Testing Medicine

[Micilin]

Trying (for once ) not to hijack another thread where refusing medicine at hospital or GP on ethical grounds was mentioned.

And although this one will probably divert into a debate about those ethics, I'd really like to know if anyone can tell me where to find out :

:what proportion of drugs prescribed or used on hospitals have been animal tested

:what proportion of 'new drugs' have been (say last 15 years? what would be a good timescale for 'new'?)

: is there a list of 'ethical' drugs for those who wish to refuse 'non ethical' (obviously 'ethical' is loaded here - but is there such a list by different organisations?

 

[cajar]

As far as I know, all medicines go through development phase of animal testing, then human testing (clinical trials) then after being made available to the public, a long period of monitoring, before being considered truly safe.

If a company brought out a new drug it would be irresponsible of it to start testing on humans without first observing it in animals.

I don't think there is any list of 'ethical' medicines like you get with beauty products (which, btw are the same ingredients from old products where the effects are already known from previous animal testing)

 

[Micilin]

Cajar ,thanks for the reply.

So in effect all NHS medicines have been animal tested?

So the choice is quite stark if you are anti testing. Medicine or not.

 

[cajar]

Yes, and I have never known an animal rights protestor to die from refusing medicine that would save them, yet that is essentially what they are expecting other people to do by trying to stop or hinder drug research.

 

[rjm2k]

I don't know to what extent but they do use some software simulation these days, older drugs will no doubt not be covered by that. You could always just refuse treatment unless they could show you the ethical badge for the life saving drugs. Hope you aren't an insulin dependent diabetic!

 

[cajar]

I would be the opposite, I wouldn't take any treatment that hadn't been tested on animals. just wouldn't be safe.

 

[JBR]

Hope you aren't an insulin dependent diabetic!

As far as I'm aware insulin is now produced synthetically, at least in this country. That's just as well, as muslims would be a bit stuck otherwise.

I wonder how strictly they'd adhere to their religious beliefs if their lives depended on it.

 

[Space cat]

I wonder how strictly they'd adhere to their religious beliefs if their lives depended on it.

I once asked a Muslim a similar question about eating pork. To be precise, I suggested the idea of Muslims starving to death in a sausage factory. His replied that quite categorically that he was allowed to eat pork if it was the only way he could survive; so not so stupid after all. I'm guessing that the same rule applies to medicines.

Any Muslims care to comment?

 

[Norcon]

Testing on animals is no guarantee its not harmful so its a bit dumb to say don't take it as its not tested on an animal.

Wouldn't be safe.... LMAO.

 

[cajar]

Animal testing gives a good idea of what effect the drug will have on humans, so it's no guarantee but it's a lot better than software simulation, and that's why animal testing is the law for all new drugs.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

and yet the Vets will say all medicine for humans is not suitable for animals! but most medicines intended for humans can be used on animals as long as it is given according to body weight proportionating it.

Excpet some medicine that can genuinely harm animals, most antibiotics are safe if given to animals in appropriate dosage.