Great. I’ll buy some for my old, senile mouse. Maybe.
Can we reliably determine that a product is safe for humans by testing it on animals, or is that also a fallacy?
Where as deaths[b] could be, in theory, a controlled and limited number of willing participants, deaths[a] could, in theory, be millions of disease victims.
a is not fewer than b.
How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.
Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer.
>How many of those "willing participants" [are willing]
Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be.
I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
Precisely, and for the same reasons.
> I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life.
I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement.
As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.