Guest Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I take drugs on the one hand, to stop my heart going into arrythmia and probably dying form heart failure (amongst other drugs, all legal though!). The drugs have probably been tested on animals. On the other hand I'm banging on about how cruel battery/intensive poultry farming is. I s'pose it all boils down to to necessary and unnecessary cruelty but it don't half upset me, I really feel like a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jomaxsmith Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Well, think of it like this. You are more than doing your bit by rehoming battery hens and campaigning to raise awareness. If you didn't take your meds and were ill/worse then you couldn't do that, could you? I think your pro actions negate your anti-ones (if you see what I mean!) Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronze Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 As you say I think its about necessary and unecessary cruelty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 i'm sitting here calling Carol Vorderman a hypocrite and I thought "hang on a minute..." I really have trouble wrestling with my conscience but I don't want to die or be ill! Jo, thanks for that, I feel a bit better now. I'm going off the forum to play some piano, that always makes me feel better. Wharra world we live in, makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 As you say I think its about necessary and unecessary cruelty. I agree. I think that medicines should be thoroughly tested in the lab and then fianlly on animals if it is ESSENTIAL. This should be kept to an absolute minimum and done as humanely as possible. I don't think medicines should be tested on the sick patients (healthy volunteers if they so choose is a different matter) Animal testing should be limited to medicines (not eg. cosmetics). So you shouldn't feel guilty or a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think that medicines should be thoroughly tested in the lab and then fianlly on animals if it is ESSENTIAL. This should be kept to an absolute minimum and done as humanely as possible.. no way to tell though is there, unless I contact the particular drug company that makes my medication, then I probably wouldn't get the whole truth and I might be sorry if I did. i wonder what the veggies (the ones that abstain for ethical reasons) on here that take medication think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Poet there is no question of doubt about your medication it will have been tested on animals they have to by law Homeopathics may not have been but anything produced by a drug company has to be You aren't a hypocrite unless you go and stand outside said drug companies calling them names and still take medications This includes things like over the counter drugs like aspirin as well and things people don't think of as 'drugs' like contraceptives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 no way to tell though is there, unless I contact the particular drug company that makes my medication, then I probably wouldn't get the whole truth and I might be sorry if I did. Whats done is done - not taking the medicines would not help the animals. All we can do is try to ensure current and future testing is as good as it can be. H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ain't Nobody Here Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 You don't really have a choice of where your medication comes from or is tested so, no, you're not. If you did, I'm sure you would take the ethical option. Don't worry and just concentrate on looking after your health . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Just to agree with what everyone else has said... there is no hypocrisy in taking something that is needed for your health, especially when there are no other options... as Aint "Ooops, word censored!"ody Here said, if you had a choice you would make the ethical one... I am a veggie and would never go back to eating meat, and I do not like the thought of animal testing, but as I can't personally come up with another way to make necessary medicines safe for people, I tend to think I would be wrong to condemn it... It's a balance thing, the testing should be done only when necessary (cosmetics are not necessary), and there should be strict rules regarding the way the animals used are treated... I like to hope that there will be a time when humans will develop another way to make things safe, but until they can, I wouldn't feel I have the right to bang on about what is done to animals, neglecting the good it can do to people (and animals too, after all pets get vaccinated and get medicine too). I personally try not to take medicines unless they are strictly necessary... I don't take pain killers for instance, and I try to avoid taking any medicine for things like cold or flu... I found once, before I thought of it all, that when I was ill and taking medication, it allowed me to keep working hard, but basically all it did was hide my symptoms and if I hadn't taken them, I would have rested instead of working and probably got better much faster... I have children, and I use medicines on them when needed too. We avoid other animal products as much as we can too, like leather. Your medication, Poet, is not about a headache or a cold, or chosing a cotton belt over a leather one... it's about keeping you healthy and alive... I had a discussion once with a dear friend, who was trying to decide (it was theoretical thinking) whether it's a good thing to be willing to die for one's principles... at the end of our talk, we came to the common conclusion that one can only do good and bring one's principles into action and make a difference when alive... The battle to animal welfare is a long one, it won't be won tomorrow... it is great that we should all think of what we do and question it and be ready to think it over and bring changes, but there are some areas where there are no available choices yet... when taking the only option available, it is not possible to be a hypocrit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 thanks everyone and thank you ziggy for that eloquent and insightful reply. It still upsets me but at least i can live with myself a little easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 for that eloquent and insightful reply I get a little carried away at times... and what started as a couple of lines ends up as a full length tirade... