Is using animals for medical research more ethical than eating meat?

In my oppinion it is, what's your view?





My reasoning is that there are pleanty of ways we can have nutritious tasty food without killing animals for meat, but there is no way i can test a vaccine on lentils.





Don't get the worng idea about me. I think the animals should always be treated as humanely as is feasable. and i think whereever possible we should use another method, e.g. cultred cells. (but i still think that we should test on animals before humans for a few reasons which are not central to this point)





And i think animals should only be used for researching deadly or debilitating diseases, not develping luxury products like cosmetics. (If we can't make safe cosmetics without hurting animals, we should just not use cosmetics)





Try to stay on topic, just the comparison of meat VS medical research, not broader issues on whether we should use animals at all, I'm sure there are other questions where that is addressed more directly, and if there are not... ask one.

Is using animals for medical research more ethical than eating meat?
They are equally good or equally bad.





1.


Let us assume that controlling animals for any purpose is cruel. So eating them is cruel. Then using them in medical/scientific research is also cruel.





2.


Let us assume that controlling animals for any purpose is acceptable. Then eating them is and using them for medical/scientific research is acceptable.





We cannot separate one from the other as they are really the same-control for our needs/wants.





So, now it is a question of is it okay to control animals for food, research, zoos, etc? A good debate indeed.
Reply:Yes it ethical for MEDICAL purposes ONLY as long as there are no other alternatives, and animals are treated as humanely as possible. It is, IMO, unethical on the consumer side to use medications lightly for obvious reasons.





Thanks to animal testing many cures and vaccines have been found for deadly diseases that benefit not only humans but animals as well. Is it sad to use animals for testing? yes it is. Very. Is it necessary? Yes until valid alternative methods are found.





On the other side eating meat is not a necessity in our days but a luxury and convinience. There is a wide variety of food out there other than meat. It only takes determination and discipline to give it up altogether which many lack. Including myself.
Reply:I don't think either is ethical. This isn't a "more than/less than" argument. Animals raised for their flesh, their milk, and their eggs suffer horribly; so do animals kept in research facilities.





I'd love to see animal testing phased out. It is absoutely unnecessary for cosmetics, cleansers, and other non-medicine applications and should be stopped now. Right now, scientists are just developing ways to test medications without using animals. We don't know how effective that will be. But hopefully, they will someday be able to test medications without harming animals.





But the next time someone tries to suggest animal testing is necessary and effective, tell them that animal testing showed thalidomide was safe. And what about all those recalled COX-2 inhibitor drugs...
Reply:Why don't we test on the animals sitting on death row in our overcrowded prisons? Wouldn't that be more appropriate?
Reply:Saying we need to use animals to test medicines, find treatments etc. isn't any better than eating meat and may be much worse for several reasons. First, it still uses the mentality that meat eaters often use: animals are here to satisfy our needs, and/or they are less than us so therefore fair game for suffering.





Additionally, as horrid as life is for livestock, lab animals are outright tortured. I've seen them at a world renowned local research institute here in Southern California. Brains exposed, electrodes connected, vivisected, starved, force fed, deprived of basic needs, etc. By saying we have to test them on animals is saying the ends justifies the means and I don't see too much of a difference to those who argue that either god created them for the use of mankind, or they are delicious or whatever.





Granted, I do in fact see the dilemma that we need to test medicines, advance pathology research, etc. but again, you must believe the animals on some level "deserve" to tortured in order to give it the green light.
Reply:Only if there is no other option to procedue with what they need to determine. But not just for the purpose of finding out things we already know.
Reply:the first answerer has the perfect answer , i agree it should be that way too. sorry to go off topic but the animals are innocent , at least the prisoners deserve it !
Reply:Well, if you eat an animal, it is slaughtered in a humane way, hopefully. If you use it for testing, it has to suffer side effects and pain. Frankly, anything that inflicts pain is just wrong. What creature does not tremble in the face of pain, much less ongoing agonizing pain?
Reply:Personally, I believe that both purposes are perfectly ethical, as long as we are, as you pointed out, not using them frivously, and out of a genuine need.
Reply:Personally, I think products that will be used by HUMANS, marketed to HUMANS, and are meant to cure HUMANS, should be tested on HUMANS, not animals, as the test results are not valid to begin with-what causes cancer in rats or monkeys may not effect a human at all, and vise versa. I think the child molesters, baby rapers, and murderers that fill our prisons should be given the option of volunteering for research in exchange for extra privileges in jail. I know this wont be a popular or well received answer by many, but it has its merit. Criminals have more rights than most law abiding citizens, and often get off with too easy of a sentence for the crimes they commit. Let them repay society for their crimes by supporting research to help humanity. They could redeem themselves by doing something that furthers research, and perhaps we wouldn't have so many medicines on the market that get recalled for being unsafe for humans, although they tested "safe" on animals with a different chemical makeup than the human body.
Reply:I feel the question of ethicality should be left with the scientists involved in the experiments to make the decision. Whether it is ethical to eat meat should also be left with the individual. It would depend on your beliefs and also where you live on the planet.
Reply:I agree with you.





Not eating meant won't kill you... There's other ways to get your protein (soy).





But an untested vaccine must be tested on multiple subjects, and could easily kill 20 people at a time.





PS- to UKantSpel


That could end in death, which could end up in lawsuits due to the "Cruel and Unusual" appeal.
Reply:I disagree.





I think the modern worlds, 'ill eat whatever rubbish i like, contaminate the environment i depend on for survival and then when i inevitably become ill becuase of my own wrong doings i will try and fix myself with some magic elixer without doing the healthy hard work to stay well' attitude is incorrect.





if we didnt pollute ourselves and our environment we wouldn't need to contaminate, harm and inevitably kill animals in the process of trying to make magic elixirs to keep us well, we would already be at optimum health.





Sustainable life is not just a concept, its an option, the only option in reality.
Reply:I don't think either is especially since most of the tests being conducted can be tested more efficiently with alternatives to animal testing. Plus, they have been doing the exact same tests for years and are getting the same results. I don't see why so many animals need to suffer to test material that is meant for human use but is used on animals with different chemistry and biological differences. Two wrongs don't make a right and I feel I shouldn't have to eat animals or use products that have been tested using unreliable methods.
Reply:I think most people would agree that using animals for research that can save human lives is "better" than eating animals frivilously for no other reason than "it tastes good" (which really is the only valid reason for eating animal flesh).





I don't belive most vegans will think that, however. The stance of most vegans is that animals are not ours to use.





My belief (I am a strict vegetarian - no meat, dairy, eggs - for health and animal cruelty reasons) is that animals should be used very sparingly in medical research only. I would like to see very strict requirements met before anyone was allowed to use animals in testing. I would even be in favor or a licensing program in which people would have to undergo training in how to take proper care of them, make sure they have the least amount of discomfort possible, etc. I think there should be very strict requirements that a lab should have to meet before they can test on animals. There should be very specific rules (like not testing substances that have already been tested, not exceeding what is necessary i.e. feeding a rat the human equivalent of ten pounds of a drug, etc.). I would even be in favor or labs having to have special approval before any animal testing can take place. Random inspections to make sure animals are being treated as humanely as possible is a good idea. It'd also be nice if lab animals (that aren't dead) could be retired after a certain period of service, as pets or on sanctuary farms.





Maybe some of that stuff is already in practice. I don't know. But that's my take on the subject.
Reply:animal testing is wrong and eating i Don't know