SUPPORT AISLEYNE IN HER CHARITY CAMPAIGN

[emptybox]

I should imagine that within the next few years the need for animal testing will tail off as we become more skilled at growing cells in-vitro that more closely model the situation in a living organism.

[remaha]

clash said:

If I knew that all the animals were fully aware of what the tests involved and what the risks were, had made an informed decision and signed up willingly then I would have no problem with it, but obviously that's not possible unless and until science discovers a way for us to communicate with them in a much more sophisticated manner than we can at present. If your answer to that is that animals are not intelligent enough to make that sort of decision anyway and it's therefore ok to test on them, couldn't the same logic be used to say that it's acceptable to test on, for example, a brain-damaged child? Would that acceptable? All of us could, if we wanted to, volunteer to take part in drug trials but few people do. Why? Because most of us do not want to risk the unknown, possibly unpleasant, dangerous or even fatal side-effects we may incur. If we're not prepared to do these things ourselves, what right have we to force others, be they prisoners or mice, to undergo them for us?

Clash, you cite the example of a brain-damaged child. And yet, I can actually imagine circumstances in which the parents of such a child might be prepared to allow doctors to trial a new wonder drug or procedure that might help that child lead a more normal life. There might be risks involved, but some parents might decide that it is a risk worth taking.

Obviously in this case, their primary concern would be the well-being of their child. However, it is quite possible that they might also take into account the benefits in terms of scientific and medical advancement that might accrue to others by agreeing to participate in the trials.

So my point here is just that these issues are not always going to be clear cut.

One of the fundamental problems with your argument is that you are asking us to apply the same values to all living creatures. But how far down the tree of life must we go before you will accept this is no longer necessary? Should an amoeba be afforded the same protection as a chimpanzee? If you accept that there may need to be different rules for different creatures, surely one of the most fundamental divides must be between man and all other creatures? A brain-damaged child is a member of the human race and is rightly afforded protection under the law in our modern society. It was not always this way, of course. In the past, and even now in some parts of the world where day-to-day survival is still the predominant concern, human beings would probably be less inclined to afford the same protection to children who by virtue of their condition would be unable to fend for themselves, unable to contribute to the survival of the species, and who would be a burden on the scarce resources.

It is a luxury of our modern society that we no longer need to make these difficult decisions. And one could argue that it is a luxury of our modern society that we are able to afford animals certain legal rights.

Few people would advocate inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. If there were other equally good and economic methods of testing drugs and other products, I would rather these be used. However, at the moment, if we were to ban all animal testing, I think the consequence would be that we would have test the drugs on human volunteers who would then be putting themselves at more risk. I use the word "volunteers" here guardedly because you have to ask yourself whether these "volunteers" are always capable of assessing the risks that they face by agreeing to participate. Would we not end up relying on people who were incapable of making the right rational decision on their own behalf? If so, what is the difference between these people and a brain-damaged child?

[Harvestgoddess]

Well my mum was a volunteer years ago but not for tablets ect but creams and stuff like that i used to go down with her and they would put patches on but then of course you do as you say have other volunteers such as those poor guys who were trying to make some extra money and had that tgn stuff tested on them i read about it in the news paper it was pretty horrific what they went through and the one guy lost his toes and fingers
I guess all we can do is hope that one day we wont need to test on humans or animals , and as has been mentioned hopefully science will allow us to find other methods without harming anyone

[battybetty]

clash said:

There was a piece in battybetty's post that I wanted to reply to, before trying (no doubt futilely) to get this thread back on track. I believe it was towards the end of Chapter 3.

battybetty said:

Its a fine line to walk between right and wrong and opinions get very heated on such topics. I personally found the suggestion that prisoners should be tested on before animals quite offensive. It goes against all the basic human rights supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as upheld by our own common laws and it goes contrary to my own personal moral codes and those of Amnesty International, who like myself, also disapprove of the Death Penalty for the same reasons. I believe a life sentence should mean just that 'life', unless later proven to be innocent (which as we all know happens all too often).

The only way I would ever be in favour of testing on prisoners, even murderers, rapists and paedophiles, is if it was an option giving to them that they could decline. I find the idea of enforced testing as wrong and abhorent as you do. And that is the main reason I'm opposed to animal testing. (What I'm about to say may sound ridiculous to some of you, but bear with me.) If I knew that all the animals were fully aware of what the tests involved and what the risks were, had made an informed decision and signed up willingly then I would have no problem with it, but obviously that's not possible unless and until science discovers a way for us to communicate with them in a much more sophisticated manner than we can at present. If your answer to that is that animals are not intelligent enough to make that sort of decision anyway and it's therefore ok to test on them, couldn't the same logic be used to say that it's acceptable to test on, for example, a brain-damaged child? Would that acceptable? All of us could, if we wanted to, volunteer to take part in drug trials but few people do. Why? Because most of us do not want to risk the unknown, possibly unpleasant, dangerous or even fatal side-effects we may incur. If we're not prepared to do these things ourselves, what right have we to force others, be they prisoners or mice, to undergo them for us?

As I said before though, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from supporting this charity. So: www.justgiving.com/aisleyne

What fool kicked off this debate by bringing up the subject of animal testing anyway?

Hi clash ;D I would have answered but it seems remaha already beat me too it... and then some! I could only echo his words, since we seem to share exactly the same viewpoint on this particular topic, and even share a few with yourself clash.

A well considered post remaha...and more importantly, since you managed to read my mind it also spared me from any further writer's cramp, so cheers!

did I bump the thread again?

[valcd1000]

I hope that now a national newspaper has mentioned Aisleyne's bid to rise money for the charity it will bring in more money from other sources as well as over the internet.

[emptybox]

Aisleyne's 'Just Giving' page is an internet only thing though, isn't it?

Although presumably the anti-smoking campaign encompasses other types of advertising and donations etc.

[valcd1000]

emptybox said:

Aisleyne's 'Just Giving' page is an internet only thing though, isn't it?

Although presumably the anti-smoking campaign encompasses other types of advertising and donations etc.

If you look you see where the total is, the breakdown of just where the money is coming from. Only the over the internet bit has any money been contributed, from anywhere else it is zero.

[Admin]

She is probally only doing it on the just giving page.

I used that last year and a sponsor sheet that I did not add to my total until I had collected it all in.

Shame the total is still at Donations to date: £325.00 and I was the last person to sponsor.

[remaha]

emptybox said:

Aisleyne's 'Just Giving' page is an internet only thing though, isn't it?

Although presumably the anti-smoking campaign encompasses other types of advertising and donations etc.

What anti-smoking campaign?

I haven't found anything else about this apart from what's in the Star and on the JustGiving website.

[emptybox]

I thought Ash said in her web-chat that she had just done a photo shoot for the NHS anti-smoking campaign?

Surely she couldn't just have meant that one little pic that appears on her page?

I assumed that was just a part of it, and that she was the poster girl for a wider campaign.

Could be wrong. Often am.