Alternatives to Animal testing.

Aleser said:
Tell that to the 108,000 people currently waiting for an organ in the US alone- 13,000 of which are infants, children, and young adults.

In the time UNOS has been keeping data, just over 10 years, 87,000 people died waiting for an organ- meaning they were on the waiting list until the moment they died. Over 10,000 of those were children or young adults, and 2731 of those were children under five years old. To put a seemingly small number into perspective, that's 109 classrooms full of children under the age of five dying because of the lack of organs.

I'm sure those preschoolers have done all the living they really wanted to do- played barbie and imagined getting married, I'm sure. I'm sure that the additions that die every day, the ones that are removed BEFORE they die because they're too sick to survive a transplant, the ones that aren't reported.. they were ready to 'meet their maker.'

It doesn't work that way, and if I could hold onto any truth in the world, it is that if you were really faced with the situation.. you'd take just about anything's organs.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I find it very hypocritical to claim to protect a fetus in the womb on the one hand, and speak out against the very procedures that would save the life of that human already born and suffering...the sick infants and children.
 
jillio said:
Exactly! I find it very hypocritical to claim to protect a fetus in the womb on the one hand, and speak out against the very procedures that would save the life of that human already born and suffering...the sick infants and children.
Click to expand...

Before they're born, it's the laws responsibility to protect them- can't let silly female incubators make such big choices...

After they're born, G-d can do all the work... who needs science!

.. because, you know, G-d didn't give us the freedom and intelligence to do it ourselves. :roll:
 
Aleser said:
Before they're born, it's the laws responsibility to protect them- can't let silly female incubators make such big choices...

After they're born, G-d can do all the work... who needs science!

.. because, you know, G-d didn't give us the freedom and intelligence to do it ourselves. :roll:
Click to expand...

:laugh2: Funny, but sadly so.
 
If I had a child who needed an organ I wouldn't use an animal organ because I wouldn't want to lose that child. Especially since their are new ways since regrowing organs from stem cells and using artifical organs.

I've heard so much from children dying after being transplated with animal organs. I just wouldn't risk it.

Plus due to ethnical reasons too.
 
dreama said:
If I had a child who needed an organ I wouldn't use an animal organ because I wouldn't want to lose that child. Especially since their are new ways since regrowing organs from stem cells and using artifical organs.

I've heard so much from children dying after being transplated with animal organs. I just wouldn't risk it.

Plus due to ethnical reasons too.
Click to expand...

Well the child is already dying. Because no Dr. would not resort to animal transplant otherwise.

Animal liver have been used for a long time for people awaiting a liver transplant to flush out the persons blood. The actual animal liver is not transplanted but used.
 
Babyblue said:
Well the child is already dying. Because no Dr. would not resort to animal transplant otherwise.

Animal liver have been used for a long time for people awaiting a liver transplant to flush out the persons blood. The actual animal liver is not transplanted but used.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is the last resort and an attempt to buy time until a human transplant is available. Growing organs in a lab takes time, and time is not available if it comes down to an animal transplant. Its either that, or a dead child, usually within 24-48 hours.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. It is the last resort and an attempt to buy time until a human transplant is available. Growing organs in a lab takes time, and time is not available if it comes down to an animal transplant. Its either that, or a dead child, usually within 24-48 hours.
Click to expand...

Yep.

So why worry about the transplant killing the person if the person will die without it.
 
Babyblue said:
Yep.

So why worry about the transplant killing the person if the person will die without it.
Click to expand...

Not neccessarily. I read a case of a girl lasting 4 months with an artificial heart. Then they got another heart and the girl is now in good health.
 
dreama said:
Not neccessarily. I read a case of a girl lasting 4 months with an artificial heart. Then they got another heart and the girl is now in good health.
Click to expand...

Liver? Do they have that artificial organs?
What about skin graft using pig skin. For burn paitents.

We are not talking about one specific organ.

But I do think it is cool that the girl survived :)
 
dreama said:
Not neccessarily. I read a case of a girl lasting 4 months with an artificial heart. Then they got another heart and the girl is now in good health.
Click to expand...

can we say same for thousands of people on waiting list?
 
dreama said:
Not neccessarily. I read a case of a girl lasting 4 months with an artificial heart. Then they got another heart and the girl is now in good health.
Click to expand...

