Controversial Topic

[ladybug]

OK, so I've always been a huge advocate for not testing cosmetics or beauty products on animals. I've also made it a point to only support medical charities that don't test on animals OR are actively looking for alternatives to testing medications, etc. on animals. My DH and I only do 5K walks for charities that don't test on animals.

I do realize many things simply must be tested on them in order to ensure safety. Although I abhor it, I do realize its necessity. My feeling is that, as long as the company is actively trying to find other means, they are at least trying.

I have known for years the CFF conducts animal research. I am not sure if they conduct any research using any other cutting edge methods besides animal testing in the early phases of development. I also don't know if they're trying to use animals as little as possible or seeking other ways of doing research.

I don't know how I feel about this. I generally raise money only for my local CF chapter that isn't associated with CFF and raises funds for scholarships, help with financial difficulties, raising awareness, etc. in North Dakota. The money raised goes directly into the pockets of the residents of ND that need it. I have supported and raised funds for them for years, and feel very good about it.

... Although, I find myself feeling guilty for not actively supporting CFF for the animal testing issue. I want to benefit from these things and I want others to benefit. Although, I often do take a medication and wonder how many animals had to suffer for me to get this medication or treatment.

Now, I know this may anger or hurt some of you out there, and that is not my intent. I have NEVER told anyone this before, and feel I can get some rational responses here. I really want to be able to allow myself to give to CFF without remorse and feelings of guilt. I'm always happy when my friends and family give to CFF (though it does always enter my mind), but I still keep in my mind that "I'M" not helping to fund such experiments.

Please forgive me. Does anyone have any suggestions how to get over these feelings so I may give? I would love if someone came on here and said, "Oh, CFF doesn't do THAT anymore.", but I'm afraid that is not the case.

 

[wanderlost]

Interesting topic. You certainly don't offend me - I am not for animal testing either, for cosmetics anyway - but I have read some really great arguments that show the pros of animal testing stating Cf as a great representation of why it is necessary. I guess I never thought much about it - and maybe I am a bit selfish, but I'd hate to have CF genetic testing and such thwarted because PETA got involved or something. So I don't have an answer for your moral dilemma...I guess if your're going ot take the meds you'll have to find a way to cope with that added side effect...??

 

[Allie]

I wish I could tell you they don't but they probably do. I know how I rationalize it for myself, but I don't think that would work for you.

Maybe think about everyone that it helps, for the good of all people with CF, and that they didn't die in vain, they died to provide a better life for you, for everyone on this site. To give one extra day to you and your husband.

And know that they have few alternatives...people aren't going to offer themselves up for compleely un tested drugs, it's just the way of the world, unfortunately. We all have sacrifices to make. Ry's generation was the sacrifice for the one just being born. They tried new things,, got rid of the mist tents, refined procedures, so a baby born today may see his daughter grow up, when Ry didn't get to. Sometimes the sacrifice is great. But I think....sometimes you have to amke that choice. I mean, pulmozyme is made out of hamster ovaries....would you stop using that?

I make no sense, but those are some thoughts.

 

[catboogie]

sonia,

i'm a little nervous what other people will respond to this, but i think it is GREAT that you are thinking (deeply and ethically) about the sources of your medications. in college i took some environmental ethics classes, and this is one of the topics that we discussed: if you agree that animals have "rights," like humans, then how does one justify us putting them to death--or worse, making them suffer--for our benefit?

i am really conscious about the products i buy. i will not buy lotions or shampoos or any of that kind of stuff if it has been tested on animals. that kind of testing seems frivilous. i think it comes down to each of us deciding for ourselves which kinds of animal testing, if any, should be allowed. most of us, like myself, i bet will say, sure, they don't want a bunny tortured to have safe lipstick, but the cure for cancer? sure, those rabbits seem like a small sacrifice... [by the way, if more companies would use non-chemical ingredients in their products, there would be a much less need for animal testing.]

honestly, if you love and cherish animals like you and i do, i really don't think there is any ethical justification for what is done to animals. it is anthropocentrism at its worst. it is almost impossible for anyone to imagine themselves not reaping the benefits of modern science at the expense of animals. though i don't agree with the tactics, would i be willing to face life without drugs that were safely tested? i don't know...

i could go on and on here...unfortunately instead of giving an answer i think i have just laid out the argument... BUT, if i was in your shoes, and i felt strongly against animal testing, i would simply give/fundraise for the places that you feel most deserve your money. if you think the CF foundation is aware of the problem and tries to handle it responsibly, then it might be okay. if not, there are plenty of other organizations out there doing the right thing who might better deserve your money.

laura

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for the replies.... I do think of those things, and that is why it makes me happy that others donate to CFF.... I just wish <b>I</b> could donate and feel better about it. I wish <b>I</b> could do the walks and raise money for various things for them.... I know I benefit tremendously from all of that, and I'm so happy others do to. I just kinda feel hypocritical for doing that, and in the same breath advocating against animal testing.

