Mikey Rudds
20-06-2008, 11:55 AM
Hi all - first post. I've been navigating an ethical maze lately after being asked to do some work for a company that a) tests on animals and b) allegedly mistreats the animals.
As of ten minutes ago the situation has been resolved to the extent that I don't have to have anything more to do with this company, so I'm obviously delighted from that point of view - although it makes not a jot of difference to the animals.
I was out running the other day and listening to Once as I ran. The song Nowhere To Run To came on. When I got home, I looked in Roy's book The Passions of Great Fortune, where he explained that the song was in relation to testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, and he asks "Where do we draw the line?"
Obviously the mistreatment of the animals is appalling, but a lot of people believe it is ok to test on animals for medicines as long as it's done ethically (although to me that is what I believe is known as an 'oxymoron' - keeping animals in cages and then clamping their heads in vices and sticking needles in their skulls doesn't seem very ethical to me whether it be in the name of science and medicine or bloody stupid lipstick and mascara or whatever).
Personally I don't agree with it on any basis. We have cloned human skin, why do we need to use animals? What can tests on animals tell us about the effects on humans anyway? Do we use animals because they are cheap and they don't have lawyers fighting their corner?
Basically, the point of this ranting ramble was, after reading Roy's book, I wondered where he stood on using animals "ethically" by pharmaceutical companies. Somebody said I would feel different if I had a seriously ill baby in desperate need of medicines. Maybe so, maybe not - that's not my situation so I can't say one way or the other.
But do we know what Roy's view is on this (seeing as he explained that Nowhere To Run To was aimed at the testing of animals by the beauty industry), and what do other members feel?
As of ten minutes ago the situation has been resolved to the extent that I don't have to have anything more to do with this company, so I'm obviously delighted from that point of view - although it makes not a jot of difference to the animals.
I was out running the other day and listening to Once as I ran. The song Nowhere To Run To came on. When I got home, I looked in Roy's book The Passions of Great Fortune, where he explained that the song was in relation to testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, and he asks "Where do we draw the line?"
Obviously the mistreatment of the animals is appalling, but a lot of people believe it is ok to test on animals for medicines as long as it's done ethically (although to me that is what I believe is known as an 'oxymoron' - keeping animals in cages and then clamping their heads in vices and sticking needles in their skulls doesn't seem very ethical to me whether it be in the name of science and medicine or bloody stupid lipstick and mascara or whatever).
Personally I don't agree with it on any basis. We have cloned human skin, why do we need to use animals? What can tests on animals tell us about the effects on humans anyway? Do we use animals because they are cheap and they don't have lawyers fighting their corner?
Basically, the point of this ranting ramble was, after reading Roy's book, I wondered where he stood on using animals "ethically" by pharmaceutical companies. Somebody said I would feel different if I had a seriously ill baby in desperate need of medicines. Maybe so, maybe not - that's not my situation so I can't say one way or the other.
But do we know what Roy's view is on this (seeing as he explained that Nowhere To Run To was aimed at the testing of animals by the beauty industry), and what do other members feel?