Dierproeven

Al jaren lang worden er dierproeven gedaan, vooral om de mens te voorzien met alle dingen die zij willen. Voor een heleboel dingen word er getest, make up, verzorgingsproducten zoals shampoo en bodylotion, schoonmaakmiddelen maar ook voor medicijnen en het bestrijden van alle soorten en maten van ziektes, van een kleine verkoudheid tot ernstige dingen als kanker. Hoewel we ze heel dankbaar mogen zijn wat er door hun allemaal is ontwikkeld, is het niet eerlijk dat wij hun gebruiken om er zelf beter van te worden. Want dat is wat we doen, we worden er zelf beter van om hun te pijnigen en te laten lijden. Een hond of een muis zal je nooit horen zeggen, "Hey, haal die spuit is uit me nek, ik prik jou toch ook niet." Maar geeft dat ons het recht gewoon door te gaan met mishandeling? Als iemand op mij iets zou proberen uit te testen zou ik onmiddelijk alle judo en boks technieken toepassen die ik bezit om duidelijk te maken dat ik daar NIET van gediend ben. Maar hoe is het nou voor zo een dier? Doordat die ons niet kan vertellen wanneer we te ver gaan, zullen we niet op tijd stoppen met mishandelen. En vanaf wanneer is het eigenlijk mishandelen? Nog veel belangrijker is eigenlijk de vraag, als dierproeven niet meer kunnen, wat word dan het alternatief? Voor een aantal dingen hebben we dierproeven niet nodig, om de reden dat het luxeartikelen zijn. Make up is eigenlijk al een overbodige luxe, toch gebruiken wij het. Omdat je mensen niet kan verplichten geen make up meer te dragen, zijn er alternatieven bedacht om toch make up te maken zonder dierproeven. Veel bedrijven maken hier dan ook goed gebruik van. Helaas niet elk merk, omdat het een dure investering is die minder goed werken dan dierproeven. Maar er zijn hier dus zeker wel alternatieven voor. Iets waar helaas nog geen goede alternatieven voor zijn, is voor de ontwikkeling van medicijnen tegen ziektes als onder andere kanker zonder de hulp van dierproeven. Hier zijn dierproeven eigenlijk cruciaal omdat dierproeven het mogelijk maken de medicijnen te ontwikkelen. Doordat dieren heel dicht bij de mens staan, reageert hun lichaam bij veel dingen hetzelfde als dat van ons. Hier bedoel ik mee reactie op ziektes en bestrijding van die ziektes. Omdat het bij ons als mensen niet zou opkomen om op onszelf te testen, wat ook best begrijpelijk is, testen wij als mensen op dieren, wat niet echt begrijpelijk is. Wat ik met dit stukje wil zeggen is dat ik helemaal tegen dierproeven ben, maar wel voor zover dat mogelijk is. Ik ben ook een voorstander van de ontwikkeling van medicijnen tegen ernstige ziektes, en helaas kunnen die nog niet worden volbracht zonder dierproeven. Daarom wil ik laten weten dat ik begrijp dat er nog dierproeven zijn voor medicijnen maar voor overbodige luxeartikelen zou het wel verboden moeten worden! Zodra er alternatieven vrij komen zouden mensen die moeten gebruiken. Dierproeven zijn nodig voor onze eigen gezondheid, niet voor onze schoonheid.

Links

Links naar andere sites

Merken

Heel veel merken gebruiken voor hun producten dierproeven. Alle soorten producten bedoel ik hiermee, van gezichtsverzorging en make up naar schoonmaakmiddelen en medicijnen ontwikkelinh. De reden dat deze merken dierproeven gebruiken is vrij simpel; Goedkoop, Snel, Makkelijk en HET WERKT GOED. Omdat de dier het dichtst bij de mens staat is het praktisch hun te gebruiken voor het redden van onze gezondheid. In dit stukje wil ik jullie graag laten zien welke (bekende) merken geen gebruik maken van dierproeven. Ik wil niks zeggen over welke merken wel gebruik maken van dierproeven, het is niet aan mij hun te bekritiseren. Toch vind ik het wel belangrijk te laten weten welke merken wel 'goed bezig zijn'. Hieronder een lijstje: Revlon The Body Shop Botanics Esteé Lauder Chanel Clinique Hard Candy M.A.C. Cosmetics Nexxus Nivea OPI Products Oriflame Urban Decay Victoria's Secret The Wella Corporation (Sebastian) Lush HEMA Kruidvat DA drogisterijen

Unnecessary luxury?