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xChicken04x Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Of course you aren't a hypocrite! You need that medication. The difference is people dont need battery chicken to live, they have other options, you don't. Please don't feel guilty, you have helped advertise battery hens/farms so much, just keep up the good work and don't worry about your medication I'm sure if those little animals knew what you where doing for battery hens then they would be more than happy to be tested on. Anyway who says it has been tested on animals? They might have been used on volunteers? xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 They HAVE to test medication on animals its the law Even animal medication and vaccines etc have to be tested please don't have any illusions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xChicken04x Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 They HAVE to test medication on animals its the law Even animal medication and vaccines etc have to be tested please don't have any illusions Really? I thought they paid people to try medication? Hold on a minute... xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 To be honest, I don't feel too comfortable at the thought of companies paying people to act as testers... it seems people who could be in need for money willing to be used as test ground for the wellbeing of everyone... I realise things have to be tested somehow, but I would hesitate to say that entising people to test things by attracting them with money is much better than strictly regulated animal testing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xChicken04x Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Found this http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HHpGw1CsMyd1G2Q225cyVyXhTghZy0CTk9K1QN7HMnlnpXyFJDzp! It's only for none prescription drugs though...sorry xx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Like I said before homeopathics etc MAY not have been tested but also some may have but all drugs have to After that they then start on volunteers The one recently that caused all of the problems had gone through all of the animal testing and was fine but when they gave it to humans they had reactions in all patients But they gave the Test article far too fast compared to the animal tests that had been conducted and they should have done the human subjects one at a time which is how it works with the novel drugs in animals in case there is an adverse reaction There are plenty of laws to protect the animal but very few (if any after you have signed a permission form) to protect human volunteers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenanne Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Bear with me: If you were driving along the road and a cat ran out from the left and a child ran out from the right, and you had no time to brake, but could swerve to avoid one, (who/which would definitely survive, but the other you would definitely hit and would be killed.... ) which one would you avoid? I don't imagine many would hit the child rather than the cat. Your medication is lifesaving. In my opinion, your life is more important than that of an animal, or even of 1,000 animals (non-human animals, obviously!). Take the medication and don't even think about feeling guilty about it. I'm not trivialising animal suffering in any way, and I hope no-one is offended or thinks I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubereglu Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Personally I don't think you're being a hypocrite at all. As I've said before, and yes I've been well informed-I'm not just making it up, the UK has one of the stringent testing laws. When I visited the MRC, (medical research council) I learnt all about it. None of the embryos of the mice are wasted and they're only allowed to be used by the proper staff. All of the mice are cleaned out daily and have wonderful conditions, perhaps better than most pet mice. Only official people are allowed into view the animals and the people who look after them don't stress them if it can be helped. As well as that the government officials could spring up and take their licence away at any time, for example if they don't know what a certain mice has been used for, then they can get it taken of them with immediate effect and never be allowed to do their job again. Plus they don't just kill them off after experiments have ended they continue to let them live naturally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couperman Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 No, you are not. Take your medication with a clear conscience and stop worrying. Some 'evils' are necessary for the greater good and are kept to a minimum. Abusing animals for sport is unforgiveable, abusing animals bred specifically to aid medical research and save lives is uncomfortable to think about but acceptable. I am sure the scientists who undertake the above mentioned work do not get any satisfaction from having to test on animals. I would like to bet that they get immense satisfaction from seeing a child recover from an illness that would have been fatal had it not been for their research. Kev. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 As a long time vegetarian I had to wrestle with that problem as well Poet I came to the same conclusions as the replies on here. some of the animal testing is necessary - and as Louise says, compulsory. i have to take Statins for the familial version of high cholesterol which isn't very responsive to diet (first diagnosed wehn I had been vegetarian for many years and weighed a normal weight). I decided many years ago that I would try not to buy anything unneccesary that had been tested on animals, or which contained tested ingredients, so I do still wear lipstick but very little in the way of cosmetics and I started to buy cleaning products which don't contain animal or animal tested ingredients and then moved on to making my own as far as possible. None of us are perfect and we can all only do what suits our lifestyles and pockets. I do what I can and I feel comfortable with that....................... and on the odd days that i really need to use that YSL Touche Eclat.........well, I have to live with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
