Covance, anyone?

Zip · 11 May 2006 at 15:43

vaultingSlinky said:
by your reasoning crime does pay.

man commits crime

man goes to prison

drugs tested on man in prison

clinically safe aids cure found

thousands/millions of lives saved.

Would u like to be that man being used as a pawn though?
I would think not.
And Terrorists should be used not crimanals. They are one of the lowest forms of scum on this earth

Tru · 11 May 2006 at 15:47

Wait a minute, if rapists and kiddie fiddlers we're detered from commiting crime by the prospect of being used as test subjects, we'd have no-one to test drugs on! We'd have resort to using animals, oh the humanity!

Glaucus · 11 May 2006 at 15:48

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Does it? We're doing it to help people with serious illnesses. They do what they do to harm people to achieve their own (usually unrealistic) desires.

Sure, its a bit harsh on the criminals, but then again, it might encourage more people that crime does not pay.

yeh that works, look at america, more capital punsihment than any other country, does it syop the crime NO.

humm killing people for what you deem best, Nope sounds exactly like what the terrorists are doing.

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Meh? The animals are invariably innocent every time, yet its apparently ok to brutalise them regardless. One possible loss of an innocent, for the potential gain of many lives saved is an acceptable risk in my mind.

Yes animals are below us, THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. So yes killing them and hurting them is acceptable, if the end result is a postive. These experiments in the UK are very highlyregulated. Unlike some foreign countries.

Zip · 11 May 2006 at 15:48

Tru said:
Wait a minute, if rapists and kiddie fiddlers we're detered from commiting crime by the prospect of being used as test subjects, we'd have no-one to test drugs on! We'd have resort to using animals, oh the humanity!

There will be a few that wont stop.
Bloody kiddy fidlers
And terrosts wont ever stop trying to be arses

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 15:50

vaultingSlinky said:
by your reasoning crime does pay.

man commits crime

man goes to prison

drugs tested on man in prison

clinically safe aids cure found

thousands/millions of lives saved.

Thats being a bit pedantic isnt it?

I doubt the criminal would commit the crime with the express purpose of getting caught, going to prison, being used as a drugs gineua pig and being the guy that as the first successful aids cure is pumped into.

Tru · 11 May 2006 at 15:51

Zip said:
There will be a few that wont stop.
Bloody kiddy fidlers
And terrosts wont ever stop trying to be arses

You're right, the government will have to house paedos near schools so the drugs companies still have a stream of test subjects.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 15:51

Tru said:
Wait a minute, if rapists and kiddie fiddlers we're detered from commiting crime by the prospect of being used as test subjects, we'd have no-one to test drugs on! We'd have resort to using animals, oh the humanity!

Or people that sponge off the goverment on benefit while not contributing anything.

They'd be up next in my book.

squiffy · 11 May 2006 at 15:52

I guess you could have drug trials, but perhaps if a convict opts to take the drug/tests the sentence is reduced by a couple of months or something. That way still not morally wrong, and saving money. Of course not dissection trails, just the same drug trials done to general public that take the tests.

Glaucus · 11 May 2006 at 15:54

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Or people that sponge off the goverment on benefit while not contributing anything.

Theres much easier wats that testing drugs on em. I think you should be able to get benefit for a max of 6months like in france after that you'r on your own. Every able body/mind person can get a job without a problem, might not be what they want but they can get a job.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 15:54

AcidHell2 said:
Yes animals are below us, THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. So yes killing them and hurting them is acceptable, if the end result is a postive. These experiments in the UK are very highlyregulated. Unlike some foreign countries.

They may not be human but they are still very capable of feeling pain, and emotions such as fear and terror.

Glaucus · 11 May 2006 at 15:55

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
They may not be human but they are still very capable of feeling pain, and emotions such as fear and terror.

yep, I'm not bothered about that. There not humans. You eat meat, you take medcines? If you belive it so much, then stop taking drugs, stop eating meat and I might have some respect for your view.

I could easily kill 10,000 monkeys to save a human, probably more with out an ounce of regret.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 15:57

vaultingSlinky said:
im being pedantic because i am surprised that anyone would carry such a strange view as to testing on prisoners being a good thing.