I know there are breast cancer companies that have found other ways of testing using computers and another thing I cannot quite remember but it has to do with creating something that mimicks skin cells, etc. to test things on instead of the actual skin/cells of an animal.

I also feel that animal testing is often just wrong in its conclusions. For example, anyone hear the recent report that green tea in fact doesn't have the health benefits once thought? That's because original tests were done on mice and THEY had good results, but they cannot accurately be translated to humans. I worry that by supporting companies that test on animals, I may be helping to "destroy" the animals who's lives were in vain because the stuff doesn't/didn't work anyway like it was supposed to.

I guess you both make valid points. I just wish I could get past this. <sigh>

 

[ladybug]

Good points, Laura....

How do I know whole-heartedly that CFF treats the lab animals well? Or, that they are working to develop other means? I mean, perhaps I am a skeptic and a bit cynical, but even if I call them and discuss my concerns, will they really give me a truthful answer if it means one less person to donate if they say something I don't want to hear?

URGH.....

I'm mostly angry at myself about this. But, you do all make valid points. I just don't want to be a hypocrit in my own eyes or anyone elses'. For example, my family knows how against animal testing I am, so when they are raising money for things like "March of Dimes" who I know breaks the bones of animals to test treatments on them, they shy away from asking me. So, how would it be for me to go up to them to raise money for a charity that also tests on animals just cause it will benefit me?

 

[Allie]

To me, it's the arguement of ethical use. I don't buy shamppo and stuff tested on animals, because it's frivolous and ridiculous.

But honestly, Sonia, if there were no animal testing, there would be no new drugs. We'd be left with what we have now, the median age stuck at 36.8. Even if you don't donate, when you have a medical need, you have to reconcile that stuff. All your drugs were tested on animals. Pulmozyme is made from animals organs. I couldn't live with letting the age stay where it is now. Sonia, I totally respect your beliefs....but with CF, you almost have to be a hypocrite, using the medicines you do.

Nothing in life is black and white, no matter what the books say. There is always a grey zone. I come from a tradition where the good of mankind is above all, so ethical animal testing is fine, but then again, so is stem cell research for us, and I know some people won't agree with that.

I understand, really....but I think the CFF is great for pioneering treatments. Maybe designate your donations? Designate them to office costs or something. Then your money won't directly be going to testing. We're the opposite, we designate ours to theraputics. I wish I could help you out, but if we all only donated to things that didn't test drugs....we'd have no drugs.

 

[anonymous]

The problem with ethical dilemmas is that it's a long grey continuum with clear right and wrong only at the very end of a spectrum of situations. Pretty much everything a human does from at least the moment of birth onward poses ethical questions about the right or appropriate level of human impact on the world and other creatures in it. So much of what we do every day we've not thought deeply enough about to fret over, but that does not mean there's not a negative effect on some other living thing somewhere along the way. Medical research involving animals is just so much harder to skim over once you get to know how it really works. It can be uncomfortable being the dominant animal in an ecosystem. My limits of acceptable use changed dramatically after my son was born with CF. That's just blatant self-interest, but I'd not choose to save a mouse instead of my son.

 

[miesl]

Sigh...

"by the way, if more companies would use non-chemical ingredients in their products, there would be a much less need for animal testing"

Is bull. Everything is a chemical, and everything has toxicity and hazards associated with it. Granola-crunchiness does not make something perfect.

The problem with this whole issue is that most people don't see it from the other side. I currently work in a toxicology department. Animal testing is just the way it is. Animals are not "tortured" for cosmetic testing. People get all "Oh the poor little bunnies can't be tested on", then turn right around and sue the manufacturer when whatever product turns up some side effect that could have been found through testing. Would you really prefer to see "Through years of study on our employees we have found this to be noncancerous?" I'm not kidding either, I have seen that on a document before. Needless to say, I was a bit concerned.

