From: srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Abuse/Animal Rights
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:17:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Nov9.231701.8117
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <BxGn5s.2IA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ml31157@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Latash ) writes:
>Dear Netters:
>
>I have just recently read the post about the Wasington Post article.  What can
>I say?  I believe this man was very cruel, and that he deserved to AT LEAST  
>be fined for $1000, if not spend some time in jail.  I think anmal abuse is
>wrong, despite what the law has to say about it, or chooses to do or not do
>about it.

Agreed (well, he should be jailed).

>HOWEVER, I strongly disagree that animals have any kind of rights.  I think    

I guess it depends on how you define "rights."  I think animal abuse and
a question of animal "rights" is two sides of the same coin.

>this detracts from the issues.  Animals have absolutely NO  rights!  WE as
>HUMAN BEINGS that are supposed to be intelligent (or something) are the ones
>with the RESPOSIBILITY AND BURDEN of being kind to animals and taking care of

I agree that we have the responsibility to be kind and protect them.  I guess
I'm understand what issues a discussion of animal "rights" detracts from.

>our environment.  I think that, unpleasant though it may be, animal lab tests
>are a necessity--if you disagree, don't you DARE take any more Tylenol, Aspirin,
>oops  Aspirin, use shampoo, or makeup, or ANY product out there (even if your

Here, I disagree.  Lets tackle the medical tests first. In my opinion, FDA
animal testing is of questionable value.  I think that the models used are
poor indicators of *subtle* problems that can occur with drugs in the human 
system.  Just becuase I do not think the testing is necessary does not mean
I should not DARE take any of these things.  We have legislated no alternatives.
That does not mean they do not exist.  Nor does the existence of something
make it necessary.  As for the cosmetics, there is no question at all that
animal tests are completely unecessary.  MANY companies have stopped doing
it altogether, and have not done it for many years.  Others will no doubt follow.  
The purpose of these tests today is to shield such companies from lawsuits.  In 
the case of cosmetics, soaps, and cleaners, there are lots and lots of "cruelty 
free" products out there which I do use.

>physician prescribes it!) that got on the market and past the FDA through
>animal testing!  Keep this in mind:  NO DRUG OF ANY KIND WILL GET PAST THE FDA
>WITHOUT AT LEAST 3 (THREE) ANIMAL MODELS THAT THE DRUG PASSES BEFORE IT EVER
>EVEN GETS CLOSE TO CLINICAL TRIALS!!!!!!  Usually, the three models are:
>1) Mice/Rats; 2)Dogs; 3) Monkeys/Primates.  This HAS to be done because unfortu-
>unfortunately we wouldn't have any approved safe and effective drugs on the
>market otherwise!  ALL pharmaceutical companies (trust me, I've worked for a

Again, existence is not justification for need. 

>top-noch one for 2 years) use these tests!  Animals have no rights that are
>being violated.  We as humans must make sure that these animals (or ANY other
>animals) are not in pain, and live without constant suffering.  The drug com-

On the one hand, you say that animals have no rights that are being violated.  On
the other hand, you say we should make sure animals are not in pain and live
without constant suffering.  It seems to me that you feel that animals have a right
to live in a manner that is safe and cruelty free.  You also seem to feel that
these tests are needed and, well, tough luck for the animals involved.  Personally,
I have a hard time disassociating the two.

>panies usually say that any pain or disconfort is brief AT LONGEST!

Statements and actions of large corporations such as these frequently turn out
to be quite different.

I am not saying that all drug companies and other companies that do animal testing
are scum-sucking sadistic low-life.  My feeling is that it is very easy for companies
such as these to fall into a rut, because it is much easier to do that than to
consider alternatives.  Easy in the sense that we have legislated it to be easier.

>Let me hear your thoughts.  Let me answer your questions.

Well, you asked. :-)  In the interest of not starting an AR flame war, please e-mail
me if you would like to discuss this further.

>
>Dr. Mike, D.V.M.
>

-- 
============================================================
Stephen R. Lee                 | 
OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
E-Mail: srlee@beta.lanl.gov    | dogs.