Pledge “noanimaldrugs”
"I will promise not to use any drugs tested on animals but only if 50 other people will do the same."
— Lydia
Deadline to sign up by: 17th August 2005
13 people signed up, 37 more were needed
More details
You may have seen the controversial pledge on this web site in which people are giving money to AnimalAid to publish reports on animal testing. The pledge's opponents say that if the reports were good science and unbiased, then they wouldn't need the funding. Even worse, they accuse supporters of animal rights of being hypocrites -- they say we benefit from drugs tested on animals, so we shouldn't oppose new tests.
I've thought hard about this and come to a big ethical decision. I'm going to REFUSE any medical treatment, whether it's a drug or a process, whose development has involved animal tests.
I appreciate that this may have consequences for my health, just like refusing the MMR vaccine for my children. But I've come to the conclusion that if I'm really sincere in believing that animals have the same rights as human beings, I have to put my belief into practice.
Now there's obviously a practical issue: how am I going to know which drugs have involved animal tests? Well, that's where the supporters of animal tests come in. I'm hoping that instead of sending abusive messages, they will help us build the list of drugs and treatments that we're boycotting by sending in lists of drugs together with accompanying evidence
I've set up a spam-proof email address where anyone can send the name of a drug or treatment together with a web link explaining the role of animal tests in its development. The address is druglist.animaltests@spamgourmet.com
What I'm hoping is that when we have a critical mass of conscientious objectors to animal drug tests, I'll be able to set up a web site we can all go to before taking a drug prescribed by our doctors.
Of course, there may be situations (eg in the accident or emergency room of a hospital) where someone might give us an animal-tested treatment without our consent. So I'm hoping to set up a card system, similar to organ donation, that will let doctors or ambulance paramedics know that we REFUSE this kind of treatment. If you have suggestions on how to do this ,or you're willing to help, please send me an email at cardsystem.animaltests@spamgourmet.com.
But the most important thing is that you sign up to the pledge. Let's face the fact that human beings have got some benefits from animal tests. And let's be courageous in refusing to take those benefits. That way, the pro-testing lobby won't be able to accuse us of hypocrisy any more.
Thank you.
- to support my African American sisters and brothers businesses
- Be Keen on Clean
- give a percentage or more of the Canton Free TV project of $4000
- pledge 100USD
See more pledges, and all about how PledgeBank works.
Things to do with this pledge
Current signatories (
= they've done it)
Lydia, the Pledge Creator, joined by:
- Aaron Harwood
- Charlie
- David A.
- david mcgowan
- Number Six
- Kevin Hughes
- Rosemarie Marks-Crockett
- donna beetham
- herdis
- Danika Hawson
- Clare Potts
- 1 person who did not want to give their name
- 1 person who signed up via mobile
Comments on this pledge
Please do not deny yourself and your family such crucial things as vaccines. Vaccination is not only about the individual, but the good of society. Not taking vaccines leaves your children vulnerable to potentially fatal diseases and endangers others, since if you can catch the disease you can pass it on.
Please reconsider.
Thanks for taking this seriously, even though we may not agree. I'd be happy to discuss this issue with you directly, but I don't think this page is the place to do it.
If you email me on debate.animaltests@spamgourmet.com (a spam-resistant email address) then I'll be happy to reply directly to you and tell you why I believe this is the right thing to do.
Thank you for posting this pledge - the intention of which I do understand - and for supporting Animal Aid's pledge. I would ask you, however, to reconsider your request that people start refusing medical treatment that has been tested on animals.
Current regulations stipulate that all medical treatments have to be tested on animals, which means that ill people, including those who campaign for animal rights, are forced to take medicines that have been animal tested - or martyr themselves for their cause. Anti-vivisectionists should not be denied, nor forced to turn down, treatment because of their ethical views. They have no choice but to take animal-tested products - and should not have to sacrifice their own health, and perhaps even ultimately lives, in order to campaign for more ethical and efficacious science. Vivisectors on the other hand do have a choice - they could carry out their research into medicines and therapies using other means, but they choose not to.
