Vaccines for all

[MargeB]

Should animal rights activists have access to vaccines against disease? No vaccines have been developed without animal testing, yet these people would ban all animal testing and some actively seek to thwart it.  

[Peter Pedant]

Oh, in a pickle, you're my generation.

Thalidomide was not tested on pregnant anything as it was a given that pregnancy could not be shifted. So teratogenicity just didnt occur to anyone - until it occurred if you get what I mean.

The view then was why bother to test it on pregnant rats, because the rat pup will always survive.....even if the mother dies.

[woofgang]

I would like to point out that this "it will drive research abroad where the rules are less strict" argument has its limits. We can all give examples of behaviours (hunting with dogs, suicide, child prostitution, dog fighting,its a long list) which are banned in the UK. Should we not ban these because people can go abroad and do it legally?

If we are considering a situation where there is no animal testing (development of vaccines) then of course there wouldn't be a law requiring them to be tested on animals!!

The other particular aspect of vaccination is "herd immunity" This means that provided the majority of the population who are at risk have been vaccinated and are protected, an epidemic is unlikely because the infection cannot spread. Therefore it could be argued that it is in all our interests for as many people as possible to receive vaccination regardless of their personal beliefs.

[woofgang]

PS littleoldme. In the UK, relatives cannot consent or refuse medical procedures on behalf of another adult. Their views are canvassed and taken into account, but ultimately it is the responsible physician who decides

[january_bug]

woofgang - I take your point on the technical side of consent, but of course in reality, to avoid being sued, doctors will tend to take those views into account.  Then of course there's when a person is mentally ill and the family has an EPA (enduring power of attorney).  I believe that has legal consequences in medical decisions.  I certainly know that my Mum's and Grandad's opinions were always 100% respected when Nana was ill. 

One thing that seems clear to be from the comments about animal rights folk is that there is clearly a spectrum of involvement.  From those, like me, who object to testing on animals for cosmetics and household cleaning products, right up to those who believe that farming is cruel and should be stopped.  I admit I hadn't realised the range was so broad before this debate. 

[woofgang]

Sorry January_bug I am not being argumentative, but this is a common misconception about EPA

It does not allow the holder of the EPA to consent or refuse medical treatment on behalf of the patient. That decision remains with the responsible doctor although, of course the views of relatives etcetera are respected and canvassed

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/law/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=12541&r=46598

[january_bug]

Fair enough - that's EXACTLY why I used cautious language and said "I believe".  It wasn't me that had the EPA, and funnily enough it's not the happiest of subjects so I didn't like to bring up with my Mum the fact that Nana became a total stranger, frightened of everyone and totally changed from the woman we'd known and loved, just to check the legal accuracy of my comments for some unimportant discussion on this site.  Therefore, I was deliberately vague in my statement. 

I didn't think you were being argumentative until you said so.  Now I'm just confused. 

[woofgang]

No, its just that I work in the health service and people have said to me that their son or daughter has an EPA so if they can't consent then the son or daughter can, and have had some uncomfortable moments with family members who hold an EPA and therefore think that they can tell us what can or cannot happen to their relative. Actually I was taking advantage of your comment to publicise, even in a small way the limitations of an EPA.

I'm so sorry about your Nan. Illnesses of that nature that are very hard for a loving family to cope with.

[january_bug]

Of course the biggest problem with an EPA, is in a situation like we experienced, where (at the time at least) we had to get her to sign permission slip things.  She knew she was ill, and it was basically forcing her her acknowledge that she was going to lose her mind.  But of course we needed the EPA for her own benefit.  It did make my parents' lives a lot easier though - from my experience they certainly do help. 

[simsfreq]

The technology we have now is advanced enough for us not to have to use animals to test on any more. Animal testing is barbaric, especially for cosmetics. I don't think it is so bad for medical uses, but we have the resources now, why not use them?

[Chapel]

Vaccines and medicines have been produced in spite of animal testing, not because of.

I am not a gerbil, so why should it be assumed that medicines found to act a certain way on one will act the same in me?

You may as well say that it's perfectly safe for a human to spend a half hour under water without a tank of air because blue whales can do it without any obvious bad effects.