fenrir
New Member
You Reap What You Sow
Posts: 14
|
Post by fenrir on Apr 25, 2006 10:13:23 GMT
Do you think its hypocritical to be a doctor and smoke, then go on to tell you patients about cancer?
Do you think its hypocritical be vegetarian then wear fur?
|
|
|
Post by warriorwitch on Apr 25, 2006 10:45:42 GMT
I think all blood sports should be banned and killing animals for fashion equally so but. How about animal testing?
The cosmetics industries kill lots of animals in product testing.
EPISODE 96: “MANIMAL AND THE COSMETICS TESTING LABORATORY”Personal-Care Products — An Easy Call on Animal Testing Perhaps there are a few people out there who buy baby shampoo for themselves just because it has a cute picture on the label, or because they have about as much hair left as a baby. But most people buy it because they think it's safer for their child. Many shampoos and other personal-care products undergo safety testing before they're made available to consumers. This can include exposing animals to the compound to see whether they develop skin irritations or get sick. Animal testing for pharmaceuticals is even more perilous—animals are often intentionally given diseases to see (a) whether a new drug will have an effect on the disease, and (b) whether the drug has any serious side effects. Test animals may develop tumors or other nasty conditions, and are often killed intentionally at some point in the test so scientists can examine the animals' innards for signs of damage.Egad! All that for the rainbow assortment of pills, ointments, and hair goop in our medicine cabinets? Is there another way? Read on...ANIMAL TESTING — FAIRNESS AND ALTERNATIVESOn a purely logical level, ethics would seem to dictate that the species that wants to use a potentially harmful chemical (we humans)—whether the chemical is destined for a cosmetic, a cleaning product, or a pharmaceutical—should supply the test subjects that undergo the safety tests (i.e. human test subjects). It seems unethical that the "user species" would impose the fear, pain, and health consequences of the testing on an unwitting, unwilling species. Indeed, human trials of new drugs are done all the time, but that's AFTER the pharmaceutical has already been tested on myriad laboratory animals.The issue of animal testing is a fundamentally ethical one. Years ago, the public was outraged over exposés about the abuse of test animals, and many consumer-goods companies abandoned animal testing for their products. Did they simply stop testing their goops and glops before putting them on the shelf for sale? Of course not! They instead developed non-animal testing methods that are as good or better at evaluating product safety. For instance, eye irritation for a chemical might be tested on donated human retinas, and cultured human skin can be used to evaluate skin reactions. Unfortunately, there is still plenty of animal testing going on for a variety of products.Many animal rights activists pursue an end to all animal testing. Other organizations argue for the three Rs:1. Replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives whenever possible; 2. Reduce the number of animals used in any animal-testing procedure; 3. Refine procedures so that animals experience less pain, suffering, or discomfort. HOW FAR SHOULD WE GO TO ELIMINATE ANIMAL TESTING?At this point in history, we're in no danger from the shampoos, detergents, and cosmetics we find on a supermarket shelf. If a company thinks it's necessary to develop something new in those areas, we suspect that most people would agree that animal tests are not necessary, and that if the manufacturer thinks there could be any danger from one of the ingredients in their new product, they should use scientifically sound non-animal testing. (Or, here's an outrageous idea—they should choose a known safe ingredient instead of that unknown, possibly unsafe ingredient!) What about other types of chemicals; for instance, new drugs? Are we ready to let inter-species ethics trump our desire for new pills that can fix whatever ails us? Some of us may be, others may not be.Chemical pesticides present another side of the ethics questions regarding animal testing. When setting a safety limit for human exposure to a particular compound, federal regulations require an additional "safety factor" above the level that was shown to be hazardous to lab animals. Pesticide manufacturers have proposed testing their chemicals on human subjects to determine more precise levels of (supposedly) safe human exposure, hoping that the levels will be more generous than those dictated by the animal-based tests. Critics labeled this an outrageous idea, saying that we should never intentionally expose humans to potentially unsafe levels of toxic pesticides. Sounds right on the surface, but is it any more acceptable to do the same tests (or worse) on unsuspecting animals? You can at least argue that the human test subjects would have a choice and would be paid, whereas the animals would all arrive at the laboratory in the traditional "Igor, get me a lab rat" manner. The naysayers point out that the more desperate members of society's economic ladder could be exploited in a human testing regime. Perhaps, but they'd still have more of a choice than lab animals get. Other supporters of animal testing argue that human studies take too long to determine the effects of chemicals—which may take decades to cause problems in humans—and that animal models allow full-lifetime studies in much less time. True, but the real question is: Even if doing pesticide or other chemical testing on lab animals makes more sense than doing it on humans, is it right?MAKING PROGRESS ON ANIMAL TESTINGYou may not be ready to