Monday, 31 October 2011
Animals on drugs.
I don't use medicines. I might take an aspirin if I'm in severe pain but it has to be incapacitating. Years ago we were told that a daily aspirin would prevent heart attacks, then we were told ooooh no, aspirin rots your stomach, now it seems it's a cure for cancer. If the people selling it don't know what it does then how can I trust it?
Drugs are tested on animals. Would you rather they were tested on you? Even those that pass animal testing sometimes have awful effects on humans. Animals don't always react the same way as humans to any given chemical. You can stuff down a one-pound slab of chocolate and you might feel full and a bit queasy. That's enough chocolate to kill a Rottweiler. Some birds can eat berries that are toxic to humans. Animal testing isn't a guarantee of safety but other than using criminals (which I'd approve of simply because it would be far more effective than an ASBO as a deterrent) animals are all that's available.
So it's a fact that drugs are tested on animals. There are very strict rules governing animal experiments. Very strict indeed. The UK has not allowed any cosmetic testing on animals for a long time. Animals are not tormented - anyone doing so would face prosecution. Every drug on sale has been tested on animals. Even nicotine patches, which failed to make those beagles quit too.
A celebrity medic, Dr. Robert Winston, wants to have labels on all drug bottles stating that the drugs are safe because they have been tested on animals. Thalidomide was tested on animals, and that turned out... oh.
“Animal research has contributed hugely to physiological medical research in virtually every field. We need to say very clearly it would be unthinkable to take any drug which has not been tested on an intact animal. In fact, there is a case for having legislation to make it clear that a particular drug has only been possible for human consumption because of animal testing."
Legislation, Dr. W? Why does it need legislation? If it's a good idea, just do it. You don't need to force companies to do it.
He said every university had an animal testing laboratory but their silence made them appear as though they had “something to be ashamed of”.
I suspect their silence has more to do with their strange preference for not being attacked by gibbering maniacs.Of which we have rather more than our share in this country. Folk like the commenter below the story -
What a vile and disgusting thought, Robert Winston if you put this on drugs people will simply not use them . Clearly your a evil man who enjoys inflicting pain on animals that cannot fight back and now you want to brag about it on medicine bottle. I hope i meet you one day so i can replay the compliment.
So, markymarksurrey is quite happy to use pills that don't say they've been tested on animals even though they have been. They all have been. Surely it's the user's right to know this? Then they can decide whether the pills are worth the knowledge of how those pills came to be.
My own avoidance of medication has nothing to do with this. I just don't trust Pharmers.
For everyone else, it seems only fair that they know how their drugs came to market. Animals tried them first. If that knowledge hurts your conscience, don't take the drugs.
You can't decide unless you know, and pretending you don't know just to ease your conscience is dishonest..
Stick those warning labels on medicines. With pictorial representations of the side effects too.
Smokers and drinkers have them, so let's extend this great idea to medicine.
Posted by Leg-iron at 21:13