believe in evil, however I do believe that humans can become desensitised. I don't think it's healthy for a human to vivisect an animal for the human's sake as much as the animals. And I do not wish for animals to be treated as equals, merely that we should care for them as creatures that are weaker than us. I agree that the alternitives are not yet sufficent to perform all tests on animals, however if research into the alternatives was funded, maybe they would be. I'll take it out of peer review again and leave it to rot in collaborative writing. Again.

Sorry, I didn't realise it had already been in Collaborative Writing Workshop. Hopefully some of the people who have already posted here will be able to help. Perhaps it's worth posting something on "Ask the H2G2 Community" as I don't think anyone would mind a wider call for support than just the CWW.

Otto

whas that?

A148907

It's a general all round misc discussion form.


Otto

"it is military testing, product testing that I oppose, and the medical research performed by large companies which have a long history of abuse such as name calling beatings and carelessness, especially carelessness where animals die because they are excess through overbreeding, etc."

Then what you are arguing for is better treatment of animals in research? and animals being used in medical research only.. which doesn't really come across much in this piece.... I do think you need to make that stronger.

"I don't think it is healthy for a human to vivisect an animal for the human's sake as much as the animals"

Not even if it's for a drug that might cure cancer?


Just my thoughts..

Please stop quoting me it makes me nervous.... I demand a hug!
Killing is bad for you. That's what I meant. When I kill something I feel terribly guilty. It's good that I feel guilty because without guilt I'd know I'd lost some of my humanity.
I'd like to see better treatment as a start and use of animals fazed out as they are replaced by researched and funded alternitive methods.

Ooh is that better, I was only trying to help your artilce... I'm not really a agressive sort well in fact ever!

I do agree with you basically, I agree that killing is bad and we should phase animals out of research, but at this moment in time some of us have to loose a little part of our humanity to benifit others..

For instance it is impossible to work in an accident and emergeny department and spend a few hours getting over a patient dying and be unable to work for the rest of the shift, because then more people would die. What most people in that situation do is to go to great efforts outside of work to do things to remind them of their humanity.
(ie religon, volentry work or just having a family)

again>

Thankyou!!
I feel much better now!

sorry had a crap day... some little bandarlog (jungle book reference) chucked coke on me then ran off. I think it may be because loads of people think I'm a goth coz i wear black and listen to heavy rock. I don't wear makeup or anything.

Plus I'm totally mad. Or maybe my new arch-nemesis told him to. This weird boy in my year who thinks it's attractive to burp repeatedly for an hour and spit his chewing gum in my face. I will not get angry though... I will weather it out....

again that is not good.. .rise above the petty small mindedness of the whole affair and just avoid them.. easier said them done though isn't it..

I'm trying to revise for my exam tomorrow but my only computers in the living room and my housemate's watching the Tweenies of all things! which is started to reallly get on my nerves.................

so not the best day for me either!

see you soon

Tweenies??
I can't really talk, I like pokemon



I never realised that arguments can actually reach an agreement.
I've had several bandarlog incidents, I think reality is trying to tell me something.... or it's trying to get me angry....

I don't mind the tweenies it's just that they're squeeking away in the background whilst I'm trying to concentrate on clincial features of lower limb ischeamia! and I can't ask him to turn it off becuase I had to chuck him off the computer so I could do some work in the first place

One of the things I love on hootoo is that arguments regually end in agreement, or at least agreeing to differ. So much better that newsgroups where things generally resort to a flame war!

*nods sagely at the mention of the clincial features of lower limb ischeamia*