give up animal tests in our continuing search for disease cures, and the issue of animal testing for pesticides and other industrial chemicals may seem too hazy for you to reach a decision on it at this time. If that's the case, we hope you at least would support the previously mentioned "3R's of testing."What about cosmetics, household cleaners, and other similar products? Can we at least agree that animal testing for these is now unnecessary and should be eliminated? Europe is phasing out animal testing for personal-care products, but the US has thus far failed to follow suit.Regardless of government action or inaction in this area, if you agree that banning animal testing for personal-care products and household cleaners is the right thing to do, you don't have to wait until laws are passed to start following your belief. Almost all such products now have versions that have not undergone animal testing. Labels that say something like "no animal testing" or "vegan" are good; but at this point the only "cruelty free" label with independent backing is The Leaping Bunny label, which indicates that the product was made following the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals. You can also get lists of companies that do and don't test their products on animals at Caring Consumer. (Be sure you know which list you're looking at!)You'll get the best variety of no-animal-testing products at natural foods stores, but many mainstream stores now carry some no-animal-testing products. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with my razor and some no-animal-testing shave lotion. My four-day facial growth has me worried that *I* might be rounded up for the animal testing lab.Publish date: 12-OCT-2004Resources:· StopAnimalTests.com · AskCarla.com · Humane Society's animal testing page More articles and resources on....· Agriculture (including animal welfare issues) · All subjects ANIMAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS Neither the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the US Consumer Product Safety Commission requires that cosmetics or household products be tested on animals. There is sufficient existing safety data, as well as in vitro alternatives, to make animal testing obsolete for these products. While it is true that virtually every ingredient—even water—has been tested on animals in the past, we can help prevent future animal testing by buying only from cruelty-free companies. Source: AskCarla.com
You can get Grinning Planet free via email each week
Lethal LawsAnimal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policyby Alix Fano(Non-Fiction) DESCRIPTIONFor the past 150 years, chemicals have been tested on animals for the alleged purpose of protecting the public from their dangerous effects. This work reviews the history of animal tests and analyzes the technical and scientific problems with which they are plagued. The author argues that using animals as human surrogates is not only unethical, but bad science; shows how animal testing has been used as an alibi for the continued use of supposedly "safe" chemicals; shows how regulatory agencies and the industry have used it to protect themselves from litigation; shatters the myth that animal tests are accurate predictors of human health risks; and shows that tests undermine environmental laws and contribute to environmental deterioration. The author provides a challenge to animal testing, her position being that we must use far less chemicals.Read more reviews, see sample pages, or get purchase info for this book at Amazon.com See more Books for a Better PlanetSearch Amazon.com for more...
|
|
Ebony
New Member
I hop, therefore I am
Posts: 14
|
Post by Ebony on Apr 28, 2006 1:18:47 GMT
I definitely agree that doctors are hypocritical on the smoking issue. Actually on many issues.
The vegetarians I know do not wear animal hides. No furs, leather jackets. But yes, it is very hypocritical
Living creatures great and small should not be used, abused, or man handled in a malicious way. If something could be so potentially dangerous to humans that there is a need to perform lab tests on animals, then really that 'something' should not be pursued in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by paleempress on May 14, 2006 21:13:51 GMT
Everyone is hypocritical in one way or another, we need to survive.
I know that I may upset human rights activates but I strongly feel that testing should not be performed on animals but on rapists, peadophiles etc.
Love and Blessings
|
|
jaq
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by jaq on May 18, 2006 12:05:06 GMT
I think the Doctor thing is difficult and I can't really agree. The doctor has a duty to inform the patient of the risks they take in Smoking, especially if it would aggravate a condition and cause further complications, but they do not im sure TELL people not to smoke, it remains a personal choice. So a Doctor in their own time can do as they please as it is their right as it is anyone elses to make that informed choice. The fur thing, well it depends on why you are are a vegetarian, some choose to be for a better diet more so than moral concerns, and it is only really vegans who claim to avoid all animal exploitation, as a vegetarian who eats dairy is still buying into the animal exploitation thing. An argument for leather is well its killed for its meat anyway, but there is no possible explanation for wearing fur. So yes we are all hypocrites unless we are strict vegans, but then only id argue if we preach to others about their choices !
|
|
|
Post by luisa on Apr 11, 2007 22:01:39 GMT
if it is not good enough to test on pople then it should not be tested on poor defensless amimals
|
|