My conclusion is that it is a "Catch 22" situation and whilst I know experimentation on animals will continue for the foreseeable future, I have made my own decision.
I'm against animal testing and I will not support any organisation or charity that carries out experiments on animals, even if the research is to save human life.
I'm not so heartless that I don't cry when people lose loved ones or see their loved ones suffer. The pain and suffering of innocent people is also heartbreaking, but the reason I choose to be 100% against all animal testing is that the poor animals don't know what's happening to them, they don't understand, they just feel the pain. We at least are free, can understand that we're dying or suffering and take consolation from the people we love. We have support and love all around us and those who are religious have their faith. The poor laboratory animals are all alone. They are prisoners serving a life sentence and being tortured for crimes they did not commit.
My resolution is to boycott all products tested on animals, including pharmaceutics. I'm researching alternative therapies.
The "Catch 22" is that although I have made my choice, I know it will not stop animal testing. I even have to accept that my own beloved dogs will need veterinary care and drugs that have been tested on animals. Part of the contract when rescuing animals from a charity is to ensure they receive veterinary care when ill or injured. I will fulfill that obligation but with a heavy heart.
So, although there's no happy ending to this part of my blog, this whole journey has made me reassess my outlook on life to the extent that I have decided to pursue holistic therapies in an attempt to develop my own "sixth sense", something I believe animals still possess but we have lost as we have evolved, choosing instead technology and science.
As a result, I looked at doing a distance learning course and starting my own business offering people alternative therapies to assist them in their lives. Then the obvious hit me: I would much rather help animals, so have found a course that will enable me to become a holistic animal therapist and go on to do canine massage therapy. It will take 3 years.
This holistic approach will surprise many who know me, but it proves that if I can be open-minded and explore new avenues, other most unlikely people may be open-minded enough to switch to the cause for the ethical treatment of animals.
My animal welfare blog will continue (time-permitting), investigating the welfare of animals in the food industry and highlighting the cruelty that is factory-farming. Firstly, I have to arrange a visit to Laverstoke Park abattoir and watch my dinner die ......
To be continued .......
Friday, 1 February 2013
Part 1: The Evidence
In my own investigations into the use of animal testing for the purpose of medical advancement, I've been reading through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, which was implemented in the United Kingdom and other Member States from 1 January 2013.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) regulates procedures that are carried out on protected animals‘ for scientific research and testing that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
Protected animals are vertebrates and cephalopods. There must be an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review board who should consult with a named veterinary surgeon.
The principles of the "3 R's" (see below) must be followed.
There is a lot more to the Act, which can be read using this link.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/animal-research/
I've read through Cancer Research UK's pages:
Progress would not have been possible without animal research.
Testing on animals is an unavoidable part of their efforts to beat cancer and it is a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs are tested on animals before they're given to patients to make sure they're safe to use.
They don't fund any research on monkeys, dogs or cats.
Nearly all testing focuses on mice, fruit flies, microscopic worms and zebra fish.
Mice are remarkably similar to humans in terms of their genetic make-up.
The 3 Rs -
1. Reduce the no. of animals used
2. Refine the research so that animal welfare is improved
3. Replace the use of animals wherever possible.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/
I've read The Royal Society's pages:
"Virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research on animals"
The Royal Society endorses the 3 Rs.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/
Animal Aid:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/campaigns/experiments//281//
There are a lot of things that come under the umbrella of animal-testing, things like putting a flea collar on a beagle and watching the live fleas for 15 minutes to the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50), which is the dosage necessary to kill 50% of the animals tested after a specified test duration. Some seem quite innocent, others are horrible.
I've read pros and cons, organisations for and against, and I've made my decision.
Please read my next blog ....... Part 2: The Verdict
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) regulates procedures that are carried out on protected animals‘ for scientific research and testing that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
Protected animals are vertebrates and cephalopods. There must be an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review board who should consult with a named veterinary surgeon.
The principles of the "3 R's" (see below) must be followed.
There is a lot more to the Act, which can be read using this link.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/animal-research/
I've read through Cancer Research UK's pages:
Progress would not have been possible without animal research.
Testing on animals is an unavoidable part of their efforts to beat cancer and it is a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs are tested on animals before they're given to patients to make sure they're safe to use.
They don't fund any research on monkeys, dogs or cats.
Nearly all testing focuses on mice, fruit flies, microscopic worms and zebra fish.
Mice are remarkably similar to humans in terms of their genetic make-up.
The 3 Rs -
1. Reduce the no. of animals used
2. Refine the research so that animal welfare is improved
3. Replace the use of animals wherever possible.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/
I've read The Royal Society's pages:
"Virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research on animals"
The Royal Society endorses the 3 Rs.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/
Animal Aid:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/campaigns/experiments//281//
There are a lot of things that come under the umbrella of animal-testing, things like putting a flea collar on a beagle and watching the live fleas for 15 minutes to the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50), which is the dosage necessary to kill 50% of the animals tested after a specified test duration. Some seem quite innocent, others are horrible.
I've read pros and cons, organisations for and against, and I've made my decision.
Please read my next blog ....... Part 2: The Verdict
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)