Is this necessary?

Mmmmm, not liking that at all
frown.gif
 
Hmm big can of worms, I'm all for research etc otherwise some of us on this forum as well as our horses and pets wouldnt be here to this day but....not convinced about this, just made me feel very sorry for those dogs and sick to the stomach, really dont know what to think...was this research really necessary?
confused.gif
frown.gif
 
Zhen said Wing Wen’s eyes resumed full function six months after surgery.

I think I find that quote the most wrong - 6 months later -so how was the poor dogs eye sight functioning before that. ITs really quite wrong.

How many people are going to want to have a face transplant and walk around with someone elses face?

Its all to much like the film Face off.
 
i am not convinced about this story at all. the sun are not known for the accuracy of their reports and if it is true funny how the marking on both sides of the stitches match.
and it is old news, maybe this did have to be done for research then the story is two years old at least and they have transplanted a human face since.
 
The story is somewhat sensationalist (surprise, surprise!) But the outcome of the research could be life-changing for people who suffer horrendous facial injuries.

Let's say you were in a car accident where the car caught fire and your face was badly burned. Skin grafts (of your own skin) are possible but it would take quite a large number of operations and a LOT of pain to rebuild your face. This procedure (using donated skin from someone of similar complexion who had died) would potentially give a far better result, far more quickly and with considerably less pain.

It could also be used to help animals who have suffered serious injury where the amount of skin destroyed is too great for normal healing processes. I have seen injuries in horses that took more than a year to heal as well as they COULD heal - and the result wasn't great. If skin and coat hair harvested from a horse that was going for slaughter anyway could be used to give faster healing and a far better cosmetic result, a lot of horses could be returned to complete health and beauty.

Experiments involving animals don't JUST help humans! And there would have been very little real progress made in medicine and in surgical procedures without them.
 
i rest my case JM which doesnt mean i agree with it tho. must have been a slow day in super soaraway current bun land........
 
[ QUOTE ]
"Since a dog’s face is close to a human’s, it’s a good reference for future human face transplants."

[/ QUOTE ]

confused.gif
How are they 'close'?
crazy.gif
 
Yes, this type of research is neccessary if we want to carry on making progress in medicine and science. Unfortunatley animals are, and in some cases need, to be use for the research. The picture shown does tug at heart strings, and rightly so, even lab workers feel compasion for their 'subjects'.
We must remember that there are strict moral and ethical codes in place, to ensure any work undertaken is valid, and will allow 'progress' before it is funded. ANd these guidelines are very strict for the conditions in which the animals live and are handled.
I know this is and emotive subject but I feel very few of us would be able to function in the modern world if we thought too hard about the scientific experiments and work many of the everyday, cosmetic, medical, vet, food etc. products and services came about as a result of.
blush.gif
 
IF it is factual I think it is madness. Surgery is already so advanced that skin grafts and face restructures are already being carried out and without being funny who would want to walk about with someone else's face
confused.gif
 
A man in india, badly burned and ostracised by community and called 'monster' by everyone.
People mauled by dogs, people who have severve flesh loss due to infection, accidents etc.
facial reconstruction and skin grafts only possibly if something to reconstruct or graft onto!
 
I am totally against using animals for this type of research, or in fact any that causes them pain of any type.
I would quite happily see mass murderers or rapists used but not innocent animals.
There are also people daft enough to offer themselves to experiment for money, so use them instead.
Wicked bastards, can you imagine the pain that poor little dog went through?
Gah, words fail me.
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am totally against using animals for this type of research, or in fact any that causes them pain of any type.
I would quite happily see mass murderers or rapists used but not innocent animals.
There are also people daft enough to offer themselves to experiment for money, so use them instead.
Wicked bastards, can you imagine the pain that poor little dog went through?
Gah, words fail me.
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

You said it for me.
 
Very few of us can admit to not ever using any form of medicine that has used animals in its research, although distasteful many of the techniques and drugs used today have used animals. In the war, pigs were used to simulate blast injuries, yes, they were bombed, but without this surgeons would have been unable to effectively operate and treat not only soldiers but civilians. Every vaccine has to go through testing before human trials are allowed. Heart transplants, IVF, chemotherapy, insulin dependant diabetes the list can go on and on, everything we take for granted has been through these trials. Using prisoners is fine except you would never have enough to conduct a thorough trial, drug trials would also have to do generational effects, rats can produce the next generation within months, you can study 4 generations within 1 yr something you couldn't do with humans. I think it is easy to take the high ground but i for one if would use any treatment regardless of the research used if it meant my sick child could be treated
 
I think nowadays the use of animals in these 'experiments' is of little or no use to humans in all honesty. They are not close enough to humans in their genetic makeup to make it worthy at all as far as I'm concerned. It's disgusting to be honest.

