Animal testing

[Andrew MacLean]

I used to serve on a Medical Ethics committee. We had a number of criteria to consider before either allowing a new procedure or an experimental procedure.

The first had to do with informed consent. Was it possible for patients to give informed consent. In the event of new procedures where the risks had not been quantified, the answer was often no.

In that case we defaulted to the second level of examination. Was the trial being properly conducted. Normally, for allopathic procedures' this meant double blind trials. For surgical procedures this would mean patients knowing that the information that they would need for 'informed consent' was simply not available.

They would need to be told the theoretical basis of the treatment, the known hazards (in the case of C3R this might have included the dangers of UV exposure for already weakened corneas), any likely, but so far, unobserved hazards. In the end people who went into trials did so fully aware that there were unquantified risks.

Yet research was still possible, and the UK has been a centre of innovation in surgery for many years. Much of the pioneering work has been done on animal subjects before progression to human trials.

As you know, there is considerable controversy about the use of animals in medical experimentation. These experiments are governed by a whole different regime and a completely different set of ethical protocols.

Andrew

[Louise Pembroke]

Yes I believe corneal transplants were carried out on animals. Doesn't rest easy with me...

[GarethB]

When I was in sales, a collegue was at a well known UK place that does animal testing and a protester got stuck under the fence and had a sever ashma attack.

The police office nearby got badly injured as he tried to get to the inhaler for the protester to give some relief. Apparently he had seen this person use the inhaler earlier, but his actions were taken the wrong way by the protesters.

Situation was not helped when one of the emplyees at this place shouted 'Hypercrit, we tested that a couple of years ago'.

Very difficult, but in this case something tested on anomals potentially saved this persons life. I know many pharmaceutical companies are looking at natural products rather than the refined chemicals that make medicines. However they are beeing pushed by regulaters to subject these to toxicity trials on animals. There are ethical comanies out there that have to go against their wishes because of legislation.

I have read that some veterinary practices do keratoplasty on cats and dogs after the cornea has been damaged. For cats it is usually after a fight where the rest of the eye is OK.

[Andrew MacLean]

Gareth

You make the point well. I have never had any problem with the thought of careful and controlled experimentation on animals, but I do recognize that others are not as comfortable with the thought as am I.

Amdrew

[Sweet]

Animal testing is a major issue and one that is well represented on both sides. I strongly disagree on testing when it is for beauty and vanity purposes. I don't agree with experimenting on animals anymore just to find a new lipstick etc! That is just insane and dam well cruel.

However animals are used to test new drugs and indeed for surgical purposes everyday. While some could say that this is exactly the same and that it is unnecessary it has helped mankind greatly in providing us with many medicines that would never have been passed as safe to give to humans. Human trials are used but the many safety issues and standards needed to trial one means that very few pass in order for them to accept volunteers. This could mean that a new drug may never get trialled or accepted and never given the go ahead.

It is also noted that those who disagree strongly with animal testing are not open to testing drugs themselves. So where exactly do they think the new drugs come from, how do they think it is justified as being safe to give to humans and more to the point who would be the first to complain and want to profit from a mistake if the medications they then took did more harm than good?

Also there is the major issue of animals being used to donate organs such as pigs for heart values etc, and indeed each country is different. Some animals that we strongly see as pets here are eaten elsewhere and serve more as a delicacy!

I guess that it would indeed come down to personal choice and what you believe in. If you are against animal testing then you could turn down a graft as animals have been used in testing and practising techniques. But i guess you would have to wonder what would happen if you desperately needed a new drug for an illness but it has been tested on animals? Do you think that in a life and death situation your values may change?

We will never know unless we have been there, but thanks for the interesting topic!

Sweet X x X

[Andrew MacLean]

Sweet

Thanks for that thoughtful posting.

Actually, I'm not sure this counts as a topic. Sub topic maybe. I think I strayed rather from Katherine Hobkirk original 'lenses' topic with which this string began.

sorry Katherine!

Andrew

[John Smith]

Some excellent, well-thought out posts here. Shame they're off-topic

If I coudl see better I'd split the topics iup

My views here are remarkably similar to Sweet's: why experiment unnecessarily? The concept of what's necessary though is a highly personal one.

For me, I'd much rather see a mouse, rat, rabbit, pig or whatever suffer than (say) my own father, if it meant developing a drug to save his life.

As for testing lipstick, that's more clear-cut to me. Don't wear it. I certainly don't!

[Louise Pembroke]

I'm just trying to imagine John with lipstick!
Seriously, I'm with you on the make-up front Sweet, it's unacceptable to test that on animals and I would offer myself to test those products as I wear them. Likewise it was never acceptable to me when we had the smoking beagle dogs. I guess we all draw the line at different points, and as an asthmatic I wouldn't here without my inhaler, and I didn't have any choice about needing grafts.
I very much like the thought of cats & dogs having grafts to help them, that's a lovely thought.
What constitutes 'neccessary' research? Hard question to answer, but I do believe much is uneccessary and I cringe at some of the secret filming I've seen where animals have been slapped around by lab staff and not treated with any respect. No excuse for that. I'm not an animal rights activist but it is something we should think about, whatever our views are.

[Andrew MacLean]

This is interesting, a consensus seems to be developing around the propriety of medical research on animals as opposed to cosmetic research.

I do not disagree.

But, just for the sake of the question, how do we feel about pre-human testing of baby products, (nappy rash cream, shampoo, etc)?

You see, part of me thinks that this amounts to cosmetic testing, but the other part of me would not want a substance that contained untested ingredients to be applied to my baby's skin, hair (and in the case of shampoo) eyes.

Indeed, it may very well be possible that some ingredients in shampoo that got into a baby's eye might promote the subsequent development of our old friend KC.

The questions that ethicists have to address are seldom easy. Indeed if it were a simple matter of chosing between good and bad, there would be no ethical content to the choice, everybody would choose the good.

So we have a situation in which there are only degrees of bad choice on the table. The ethicist has to find some way to balance one bad thing against another, and the select the less bad option.

There's the rub!

Andrew

[Sweet]

Hhmm ok i went away and thought on it and this is what i came up with for what it's worth!

Yes shampoos and nappy rash cream etc are cosmetic really, but in fairness babies and children do not know any better so won't be able to avoid getting it in their eyes which adults should be able to do!

I do believe though that there has been enough testing over the years for manufacturers to basically know which chemicals etc they need to use and so am hoping that testing is not as high as it used to be.

As for make up this is entirely different because it is not essentially needed maybe as much as nappy cream etc, although i'm sure that some girls can disagree with this! We do have enough products though that have been brought out without animal testing so this should be enough!

Another main point though is those with allergies. For those people who need to have bath products and soap etc but need more through testing to make sure that it is allergy free.

I guess this then all becomes complicated! But all i can say to the point of advertising is that i'm a huge Lush fan, and all of their products are never tested on animals, so that is more than enough for me!

On medications i stick by sadly with animal testing as the more we are learning about drugs and how they interact with humans the more conditions and illnesses we are finding! Hopefully one day there will be a cure for cancer and other terminal illnesses, but i'm more than sure that when one gets eliminated something else will surface. It's kinda like the major MRSA and bird flu we are now seeing.

Will wait to see what others think!

Sweet X x X