I can see the arguement for capital punishment and understand it. But as for forced drugs testing on prisoners....even criminals have basic human rights, there is no arguement for it, im not even sure why you are trying to make it out to be a good idea other than trying to wind people up.

No I'm being 100% serious. I dont see why prisoners of extreme crime deserve to get to sit around in prison for the rest of their life contributing nothing to society. After all we have to pay for them being there, they need fed watered and all that.

Tru · 11 May 2006 at 15:57

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
They may not be human but they are still very capable of feeling pain, and emotions such as fear and terror.

They're also capable of being proud of making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of science and the superior being.

squiffy · 11 May 2006 at 15:59

AcidHell2 said:
yep, I'm not bothered about that. There not humans. You eat meat, you take medcines? If you belive it so much, then stop taking drugs, stop eating meat and I might have some respect for your view.

I could easily kill 10,000 monkeys to save a human, probably more with out an ounce of regret.

Sorry but you're a animal. Killing a animal quickly for meat is one thing (I eat meat but I certainly wouldn't want the animals to be slowly killed just for slaughter house workers enjoyement) but you're saying anyone that tortures a hampster say pulling it's legs off is ok in your view? :eek:

Are you sicK?

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 16:02

AcidHell2 said:
yep, I'm not bothered about that. There not humans. You eat meat, you take medcines? If you belive it so much, then stop taking drugs, stop eating meat and I might have some respect for your view.

Theres no way I'm becoming a veggie! Cows ambling about a field is a world apart from monkeys living in cages for their entire lives, before being pumped with potentially lethal substances with uncertain effects.

I can't exactly stop taking medicine now can I? But if we slowly move the process from testing on animals towards testing on criminals, I'd be a happy camper.

AcidHell2 said:
I could easily kill 10,000 monkeys to save a human, probably more with out an ounce of regret.

Suit yourself.

Tru said:
They're also capable of being proud of making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of science and the superior being.

So is a violent criminal.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 11 May 2006 at 16:02

Double Post

Kol · 11 May 2006 at 16:06

Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Meh? The animals are invariably innocent every time, yet its apparently ok to brutalise them regardless. One possible loss of an innocent, for the potential gain of many lives saved is an acceptable risk in my mind.

Le_petit, I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with animals in research or not, but I post nontheless. Not particularly to you, but to those who are unaware what medical testing is like.

I assure you, animal testing is NOTHING like you're lead to believe. Believe me. The rats and mice used in our laboratories are very well looked after. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 ensures there is strict regulation, which covers the experimental or other scientific procedures on living verterbrtes (and some invertebrates) including their use in research, education, regulatory (that is, safety and toxicity for example) testing and production of biological substances ie. antibodies.

Assuming you're qualified upto high heaven, you need 3 licences. Premises, project and person. As result of these licences, the requirements are set that any discomfort (if any) is kept to a strict minimum by the appropraite use of anaesthetics and painkillers. Also, when any animal is killed, it is not aware of this procedure. This has to be done by one designated individual who must hold a specific licence and as such, the animals are calm and comfortable whenever this is undertaken.

The person involved can only test on an aminal from specially designated breeding or supply facilities. These animals have the highest of care. It would completely ruin the invesitgation if the animals weren't content as the results would be erroneous and have no bearing on the outcome. Whenever I am in contact with the animals and I can also vouch for the rest of our institution, the animals are cared for better than pets. Sure, SHAC show you pictures from institutions around the globe (which you must remember, do NOT reflect UK testing - the UK has the highest restrictions in the world regarding animal testing) but it's not like you're led to believe.

One thing I shall point out about the current medical research that was covered in the media, yes, it was flawed from the outset. I have absolutely no idea how that investigation went ahead. Testing that specific monoclonal antibody on animals would have been useless (as was witnessed) as they're highly specific to the human immune system and results recorded during the initial trials were irrelevant.

NOTE - UK regulation stipulates that only mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits are used in medical research. Cats, dogs and primates only when absolutely necessary and this requires special justification.

No research on great apes, ie. chimps, orangutans and gorillas has been allowed in Britain for at least 20 years.