Whether the story's old or not it doesn't make it right does it?

As far as saving human lives by firstly experienting on animals I don't see that as justified either. Diseases and illnesses are always going to be around. If you 'cure' one there will always be another. I am not a strong believer in IVF either. It has a place but too many people turn to it and noone ever seems to question whether maybe that person isn't able to have a baby for a reason?

If i found out I couldn't then that'd be that, in my mind there's a reason for it and also there are plenty of abandoned children needing homes.

Anyway, I digress... needless to say I can't really say i feel proud to be human a lot of the time whan i see/hear the disgusting things that go on/we do to others especially animals because we feel we have 'the right'!
 
It is an interesting debate, which is why I posted the link. Current or not, I think that the article should make us think about the line between progressing science and research (with a benefit for all creatures) and causing something suffering for fairly limited benefit. I think this article is interesting because it is really about aesthetics. We don't question that animals are used for drug research or in life-saving surgery (although I personally find all animal experimentation distasteful and morally questionable), but do we feel the same when it comes to animal research for the plastic surgery industry, or make up. I remember being horrified to hear that hundreds of beagles were used to test an artificial sweetener, although the market is already flooded with other brands. Was this necessary?
I guess that until a safe and humane alternative is found to animal testing, we will continue to see articles like this. I personally find this very sad and a reflection on what we think is important in our lives. We can put a man on the moon. We can transmit information thousands of miles at the click of a mouse. But we have still not graduated to finding a way of improving our lives that doesn't involve carving up an animal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is an interesting debate, which is why I posted the link. Current or not, I think that the article should make us think about the line between progressing science and research (with a benefit for all creatures) and causing something suffering for fairly limited benefit. I think this article is interesting because it is really about aesthetics. We don't question that animals are used for drug research or in life-saving surgery (although I personally find all animal experimentation distasteful and morally questionable), but do we feel the same when it comes to animal research for the plastic surgery industry, or make up. I remember being horrified to hear that hundreds of beagles were used to test an artificial sweetener, although the market is already flooded with other brands. Was this necessary?
I guess that until a safe and humane alternative is found to animal testing, we will continue to see articles like this. I personally find this very sad and a reflection on what we think is important in our lives. We can put a man on the moon. We can transmit information thousands of miles at the click of a mouse. But we have still not graduated to finding a way of improving our lives that doesn't involve carving up an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEAR HEAR!!!
mad.gif
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think this article is interesting because it is really about aesthetics. We don't question that animals are used for drug research or in life-saving surgery (although I personally find all animal experimentation distasteful and morally questionable), but do we feel the same when it comes to animal research for the plastic surgery industry,

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was written in a 'sensationalist' manner - the surgeon WAS quoted speaking about the potential for plastic surgery but that may have been one selective quote from a much longer interview. There may also have been translation problems which gave the wrong emphasis.

This surgery IS already being done in Europe but with very strict ethical guidelines - it can't be used purely for appearance enhancement but for genuine reconstruction need!

ALL major surgery is tested on animals - the first heart transplants weren't done on people!! We eat animals - fr our own pleasure (not through necessity) so I don't see any mral difference - although obviously this work SHOULD be (and is in this country) strictly controlled to minimise 'unnecessary' experiments and minimise suffering.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We must remember that there are strict moral and ethical codes in place, to ensure any work undertaken is valid, and will allow 'progress' before it is funded. ANd these guidelines are very strict for the conditions in which the animals live and are handled.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this country yes, but not in China where this experiment was carried out.
The article is (surprise surprise) very sensationalist and fails to point out clearly that this work was carried out in a country with more relaxed laws regarding use of animals.
The UK has some of the strictest laws in the world regarding use of animals in experiments and all articles like this do is play into the hands of the anti-vivisectionists who are causing more and more animal work to be moved from this country to places with less militant protesters. The end result being an increase in suffering for the animals.
You may not agree with animal experimentation but it does happen and is a legal requirement in the drug discovery process so surely it is better to carry out these experiments in a strictly regulated environment with laws in place to minimise the suffering of animals.
 
Do any of you who are jumping on the bandwagon and claiming animal rights abuse actually have any idea of what goes on behind the scenes in these sorts of institutions? If you took the time to educate yourselves instead of just condemning it, you might be surprised.

The people who carry out the tests aren't "wicked b*stards" as someone said, they are trying to find solutions to illnesses and disease. I sincerely hope none of you who are getting upset about animal testing ever have a serious illness that requires treatment because I can promise you the drugs you are given will have been tested on animals. Where will your principles be then? I bet not a single one of you would turn down the treatments if your life depended on it.