As a last resort. And had she not received a transplant in a specific amount of time, she would have died. Where do you think the technology that makes things like artificial hearts and by pass machines and dialysis machines that preserve life until a transplant can be found possible? It came from animal experimentation. Without it, the technology that saves lives would not be possible. For someone who claims to want to save lives at all costs, you certainly seem to be very willing to sacrifice millions of lives.
 
dreama said:
Not neccessarily. I read a case of a girl lasting 4 months with an artificial heart. Then they got another heart and the girl is now in good health.
Click to expand...

Most people die a LOT sooner on heart-lung bypass. It was news because it was just that- rare enough to be extremely noteworthy. Also, at her age, there is a 67% chance her heart will be there with her in five years- and the numbers go down significantly each year. She is not 'healthy' so much as kept alive and well temporarily. Unless some major breakthrough in organ rejection control and infection management occurs, she will either need (and get) a new heart (or more than one new heart) throughout her life or she will die of transplant complications.
 
jillio said:
Would you really propose that we spend millions developing a cure for cancer in rats?
Click to expand...

We already are doing that. So when are we going to spend millions developing a cure for cancer in humans????


jillio said:
The fact is that experimentation on rats have help to develop cures for cancer and numerous other diseases and disorders. And don't forget that an over population of rats has been responsible for the death of millions of human beings.
Click to expand...

Back to the history books for you. Rats weren't responsible for Black Death. Fleas were responsible.

This link tells us of three ways one catches Black Death (The Black Death, 1348) 1) Infected fleas who jumped from rats to humans. 2) breathing in what the infected person breathed out. 3) septicemic version which is blood-related although I am not sure how it occured.
 
jillio said:
What exactly do you think the researchers should have done?
Click to expand...

Get on with human testing, especially those in late-stage or end-stage. The doctors knew that duodenal bypass cures (or at least reduces) diabetes since 50 years ago. What were they doing about it back then? It looks like they are just starting to look into bypasses for those who aren't obese. Why wait until the diabetic patient is obese before considering bypass? Obese patients have higher chance of getting infection than normal-weight patients.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I do think animal testing should be phased out at some point, perhaps we are at the brink of technology that allows us to start this process.

However, I believe animal testing over the years has brought a tremendous amount of benefits because it was the best option at the time. Dreama is assuming that in the past century, we had the "technology" for computer modeling (which btw is BASED MOSTLY on animal testing and very little on human testing) and stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Assuming??? Past century being 20th century. Take a gander at this link: Animal Testing Without Animals and this article was printed in April 1999. That means the machine is made in 20th century to study the cell behavior. They better use human cells (easily scrapped from skin). Dreama is not assuming at all.
 
jillio said:
And, as that technology becomes available, there is no doubt that animal testing will be abandoned for more efficient and cost effective means. That is the way of progress. However, we cannot progress to that point until the time when the technology is available. That will mean that it will have to be tested the same way anything else is tested for validity and reliability. And that takes time. We aren't there yet. Consequently, we cannot abandon the means we do have without a means to replace it.
Click to expand...

We are getting there. Look at the link in my previous post in here.
 
Buffalo said:
We already are doing that. So when are we going to spend millions developing a cure for cancer in humans????




Back to the history books for you. Rats weren't responsible for Black Death. Fleas were responsible.

This link tells us of three ways one catches Black Death (The Black Death, 1348) 1) Infected fleas who jumped from rats to humans. 2) breathing in what the infected person breathed out. 3) septicemic version which is blood-related although I am not sure how it occured.
Click to expand...

And without the rats, transmission of the disease would not be possible. The disease originated in the rat population, and the fleas acted as the bridge between rat and human. Remove the fleas...no transmission.
 
Buffalo said:
Get on with human testing, especially those in late-stage or end-stage. The doctors knew that duodenal bypass cures (or at least reduces) diabetes since 50 years ago. What were they doing about it back then? It looks like they are just starting to look into bypasses for those who aren't obese. Why wait until the diabetic patient is obese before considering bypass? Obese patients have higher chance of getting infection than normal-weight patients.
Click to expand...

There are also numerous negative side effects associated with duodenal bypass. It is a serious consideration as one is only trading one set of health problems for another set that is the result of the surgery. It is not a first line treatment, nor should it be..
 
Back
Top