Animals killed for training

[Margaret Pilkington]

You are welcome.
I can live with the views of others. They have their reasons for their belief system...and it deserves respect.
It would be a very boring world if we all had the same thoughts about things.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by RainbowSix

I wonder if the OP thinks that the people doing this actually "like" doing it?

Its necessary training to ensure that the medics are able top practice their training on live subjects without actually harming a human to do it.

Its not like using a crash dummy to test a car safety, it has to have living breathing flesh. Dead bodies react in different ways to live ones, wounds do too.

Thanks for your input RS.

I'm not sure if they "like" doing it....probably/hopefully not.
Would it be fair to say that animal flesh/wounds might react different to a humans?
Would it also be fair to say that compared to operating on pigs that have been shot, lifelike human simulations (like the one I mentioned) are a far superior way of preparing these doctors to treat injured humans?

Besides I'm sure they are fully aware by now of how flesh reacts to being shot.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Some animal flesh may react in a different way.....pig flesh is as close to human flesh as it can possibly be...and the anatomy is the same too.
It isn't just the way human flesh reacts to being shot, but it is reconstruction of flesh, organs and developing skills that will make this better for field surgeons.
The Ceasar simulator might be good for some practice methods, but no good for others.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

I'm just split between what I think about killing innocent animals and the benefits (if any) to saving soldiers life's.

What exactly are "innocent" animals and how do they differ from "guilty" animals? If you eat meat and wear leather (neither of which are prerequisites for human existence), "innocent" animals are being killed for your pleasure everyday.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

What exactly are "innocent" animals and how do they differ from "guilty" animals? If you eat meat and wear leather (neither of which are prerequisites for human existence), "innocent" animals are being killed for your pleasure everyday.

I comprehend what your saying,perhaps I shouldn't of categorised them

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

What exactly are "innocent" animals and how do they differ from "guilty" animals? If you eat meat and wear leather (neither of which are prerequisites for human existence), "innocent" animals are being killed for your pleasure everyday.

Also for the record,
A innocent animal is, a pig that's strung up and shot to serve a controversial purpose (like medical training).
A guilty animal is humans that take a country to war over land,oil,greed.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Also for the record,
A innocent animal is, a pig that's strung up and shot to serve a controversial purpose (like medical training).
A guilty animal is humans that take a country to war over land,oil,greed.

Are the guilty animals not the ones who do the fighting instead of saying no?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Also for the record,
A innocent animal is, a pig that's strung up and shot to serve a controversial purpose (like medical training).
A guilty animal is humans that take a country to war over land,oil,greed.

Those would be politicians then...if you speak to most people in the street they abhor such practices.

No sane person wants to go to war - and politicians will volunteer our sons and daughters to go and fight on foreign soil, but would be unlikely to go themselves.

This thread show that not everyone finds the subject controversial....but media hype tries to make it so by not giving the full facts, or by distorting the facts.
Like everything else in life, you have to balance out the benefits against the losses.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Also for the record,
A innocent animal is, a pig that's strung up and shot to serve a controversial purpose (like medical training).
A guilty animal is humans that take a country to war over land,oil,greed.

Who says it's controversial? A fish-and-chip wrapper like the Mirror and you? As DinG said way back at the start of this thread, it's important that medics are trained to give effective treatment to our lads and lasses in the battlefield. Some of the wars they are required to fight in are unjust in my opinion, especially in recent years, but they are there to defend our country when the need arises and I would prefer them to receive the highest standard of treatment available, even if it means sacrificing a few "innocent" pigs.

Incidentally, do you worry over the fate of "innocent" pigs when you're chomping your way through your sausage butties?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

There are other subjects I'd replace the pigs with,I'll leave it to your imagination

I, too, am surprised that no one has suggested using convicted murderers, rapists, and other associated nasty people ... maybe some would include pedophiles, queers, and various ethnic groups. Even Jews ... but that's already been tried. There's never a shortage of posters who leap onto the capital punishment bandwagon and compete in coming up with creative ways of dealing with crime and assorted "deviances".

However, I do tend to agree with you on the question of using pigs as experimental subjects. And I do think that certain questions are being ignored. Why is the practice illegal in Great Britain? Why, in the 21st. century, is this the best we can come up with, as there seem to be few limits to human ingenuity when it comes to developing weapons systems and smart phones? And, no doubt, there are more.

There is also the irony that, in a largely post-Christian world, most humans still go along with the Biblical idea that God created the world merely for humans to use as they see fit. Unfortunately for us, and the planet in general, this hubristic way of thinking is leading us, at an ever increasing speed, in the direction of the Holocene extinction. Which, thank God, will not happen until after I've shuffled off this mortal coil.

[Accyexplorer]

Originally Posted by Neil

Are the guilty animals not the ones who do the fighting instead of saying no?

Yes,although they aren't as guilty as the politicians for starting the ruddy things.

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Who says it's controversial? A fish-and-chip wrapper like the Mirror and you?

Incidentally, do you worry over the fate of "innocent" pigs when you're chomping your way through your sausage butties?

Who says it's not controversial? You and a few "accywebbers".here are 4000+ that disagree:
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...itary-training
I don't like sausage butties

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Yes,although they aren't as guilty as the politicians for starting the ruddy things.



Who says it's not controversial? You and a few "accywebbers".here are 4000+ that disagree:
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...itary-training
I don't like sausage butties

4,000 out of a population of 60m? Hardly a mass protest, is it? Whether you like sausage butties or not, the point I was making is that if you're a meat eater, you're using animals for your convenience, so it seems somewhat hypocritical to protest about this.

[Boeing Guy]

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

Yes,although they aren't as guilty as the politicians for starting the ruddy things.

So if you take the Queen's Shilling your guilty......

We have an Armed forces to protect our National Interests, so,thing that out Trident Nuclear Deterrent cannot do on its own.
You ignored my comment on the small fact that treatment practices on the battlefield often lead to major advances in treatment in Casualty, Trauma for one.
You have twice now posted that wars for,greed, oil, land etc are not, in your opinion, right. Well here's a surprise, most of us would agree with that.

However our serving Lads and Lasses deserve the very best treatment if they are injured, in fact I am still mad that Teflon and the One Eyed Scottish Idiot broke the covenant the UK government had with our Armed Forces, but I digress.

As I said earlier, have you ever taken any drug, they are tested on animals, sometimes with unpalatable results, but they do not get the coverage the Great Daily Mirror gives this.
If you will read a rag then what do you expect.....

[Less]

Well, BG you've just knackered your chances of the creep thanking you for your input.
Still not to worry, you are only one of the few 'AccyWebbers', that it thought needed to be asked, pity it didn't like the answers.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

the small fact that treatment practices on the battlefield often lead to major advances in treatment in Casualty, Trauma for one.

This argument has been advanced at least since Hippocrates: "He who would become a surgeon should find an army and follow it." It's also worth arguing that advances in aircraft design and safety are accelerated by a good old fashioned knock-down, drag-out war. But in all cases of war acting as an accelerant to scientific and technological development, lots of questions go begging for answers. Not the least is: "Is it worth tens of millions of deaths?"

I'm sure that most of us are aware of the use of animals for testing drugs. And many are aware that alternatives are available, and are being introduced.

What irks me is that, with our seemingly unlimited inventive capacity, we still use barbaric methods.

Oh, and Churchill liked pigs.