Ontario to ban research testing on dogs and cats, premier says
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ontario to ban research testing on dogs and cats, premier says
Ontario will ban research testing on dogs and cats, Premier Doug Ford said Monday as he called the practice “cruel.”
CP24 (www.cp24.com)
Testing should be limited to the researchers and owners trying to make money out of their questionable concoctions.
-
I’m not going to continue to feed your fatherless attention seeking behaviour you pathetic whelp, there is no good faith in your molecules, so don’t presume to lecture me FROM the internet about getting off it.
Get off the internet and have a real conversation with a real person.
Try not to be triggered by that suggestion.
-
One thing is to prioritize human lives in a fire or an accident and another one is to torture an animal, a fully conscious being, with the same ability for sense perception as you or me, for the small chance that it might produce some kind of insight. More often than not it doesn’t produce anything useful, even if there are a few instances where it does. I’m not entirely against animal experimentation but it needs to be justified at such a level that there must be almost no doubt that it will produce the required data. If there’s any doubt, you need more research to prove that an animal model will reproduce appropriately in human physiology.
I don’t need you to explain to me that human lives are prioritized, I’m not a retard. I need you to answer why John Everyman who clearly doesn’t value his life enough to stop eating slop, is worth torturing thousands of animals so that we may win him a few more years of life?
I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.
It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.
You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.
-
Good - do bunnies and monkeys too.
and cows and pigs and chickens
-
Wait I had no idea this was even allowed to begin with
That led to an article published earlier this month that found the dogs — mostly puppies — were used for tests and killed before their internal organs were removed for further examination.
What the fuck?
Animals are property in Canada. We have perhaps the worst animal rights in the western world. You can ship a hundred thinking, feeling creatures in an open grill trailer, 500km in -40C or +40C weather, without water, KNOWING for CERTAIN that most of them will arrive dead, and it is still not a crime. Animals need your attention and protection, because the people you trust won’t do it for them. Please go vegan.
-
Like they need an excuse. How do you know when someone abuses animals? Don’t worry, they never ever stop telling you.
-
Willing human beings are a better choice than unwilling animals. It’s not just speciesism since I don’t think speciesism is “bad” in the sense that it is inevitable, but rather that it is questionable how much results replicate across species.
People who are willing out of altruism, yes. But unfortunately you know that consent would be coerced. Prisoners and the poor would make up all experiment subjects. The only ethical way to do it is by lottery. People would look at the overall cost/benefit analysis of medical testing a lot more pragmatically if it was THEIR children being tested on.
-
Like they need an excuse. How do you know when someone abuses animals? Don’t worry, they never ever stop telling you.
They will always have poor excuses.
-
I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.
It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.
You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.
But are you aware of all the literally useless experiments that have been conducted that have given us 0 knowledge about anything? Were talking easily billions of animals tortured for nothing, and often it is pretty common sense that we were gonna learn nothing. Often it is more about using those research funds for something, to collect data for the heck of having the data because it might be useful to someone sometime. I’m not entirely against animal experiments but you need to have, I’ll repeat, absolute certainty that whatever process or Illness you are trying to understand is replicable in humans perfectly. This more often than not is not the case.
For example I can see very clearly how organ transplant techniques may be learned from testing in nonhuman animals, it’s almost self evident that it will because even if anatomy is different the mechanics that allow it to be possible are clearly the same across mammal species. But things like metabolic diseases or toxins are entirely different because chemical processes are different across species. My argument would also be that the only animal that should be used are chimps, which many people will oppose because they think them “rational” as if we have conclusive evidence of the non-rationality of other species.
I’m not entirely sure that it is the case but if it is the case that that is how it is done then good. But I have my serious doubts seeing how beauty products are still tested on animals.
-
Giving beagle puppies 3 hr heart attacks and then killing them gives science a bad name.
If you’re going to do animal research you should be prepared to openly explain why it’s necessary.
That’s a terrible way to do it because you and me and 99.999% of the population are not qualified to make the decision about that and understand the very difficult but ethical rationale behind it.
-
That’s a terrible way to do it because you and me and 99.999% of the population are not qualified to make the decision about that and understand the very difficult but ethical rationale behind it.
If you can’t explain why you need to be a monster then you don’t get to be a monster.
Slaughter house workers keep doing their job perfectly fine, there’s zero excuse for scientists to get to torture animals and then patronizingly pat the public on the hand and say ‘youre too naiive to understand’.
-
and cows and pigs and chickens
Cool! how do you guys suggest we do medical research? homeless people?
-
This completely fails to address the actual gaps in scientific animal care legislation, in this case lack of oversight to make sure they actually adhered to the CCAC guidelines and a major lack of transparency. This legislation just sets back science that has good reason to use dogs as model organisms while letting abuse of other animals continue (especially non-government-funded work which has no requirement to follow CCAC rules!)
While this is going on, “dog lovers” are turning in pandemic dogs in record numbers to be euthanized.
-
What we need is auditing and enforcement of our already comprehensive ethical restrictions on scientific research across fields. He’s using this one instance of gross negligence and misconduct to attack science in general, rather than do the proper job of enforcing the regulatory apparatus. Why is he doing this? Attention and optics to distract from his massive failures and bad ideas and investments, and also his side dealing which is getting harder and harder to ignore.
It’s because Ontario has among the poorest involvement in biomedical research in Canada despite having 10 universities.
-
Testing should be limited to the researchers and owners trying to make money out of their questionable concoctions.
We’ll cure everything with essential oils and apple cider vinegar!
-
Wait I had no idea this was even allowed to begin with
That led to an article published earlier this month that found the dogs — mostly puppies — were used for tests and killed before their internal organs were removed for further examination.
What the fuck?
I thought Lemmy would be a little more educated than Reddit…but nah.
Banting and Best used dog models to develop insulin.
Drugs don’t suddenly appear at pharmacies.
-
Pretty standard practice for animal research. Mainly mice and rats, but some types of research are better modeled by different animals.
like the discovery of insulin.
-
What makes dogs and cats special?
People only get outraged at cute animals.
-
In regard to some avenues of research that’s too bad. Cats are a point of study for weight gain and loss since they appear to have issues similar to us. Some cats gain and hold weight faster than their mates with similar amounts of food. Some cats compulsively overeat while their mates do not. And so on.
many human and dog genes are syntenic, they are very similar, on the same chromosomes.
Without dogs, Banting and Best would not have discovered insulin. That’s why the historic pictures always have Marjorie, she was not a pet.
-
as he called the practice “cruel.”
Cool. Then we can agree that fishing, animal-based agriculture, hunting, fur farms, and puppy mills should be banned, too? Right, Doug?