We would respectfully encourage you to withdraw this pledge, as we feel it puts people in a very difficult situation. It is NOT hypocritical of people who are suffering from ill health and disease to take whatever treatment is on offer to them, whilst still calling for an end to animal testing.
Please feel free to contact me at claudia@animalaid.co.uk if you have any questions.
Kind regards
Claudia Tarry
Head of Campaign
Animal Aid
Great that you are taking part in the debate!
I wouldn't dream of criticising other people who have decided to make the ethical decision to accept treatments even though they may have been tested on animals. There's way too much abuse being thrown about in this debate to add any more.
Let's be honest with ourselves about this, though: there are a range of treatments available which haven't been animal-tested -- look at the breadth of complimentary and homeopathic and herbal and Chinese remedies.
And when it comes to areas of treatment where there's no complimentary alternative, we should remember that we do have the right to SAY NO if we choose to. There are many religious people, for instance, who will refuse blood transfusions for ethical reasons even if this has an adverse effect on their health.
Those people's views have tremendous moral force because they are backed up by a sincere willingness to suffer a negative consequence.
So to sum up: I can respect your position that you're opposed to animal testing but you want to take advantage of the results of it until it's abolished. But I'm sure you will also respect the position of those of us who sign up to this pledge.
My request to you is that you circulate the people who signed your petition with our exchange -- both your side and mine, and let them come to their own conclusions.
After all, we're all on the same side, right?
What I will do though, is consider helping you build a website listing medicines and reports of animal testing so that people may judge the extent if they should choose. It would also allow for each individual case to be argued on it's merits - people can argue for the taking of a vaccine due its impact on society, or against say social use of Viagra. This database could be extended to food stuffs and brands of make-up and could then be used as way of applying pressure on manufacturers to use fewer harmful chemicals and reduce the extent of animal testing.
If this sounds like something worth exploring, then get in touch and we'll see whether it's feasible. It would require a little funding if time was critical, so perhaps a pledge for that could be setup instead.
You've raised an important point: that I've unintentionally asked people to commit for a lifetime.
Do you think I should start a new pledge (you can't amend an existing one) where we just pledge for a year? Would that make you consider signing up?
I can appreciate your concerns. Yes, of course it's true that by refusing an immunization we can put other people at risk.
But once again, the key issue is whether we think humans are more important than animals. If we subscribe to the view of PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk, then we have to admit that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy".
Namely, that all species have the same moral rights.
I agree that it's tremendously sad if a child in my town has to die of disease because I've refused an immunization on behalf of my own child.
But if the effect of that is to save a dozen monkeys from terrible torture, then surely we'd all agree that this is a good outcome.
No?
Are you on crack or something? For a start u attach the cute monkey into the equation which is rubbish. Most tests are done on mice and rats. And second, you only mention 1 child. When have 12 moneys EVER been sacrificed for a single child anyway?
Your attitude is both dangerous, and uneducated. Even animal aid are against this bid, and refuse to help. Please do some real research before jumping into pledges that are harmful to society.
You should be forbidden from having children. A court of law would have no hesitation taking your child away if you refused them all forms of medical treatment.
Good day.
I'm sorry you don't feel able to sign the pledge. It's clear that reasonable people can agree to differ on this.
Maybe I could suggest that if you don't feel strong enough yet to turn down animal-test-based medical treatment for the next year, you could at least contribute £10 to the Animal Aid pledge.
They're raising money to fund the publication of new scientific research that will prove how unnecessary animal tests are.
Thank you for considering this anyway!
Can I just say that regarding the above quotation, no benefit to human kind has EVER come from animal experimentation. Tossing a coin would be more accurate at predicting the result of a drug on the human body than vivisection. Because vivisection is so inaccurate and unreliable, it is in fact the human volunteers who first take the new drugs who are the real "guinea-pigs". Vivisection is a completely useless means of testing whether or not new drugs are safe to take. The drugs we have now that may be helpful have come about not through animal experimentation, but through trial-and-error - in other words, we would have the same drugs now had we never used vivisection, because testing on animals makes no difference whatsoever. Vivisection, is, in fact, killing us. It's even creating new problems/diseases. And it's killing the earth too. For more information see
http://www.bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie...
