3 ms·

I’m not sure of your point. The answer is pretty simple: test on humans. If we aren’t willing to test on ourselves, why should we be willing to test on other be

I’m not sure of your point. The answer is pretty simple: test on humans. If we aren’t willing to test on ourselves, why should we be willing to test on other beings? There’s no contradiction.

vczf 4y ago
Which humans? Is it more ethical to test treatments with potential long-term health complications on research monkeys or... poor people?
- melony 4y ago
  OP and their family of course, since OP clearly believes animal lives are as valuable, if not more, than humans'.
  - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
    We are animals, we're not more valuable than animals, since we ARE THEM, we have always and will always be equally valuable to animals. There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. If OP and their family AGREE to, then yes, of course, it would be infinitely better than testing on unwilling sentient beings.
    - tsol 4y ago
      >There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with. If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
      - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
        "Expecting humans not to have a bias" "There isn't one rational reason " Are you that bad at contradicting someone?
  - phphphphp 4y ago
    I think that if the animal testing is so important because it’s fundamental to the future of the human race, you will absolutely find people willing to participate in early medical trials: after-all, we already do! I’m sure many people here have family who have participated in clinical trials. Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough. There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  >Which humans? Consenting ones. It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensation of any kind(besides euthanasia when they're deemed useless), it's also a lot more efficient and reliable, humans aren't 150lbs rats. People risks their lives and health daily for a salary(or for a greater cause, which would still apply here) , why should this be any different? How is it any different from a firefighter?a bodyguard? a miner? a doctor in an ICU? No matter how poor you are you have a choice, these animals never got one, there is plenty of times where I would have accepted to be a guinea pig for money.
  - tsol 4y ago
    The problem is you and I don't wanna test potentially dangerous drugs, even for lots of money as we have other choices for an income. Most of the people willing to test drugs will be desperate, poor people who need to feed their families. Say what you will about testing on monkeys-- but testing on poor people instead so that the people making the rules don't have to feed bad about testing on monkeys, is as dystopian as it gets.
    - phphphphp 4y ago
      People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, and we already have restrictions on how animals can be treated. Loosening the rules on what can be tested on humans (but strengthening the consent rules — for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial) and banning animal testing would not stop progress, it would ensure that progress was made when it was justified enough that people were willing to consent to risks for the progress of humanity. How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
      - tsol 4y ago
        >People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases. >for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations >Why can’t that apply to science on earth? I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. >The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people. The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics. >

I’m not sure of your point. The answer is pretty simple: test on humans. If we aren’t willing to test on ourselves, why should we be willing to test on other beings? There’s no contradiction.

vczf 4y ago

Which humans? Is it more ethical to test treatments with potential long-term health complications on research monkeys or... poor people?

melony 4y ago
OP and their family of course, since OP clearly believes animal lives are as valuable, if not more, than humans'.
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  We are animals, we're not more valuable than animals, since we ARE THEM, we have always and will always be equally valuable to animals. There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. If OP and their family AGREE to, then yes, of course, it would be infinitely better than testing on unwilling sentient beings.
  - tsol 4y ago
    >There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with. If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
    - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
      "Expecting humans not to have a bias" "There isn't one rational reason " Are you that bad at contradicting someone?
- phphphphp 4y ago
  I think that if the animal testing is so important because it’s fundamental to the future of the human race, you will absolutely find people willing to participate in early medical trials: after-all, we already do! I’m sure many people here have family who have participated in clinical trials. Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough. There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.
FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
>Which humans? Consenting ones. It's more ethical to pay a consenting human generously, than to force an animal to ingest dangerous substances for no compensation of any kind(besides euthanasia when they're deemed useless), it's also a lot more efficient and reliable, humans aren't 150lbs rats. People risks their lives and health daily for a salary(or for a greater cause, which would still apply here) , why should this be any different? How is it any different from a firefighter?a bodyguard? a miner? a doctor in an ICU? No matter how poor you are you have a choice, these animals never got one, there is plenty of times where I would have accepted to be a guinea pig for money.
- tsol 4y ago
  The problem is you and I don't wanna test potentially dangerous drugs, even for lots of money as we have other choices for an income. Most of the people willing to test drugs will be desperate, poor people who need to feed their families. Say what you will about testing on monkeys-- but testing on poor people instead so that the people making the rules don't have to feed bad about testing on monkeys, is as dystopian as it gets.
  - phphphphp 4y ago
    People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, and we already have restrictions on how animals can be treated. Loosening the rules on what can be tested on humans (but strengthening the consent rules — for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial) and banning animal testing would not stop progress, it would ensure that progress was made when it was justified enough that people were willing to consent to risks for the progress of humanity. How many people here on HN would jump aboard the first spaceship to mars in the name of human progress, knowing they’ll probably die on the mission? Why can’t that apply to science on earth? The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people.
    - tsol 4y ago
      >People already volunteer to participate in clinical trials, For medications they need. But to one is going to want to test the next generation of antihistamines, for example, when there's a safe alternative with a few side effects. So the only medications that people would be willing to test would be those for deadly diseases. >for example, in my country, you cannot be paid for participation in a clinical trial Why would anyone volunteer to take experimental drugs for nothing in return? The only reason would be in life and death situations >Why can’t that apply to science on earth? I don't know, but asking people to test drugs isn't gonna convince anyone. We need a real alternative to make progress. Hence, monkeys. >The US doesn’t even have universal healthcare, so we can’t pretend the US has some deep love for protecting its people. The FDA and medical boards do in fact try to maintain a standard of medical ethics. >