Rigor mortis? I think you should read what I said. I am taling about bodies that have been in hospital and there has been a decision to turn off their life support. But they will be kept functioning. How many more times do we need to re-explain what we have said half a dozen times already?

Perhaps it is a daft idea. Perhaps not. But bodies are used in medical science. These would just be used in a different and more useful way.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
Thank you for retracting your statement.

Obviously I'd be unhappy if any of my family died for any reason. I'd be unhappy if my family died in a car crash, but I wouldn't campaign to ban cars - I'd simply campaign to improve car and road safety.

ADRs are a risk, but crossing the road is a far bigger risk.

Furthermore, the biggest killers in the world are diseases - ie heart, cancer and respiratory. Hence improvements and discoveries in medicine will hopefully reduce deaths by these diseases.

Hello

what statement did i retract?

So if a friend of yours took a drug and had an adverse drug reaction to it would you be campaigning to get that drug stopped or campaigning to get the safety of that drug improved?

Perhaps a law could be passed making it mandatory to donate your body to science after death. This may reduce the use of some animals. But we would still need live bodies for some tests. I wonder if a national lottery would work.....???

RobDeManc, the animals that are tested on now lead to drugs being passed as safe that are not safe. All the alternative methods, combined in different ways, could lead to safer drug development than the flawed present method of using animals.

Not really.

All drugs are passed through human trials before making it onto the market. So, all drugs are "safe" before you get them, and any ADRs are independent of the original animal experiments.

Stopping animal experiments entirely, and focusing purely on human trials won't have any effect on ADRs of market drugs.

Using all the alternatives - not using any non-human animals - and ending with human testing, is more likely to lead to drugs that have fewer ADRs. The alternatives, such as computer modelling, and all the other stages will give more time for ADRs to show themselves. As using animals does not predict ADRs there is no point in using them.

quote:

As using animals does not predict ADRs there is no point in using them.

Neither do computer models, or cell based alternatives, or isolated human tissues, or human trials.

OK, so the logic follows that none of them are worth much, and we should look for better more reliable methods. Other than the obvious long term effects on the people that require the drugs. Afterall we do generally presume some level of side effect with most drugs, we just hope they wont shorten the time we are fighting for. Again Im sure these studies not helped by the fact that many of these people may be seriously ill.

BUT that isnt an arguement to use animals, thats a 'well may as well' arguement. lol

The AR group seem to think that it's a choice between animal and non-animal tests. That is simply not the case.
Drugs are already tested using cell and tissue culture, stem cells, in vitro tests, computer modelling etc. Animals are used AS WELL not instead of these.
No one existing method is 100% reliable, so information is gathered from a variety of tests to get the most accurate overall picure. If you simply remove animal tests, you reduce the accuracy of the overall picture and the risk to the first people to get the drug increases.

As to ADR's - no amount of testing can completely eradicate this. The effects of drugs are influenced by many factors - lifestyle, what other drugs a person takes (often without informing their doctor), allergies etc. ADRs will exist even if and when animal testing doesn't.

No that isnt the case, nor is it that case that mosr AR people think. To summarise correctly, most AR people dont find your justifacations good enough regardless, the sacrifice of millions of animals will never be worthy, even if you could prove everything that came from Vivesection was 100% reliable.

Its also not the case due to our society and the methods we have evolved, we could of evolved differently, and our science would be enitrely different. Just because this is the method we currently use does not lead us to the conclusion that without this part all would be lost, or even reduced. It does in the case when you rely on animals yes, not so if you dont.

No one method is 100%, no indeed, your spot on, what youve failed to go into is that they may never be the target you presume we are aiming for is unachievable, in the same way as ADRs will always be. Introducing nearly any drug/chemical to the body will produce some effects we know/presume/aim for as well as many we dont know/cant know/never know.

To speak in yes/no, 100% terms is hardly medical in its own right, most of science is guess work that then goes onto prove its hypothesis. Thats science, its fundamentally based on presumptions to start with, its how we could end up so far on the wrong path. To back up your arguements with 'its all we have' is not good enough. May be true, still not an arguement that will have any impact. Until you change the way you practice, the science is always in your hands to jusify your medicines, it will NEVER prove we couldnt of done better than you, without animals and the pretense of welfare.

Sorry but for debates that cant except rights, I for one find welfare even harder to get along with. Not that I dont believe that animals shouldnt suffer, but I cant think of a more human based word. Welfare to me is dressing up what we do with the idea that at least they lived well. Im sorry but I wouldnt feel much better towards an SS man just because he had odd moments of decency. As far as I remember, even the main B******D in schindlers list/ark had his good moments. He would probably think that was welfare too, you could even argue such things as beak snipping, docking of tails, even removing of teeth and tongues could be argued in a welfare sense. Certainly be better for the welafre of most animals in confined space if they didnt have to put up with the whining of other animals (not that they dont deserve to whine). Again this is not something Im arguing for, but something which makes logic sense. If we wish to improve the lifes of most animals, we would in fact end most of them now. That would be the best welfare step, but we do otherwise as we see them beneficial to humankind, so we then add welfare issues to address this. The fact they only exist for our benefit destroys the lies that is welfare. Yes its great that people have compassion, and again, I dont wish animals suffering extended in anyway, I just dont see most animal welfarists/animal lovers actually helping any of these isses. In the same way as I struggle to see love of animals at all, while at the same time eating other species. Again call me judgemental or predjudiced, I dont care, at least Im honest.....

I wont be par of a system that sucks to improve from within, same arguement been used many times before for many other jobs, it will never excuse your role, or this job/research. Im sorry, but a welfare role in many other jobs would serve to prove your case more. Animals live with suffering in many way, and for sure to place yourself in a posistion where animals are merely used as a resource, then I can only see the benefits to the people. I would even argue that welfare standards to some degree have probably improved as it may help their science. Again these are not helpful justifacations. If people truly care about animals, wish their suffering to be reduced, and believe in welfare, then dont use animals as products for our disposal, everything else IMO is lieing to yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by RobDeManc:
Perhaps a law could be passed making it mandatory to donate your body to science after death.

If only they would set up a proper system for voluntary donations.

Animal Aid set up the Humane Research Donor Card in 1991 (free pack available)
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/humane/wasted.htm

[QUOTE]But we would still need live bodies for some tests.[QUOTE]

Re animal testing the following explains why the 'intact systems' argument fails

"Causal/functional asymmetry - Let’s assume system S1 has causal mechanisms {a,b,c,d,e}

and system S2 has causal mechanisms (a,b,c,x,y}.

If we stimulate the sub-system {a,b,c} of S1 with stimuli sf and get result rf, then we would expect to get rf from {a,b,c} of S2 as well - if the model is viable.

However, this outcome will be highly probable if and only if {a,b,c} are causally independent of {d,e} and {x,y}.

In biological systems, as those who argue in favor of intact systems emphasize, almost all systems interact. We have no a priori reason to think otherwise."
(Specious Science, R Greek MD, 2002)

Yes I think thats right. There is no such thing as a closed system. Only in IT.