These labs are not full of animals who have 6 legs, five eyes and are nuts. The animals are well looked after, their stress levels are monitored regularly. These labs will have a department attached to them who are responsible ONLY for animal welfare and if they find the animals are at all stressed (and that means testing hormone levels regularly, not waiting until the animal is chewing its own legs off out of stress), they have the right to stop the experiments.

The thought of animal testing isn't nice, I agree there, but it's necessary in some cases and as Weevil says, it's a legal requirement in the drug development process.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Current or not, I think that the article should make us think about the line between progressing science and research (with a benefit for all creatures) and causing something suffering for fairly limited benefit. .....

I guess that until a safe and humane alternative is found to animal testing, we will continue to see articles like this. /quote]

Can I just point out theres something a bit odd about your phraseology? I find it interesting how you say an article should make us think. It is up to each individual how they think about something. Otherwise, the process is known as brain-washing I belive...

And you say that until a safe and humane alternative is found, we will continue to see articles like this. So is the article all important? Because you are actually not that sure what goes on in practice, but you, personally, don't like the idea of it and how you think it affects our "furry friends" as you earlier described them, somewhat emotively.

You know, I think people who make it well nigh impossible to carry out animal testing in this country are actively promoting cruelty by driving testing abroad. Testing will still be carried out, but in countries with much less stringent laws on animal cruelty than our own. I personally could not live with that on my conscience, no matter how much I care about animals (and I wouldn't for one moment describe them as my "furry friends").

Theres cruelty to animals all around us which is much less high profile and goes unchecked. Domestic pets kept in unsuitable environments with insufficient exercise, simply for people's amusement. Why don't you go and tackle some of the cruelty to animals you can actually do something about, instead of something so high profile and fashionable. But that will involve a lot more than reading articles (and yes, I have taken effective steps to end animal cruelty on several occasions myself).
 
If the animals had the best possible standard of life, then i am for experiments that are necessary for medical developements that we need but not for stuff that we dont.

However,that dog doesn't look too happy. Its hard to explain but if the animals aren't given a good standard of life,then why should it be made worst by testing?

I will admit though,i dont know what happend in testing facilities,This is just my general thought
 
[ QUOTE ]
However,that dog doesn't look too happy. Its hard to explain but if the animals aren't given a good standard of life,then why should it be made worst by testing?

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt many dogs would look happy just after they had had an operation. In this country before you are allowed to carry out any experiment like that you have to set a "humane end point" and if an animal is deemed to be suffering beyond this point it will be euthanased.
Every animal facility is legally required to employ a trained animal welfare officer whose job it is to ensure that no animals are suffering unnecessarily.
Also, the majority of animals used in this country are mice, rats or other rodents (about 83% of the total) and they have a better quality of life then most rodents kept as pets. It is possible to find out more about what actually happens in animal research facilities but because it is not as sensationalist or emotive as the anti-vivisection propaganda it tends to be overlooked.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the animals had the best possible standard of life, then i am for experiments that are necessary for medical developements that we need but not for stuff that we dont.

However,that dog doesn't look too happy. Its hard to explain but if the animals aren't given a good standard of life,then why should it be made worst by testing?

I will admit though,i dont know what happend in testing facilities,This is just my general thought

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that testing shouldn't be used for things other than medical developments - I don't like the idea of cosmetics tested on animals because I think it's unneccessary (sp?).

Of course the dog doesn't look happy - my dog didn't look happy when he'd just been castrated. He will have been under a GA for probably hours so he isn't likely to be running around wagging his tail straight after.
 
Sorry I stand by my description of wicked bastards..
There is acceptable experimentation and cruel experimentation, and you do not need to transplant faces on dogs just to prove it can be done.
Of course I would accept treatment if anyone needed it but that doesn't mean I can't say some experiments are beyond what's humane.
As for monitoring stress levels, come on, anyone who has had an op understands the pain involved, and regardless of whether it shows up on the stress monitor it has to be there!
I could easily be cruel to someone like that vile man who murdered the two girls, why can't he be used to test stuff?
Why choose a dog who's only purpose in life is to be someone's best friend to mutilate and hurt?
I am completely against the people who firebomb and scare those involved in testing, but as a society we are wrong to inflict pain on innocent animals for any reason including saving people's lives.
So yes, anyone who inflicts pain as part of a test for any reason is a cruel bastard in my eyes, and I wonder how they sleep at night even when telling themselves they are doing it to save lives.
Don't the dogs deserve a life too?
Who says they are less entitled to one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top