Medical experiments to be done without patients' consent

This is already been done in Southeastern Virginia few years ago when they were testing the new "fake" blood which can carry oxygen. I forget what it is called.

I feel that they should "TRY" to obtain consent first but their first priority to try to save your life. Sometime getting consent isn't possible so - I rather have them try to give me something that could improve my chance on living. unless I am 80 years old! :)
 
RichardDeaf said:
This is already been done in Southeastern Virginia few years ago when they were testing the new "fake" blood which can carry oxygen. I forget what it is called.

I feel that they should "TRY" to obtain consent first but their first priority to try to save your life. Sometime getting consent isn't possible so - I rather have them try to give me something that could improve my chance on living. unless I am 80 years old! :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you; providing it's something that can directly save a person's life. What was done to me, though, was probably done to discover the cause of the birth defect I was born with. Furthermore, I was a very sick infant at the time, and I'm not sure what they were doing was appropriate.
 
Maria said:
Ok, if it is not for the mice they should experiment first... what thing they should experiment instead of animals and patients ? Any ideas ?
Click to expand...

Oh lots of things. They have computer modelling, stem cells, studying human data. Miniscule dosing etc..

It's not as if it's a case of humans verses animals because humans will get tested on eventually anyway. So we choose between new up to date methods. Then testing on humans when all is safe. Or we have animal testing then human testing. Ok the humans may have agreed but most will feel a false sense of security because many people don't realise exactly how innificent animal testing is. The sooner we bad animal testing the better. human's are animals so I don't agree with them being tested on either. Not even prisoners.
 
Jiro123,

I pasted your :topic: from other thread over here to answer your question about animal tested.

No no no you misunderstood. Yes it is up to each CONSUMER'S choice to buy whatever they want. BUT when a person speak against something, they should stick to it. An activist speaking against animal testing SHOULD NOT BUY animal-tested products. But if that activist BUYS animal-tested products anyway.... well that's a hypocrite. CORRECT?
Click to expand...

FYI - No, I do not misunderstand you but want to make sure that you aware before you assume the post because I notice that you assumed the posts a lot. That's why I stop and make sure before you make an assumption.

Here to answer your question about animal-tested either it's hypocrite or not. I understood you and not saying that you are wrong but it's not my place to judge/label/insult the people as a hypocrite when they buy product with animal-tested when they are against animal-tested. I have seen it quite a lot but I choose to keep myself and respect their choice. I accept the fact that everyone are human being.. no prefect.

Anyway, For the example about some vegetarian and vegan ADers. We debated at other thread about animals etc. They called me a hypocrite because they know I am an animal lover and eat meat and milk products which is no sense to them. They said if I am really animal lover which mean that I should not eat meat and milk products.

I see some people make no sense and love to insult/label/judge someone as a hypocrite when they are guilty the same thing.
 
Back
Top