 

[ladybug]

Well, I don't really want this to get to be a debate on testing beauty products on animals, but the fact remains that there are many companies out there that ARE FDA approved and have never tested their products on animals or used animal by-products. So, it can be and is done.

Here is a link to such a list.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.caringconsumer.com/pdfs/companiesDontTest.pdf">http://www.caringconsumer.com/.../companiesDontTest.pdf</a>



The fact is, if some companies can do this, all should be able to do this.

But, please, my post is not about testing beauty supplies, it is about CFF and research with animals.

 

[ladybug]

Here is a summary of the tests that charities can and DO carry out without the use of animals:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.humaneseal.org/research.html">http://www.humaneseal.org/research.html</a>

I'm posting this because I earlier referenced the <i>in vitro</i> tests, which I didn't know the name of.

 

[miesl]

Psst, wanna know a secret? Those companies can do that because of years of published animal study data. Plus, using PETA as a source in any debate is extremely questionable.

 

[miesl]

This is why it fails to apply to the CFF and the pharma industry - quote from the FDA's website...

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Stages of Drug Development and Review
1. INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG APPLICATION (IND)

The FDA first enters the picture when a drug sponsor submits an IND to the agency. Sponsors--companies, research institutions, and other organizations that take responsibility for marketing a drug--must show the FDA results of pre-clinical testing they've done in laboratory animals and what they propose to do for human testing. At this stage, the FDA decides whether it is reasonably safe to move forward with testing the drug on humans.

2. CLINICAL TRIALS
</end quote></div>

It's required. End of story.

 

[ladybug]

I knew the PETA debate would come up based on the stigma surrounding them. However, if you click on the products named, you will see they don't do animal testing. Also, you can read on the backs of their products. And, yes, SOME of them may have been due to years of past animal research, but the fact remains, they are NO LONGER doing it, so other companies could do the same. Just use the data from prior research without continuing the testing and move on.

 

[ladybug]

Either way, my original post is getting lost....

My dillema was not that CFF SHOULD NOT test on animals and why they do or don't, it is how I can support them knowing they do. It is a morality issue, not a "should" or "should not".

I did post the links to what other charities are doing merely as a reference, not to suggest CFF must or should or can start doing so.

In theory, I really do support what CFF has brought into my life. I am just trying to grasp how I can support them with my convictions being as they are. That's all.

 

[Allie]

Getting back to the original point, I would say, Sonia, you just have to know that it is being done for you, and if you choose not to support them, I don't know....wouldn't it be hard to use the medicines they comes up with, knowing how they were made. I hope you can see past this, since they are required to test on animals, and see the good they have done.

 

[miesl]

I'm sorry, but PETA does have a history of extremist viewpoints.

So then, you want all human testing and no new formulations for cosmetics ever?

Are you a toxicologist or a chemist? Data from prior research only gets you so far. Once testing is done on a product it's done. They don't think of shiny new ways to torture animals.

Do you want to be responsible when an unexpected synergistic (it doesn't just happen with meds you know) effect in a new product causes blindness upon eye exposure to the human volunteers?

 

[ladybug]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>ladybug</b></i>

I do realize many things simply must be tested on them in order to ensure safety. Although I abhor it, I do realize its necessity.......



... Although, I find myself feeling guilty for not actively supporting CFF for the animal testing issue. I want to benefit from these things and I want others to benefit. Although, I often do take a medication and wonder how many animals had to suffer for me to get this medication or treatment.



Now, I know this may anger or hurt some of you out there, and that is not my intent. I have NEVER told anyone this before, and feel I can get some rational responses here. I really want to be able to allow myself to give to CFF without remorse and feelings of guilt. I'm always happy when my friends and family give to CFF (though it does always enter my mind), but I still keep in my mind that "I'M" not helping to fund such experiments.



<b>I'm just reposting so the initial topic doesn't get lost.</b>

 

[miesl]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>ladybug</b></i>
My dillema was not that CFF SHOULD NOT test on animals and why they do or don't, it is how I can support them knowing they do. It is a morality issue, not a "should" or "should not". </end quote></div>

See my post from the FDA website - it's not a choice. You want medications, they have to animal test. The End.

 

[ladybug]

What do you want for me to say, miesl that now my ethical dillema is solved? That you've helped clear this up by pointing out that its necessary? I KNOW that. In my initial post I said that it is necessary and I realize the CFF does it out of necessity. Re-hashing the "animal testing issue" is not helping my dillema. My initial post has nothing to do with it.