How do atheists feel about medical testing on beagles and gibbons? Why not rapists and murderers?
To you which is morally disgusting? Is medical testing on beagle dogs and gibbon apes morally right?
- Brigalow BlokeLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
Considering that some 189 so-called murderers on death row in the USA could not have been the perpetrators, according to the Chicago law school innocence project it might not be a very good idea to test on them. Billion dollar lawsuits are not what pharmaceutical companies want.
I have read hundreds of reports of drug experiments, written by the experimenters themselves over the past ten years or more. Virtually all initial testing is done on immortalized human cells, notably HeLa. These are cancer cells taken from a woman who died of cancer in the early 1950s. At a later stage the usual test animals are specially bred mice, often Balb/c mice. At some point when testing on mice has determined likely safe doses, beagles might be used. This is rare in the material I see, I have seen it reported a few times, perhaps six. I have never seen a report where any of the great apes have been used, though a few have used monkeys.
Great apes like gibbons are not usually used in medical testing because of ethical considerations and because they are expensive. They take a long time to mature. Mice are adult after a few weeks. They don't eat much and you don't need big cages.
I also see some reports on cosmetics. Not a single one in the past ten years has reported any form of animal testing. Virtually all cosmetics are now made up from ingredients which have been used for decades and were tested, if they were tested at all, many years ago, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Many are "GRAS" - generally regarded as safe. The "Body Shop" used to say it's stuff was not tested on animals. Neither was that from anyone else. By the time the "Body Shop got going, animal testing of cosmetics had just about ceased anyway.
You are probably too young to remember the thalidomide disaster. This was tested on cats and it had no bad effect on them. So it went to market. But it turns out that cats are one of the few animals that thalidomide has very little effect on.
There is no substitute for animal testing of drugs. Those who claim there is are ignorant or are lying.
- Acid ZebraLv 79 years ago
Well, I can't imagine the convicts would consent to such testing. To do it without their consent would to me be a moral wrong, even though they are convicted criminals.
The animals can't consent but do have the capacity to suffer, and while I have no problems consuming lower-order animals, at the same time I do not think inflicting suffering for only a potential gain is a morally good thing. Since there is no way beforehand to know what research will yield what results and there are alternative methods of research available, I would opt for that route over animal testing.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I don't have any problem with testing on murderers and rapists instead of innocent animals. In fact I think we should just kill the murderers and rapists immediately upon conviction and send them to a slaughterhouse where we can pack them up and sell them as hamburger meat and hotdogs. It is the humane way.
- Anonymous9 years ago
1. I think murderers and rapists should be executed after their trial is over.
2. Unit 731 is why I do not approve of testing on humans.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- WhiteyLv 49 years ago
What does this have to do with Atheists?
Atheist's make up 0.02% of Prisoners in the world.
i think you should be asking your fellow believers.