Also, someone else referred to vaccinations as 'crucial' - they are not. In fact, they are highly dangerous - for example, there is strong evidence to suggest that all cases of Polio in America are caused by, wait for it...:The Polio Vaccine! See:
http://bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/50Thing...
I can't sign your pledge, as I disagree too much with your comment about vivisection benefiting human health. I do try to avoid using animal-tested drugs though, and will continue to do so - taking animal tested drugs would be compromising my beliefs, giving money to pharmaceutical companies, and I don't reckon it would be all that safe either! I'm a great believer in natural/ alternative health: after all, it's a lot safer than conventional medicine, and it actually works.
I would very highly recommend both
http://www.curedisease.net/
and
http://www.bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
to you and anyone else interested in the case against vivisection.
If you look at the correspondence on the original Animal Aid pledge, you'll see how many people wrote hostile messages claiming humans had benefited from animal tests.
My comment was partly intended to mollify those opponents so we could get on with the real work of saying no to animal-tested drugs.
I can respect the strength of your disagreement, and you certainly sound really well informed. (Are you a research scientist or perhaps a doctor?)
But we're trying to do something practical here: get a critical mass of people who actually pledge for the next twelve months not to use any animal-tested drugs or treatments.
It sounds as though you would absolutely be willing to take the pledge. And if you can, that will get us one person closer to our target, and help us get valuable publicity on the Pledgebank home page.
So let's continue the discussion about whether the benefits to humans from animal tests are zero or above -- but in the meantime, let's try to do something to change the world.
In short, -- please pledge! There's nothing in the pledge saying you have to accept that animal tests have delivered human benefits.
I think saying vaccines are dangerous is very unfair. Polio used to kill thousands and maim many more, but it is now nearly erradicated, thanks to vaccines. It is actually coming back in some countries where they refuse to use the vaccines and that is a great shame.
The reason why the polio vaccine can cause polio is because it is a live vaccine. In a few individuals this reactivates and causes the disease (about 1 in 2.4 million!) However, a new polio vaccine has been created which is inactived and does not cause polio.
Get your facts straight. They have been no wild cases of polio in the US for 20 years, thanks to vaccines.
I appreciate your opinion on the dangers of vaccines, but could we please avoid using this pledge page to discuss it?
Anyone is welcome to use the comments here to express your views on the pledge to avoid using animal-tested drugs or treatments for the next year.
If you'd like to discuss anything else, then please publish your views on a separate web page and email me at comments.animaltests@spamgourmet.com. I will then publish a set of links for everyone who wants to follow the debate.
Thank you!
I respect your right to choose to refuse treatment - I don't agree with your decision, for many reasons (concerning both its basis and its potential consequences), but you are (I assume) an adult, and the decision is yours to make.
What I do take exception to, however, is the fact that you say you have refused the MMR vaccine for your children based on your own ethical principles. Quite simply, if you wish to undertake a risk to your *own* life in defence of your principles, then this is your own affair - but you do not have the right to compel others to do the same. I am a committed vegetarian, but if and when I ever have children, I most certainly will not expect the same of them - that decision will be theirs to make for themselves, when they are old enough to understand all the issues involved.
The question of whether to refuse medical treatment is even more important than this, as the implications for health are so much greater - and so the answer *must* be the same. You fully acknowledge that there is a risk to your health, perhaps even to your life, by making this undertaking, but by imposing your own standards on your children, you are risking their lives as well, and that is something which, without their informed consent when they reach maturity, you have no right to do. Your first responsibility on becoming a parent must be to the health and well-being of your children. When they are old enough to consider all the implications, they may well decide to join you in your views - but that decision must be theirs, not yours.
Please reconsider!