Animal testing may be one of the most cruel things done in this world. Still, lots of brands do animal tests, simply because they think it is neccesary. The question is, is it neccesary? Is it possible to live without animal tests? It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. This statement is used by people who fight animal testing. They say that nothing needs to be tested on animals, that it is all possible to be tested in any other way. For this they have many different arguments. Some people may say that brands like HEMA and Etos are against animal tests and therefore do not use them. However, before companies like HEMA and Etos have the products, the industries and labaratories might have done animal tests already. A company like HEMA or Etos is than not responsible for the animal tests and therefore can say they do not test on animals. Also people might argue that make up from big brands like Loréal Paris and Versace are tested on animals while it is not necessary. They seem to think make up is an unnecessary luxury. Nevertheless, almost 40% of the Dutch society uses make up, either animal tested or not. That means that of the about 16 million people 6.400.000 people use make up, use unnecessary luxury. It is unfair, even impossible to decide that nobody may use make up anymore. People have accepted make up because it is nice and makes a person feel prettier and so it is impossible to forbid people from using it. Also make up is not only used for fun. People with for instance scars or burn wounds in their face use make up too, as to hide their defects. It would be unfair to take their chance of looking like everybody else away, to be socially accepted, only because we think it is unfair to the animals. Is it not unfair for the people with the scars in their face, with wounds? Unnecessary luxury or not, people will use make up because of esthetic reasons. Further, people might discuss the fact that some important medicines are tested on animals while it might not be essential. Although this might sound correct, it is not entirely true. Many serious diseases as cancer could not be handled with as we can now if the medications were not tested on animals. Because of the animal testing, people now know what kind of ingredients might be harmful or even deadly to humans. If hospitals would stop doing animal tests, the knowledge about medications would not develop much further as it would take more time to find out whether a component might be helpful or harmful. In consequence more people could die. Hospitals might have other methods to discover whether a medication is dangerous or not, nonetheless it is an undeniable fact that animal testing is the fastest and best way to develop the study of medicines. Considering the damage done to the animals with the testing, people might say that it is unfair to use animals as if they are less important creatures than humans. However, this can be argued. It is true that by testing harm is done to the animals, but there is thought of a charge. In Europe, only small vertebrate animals, for instance rabbits and rats, may be used for animal tests. Also they may be used once for the same test only and when no animal testing is needed none may be done. With this charge, no large unvertebrate animals are used and the animals used can have a more tolerable life. Another part of the charge is that they may not live in small homes and must be in a place that looks like their natural habit. All this to make their lifes more acceptable. People do the best they can for the animals, they do not think they are better than the animals, they are thankfull because the animals are the reason that we can live and exist as we can now. By the way, the medications that are produced because of animal testing, is not only for humans. Some medications are made for animals, pets for instance. If we would not know how for instance a rabbit reacts on antibiotics, how could we than treat a dog or a cat when they have a serious illness? Should we just give them something and see what happens? Is that not worse than testing one so we can save thousands of others? Take for example the bird flu. It is a contagious disease for both animals and humans. So if there is a medicine against the bird flu tested on animals, it will do good to both groups. One up to five animals are tested on, while more than 5 billion humans and animals are saved. We need animal tests for medications, not only for us humans, but also for animals themselves. It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. Sadly, this statement is not correct. How much we may all want this, it is not possible to stop doing animal tests. If there were no animal tests, so many people might die or already have died because there would be not enough good medications and treatments. We would not be who we are now. In the labaratories they do the best they can for the animals by making a copy of their natural habit, by holding on to the charge. As long as there are no methods whose results are similar to the results of animal tests, we can not abandon them. Animal tests are neccesary, humans depend on animals, other animals depend on the animal tests. It is impossible to prohibit all animal tests. It is a fact that can not be denied. Animal testing may be one of the most cruel things done in this world. Still, lots of brands do animal tests, simply because they think it is neccesary. The question is, is it neccesary? Is it possible to live without animal tests? It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. This statement is used by people who fight animal testing. They say that nothing needs to be tested on animals, that it is all possible to be tested in any other way. For this they have many different arguments. Some people may say that brands like HEMA and Etos are against animal tests and therefore do not use them. However, before companies like HEMA and Etos have the products, the industries and labaratories might have done animal tests already. A company like HEMA or Etos is than not responsible for the animal tests and therefore can say they do not test on animals. Also people might argue that make up from big brands like Loréal Paris and Versace are tested on animals while it is not necessary. They seem to think make up is an unnecessary luxury. Nevertheless, almost 40% of the Dutch society uses make up, either animal tested or not. That means that of the about 16 million people 6.400.000 people use make up, use unnecessary luxury. It is unfair, even impossible to decide that nobody may use make up anymore. People have accepted make up because it is nice and makes a person feel prettier and so it is impossible to forbid people from using it. Also make up is not only used for fun. People with for instance scars or burn wounds in their face use make up too, as to hide their defects. It would be unfair to take their chance of looking like everybody else away, to be socially accepted, only because we think it is unfair to the animals. Is it not unfair for the people with the scars in their face, with wounds? Unnecessary luxury or not, people will use make up because of esthetic reasons. Further, people might discuss the fact that some important medicines are tested on animals while it might not be essential. Although this might sound correct, it is not entirely true. Many serious diseases as cancer could not be handled with as we can now if the medications were not tested on animals. Because of the animal testing, people now know what kind of ingredients might be harmful or even deadly to humans. If hospitals would stop doing animal tests, the knowledge about medications would not develop much further as it would take more time to find out whether a component might be helpful or harmful. In consequence more people could die. Hospitals might have other methods to discover whether a medication is dangerous or not, nonetheless it is an undeniable fact that animal testing is the fastest and best way to develop the study of medicines. Considering the damage done to the animals with the testing, people might say that it is unfair to use animals as if they are less important creatures than humans. However, this can be argued. It is true that by testing harm is done to the animals, but there is thought of a charge. In Europe, only small vertebrate animals, for instance rabbits and rats, may be used for animal tests. Also they may be used once for the same test only and when no animal testing is needed none may be done. With this charge, no large unvertebrate animals are used and the animals used can have a more tolerable life. Another part of the charge is that they may not live in small homes and must be in a place that looks like their natural habit. All this to make their lifes more acceptable. People do the best they can for the animals, they do not think they are better than the animals, they are thankfull because the animals are the reason that we can live and exist as we can now. By the way, the medications that are produced because of animal testing, is not only for humans. Some medications are made for animals, pets for instance. If we would not know how for instance a rabbit reacts on antibiotics, how could we than treat a dog or a cat when they have a serious illness? Should we just give them something and see what happens? Is that not worse than testing one so we can save thousands of others? Take for example the bird flu. It is a contagious disease for both animals and humans. So if there is a medicine against the bird flu tested on animals, it will do good to both groups. One up to five animals are tested on, while more than 5 billion humans and animals are saved. We need animal tests for medications, not only for us humans, but also for animals themselves. It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. Sadly, this statement is not correct. How much we may all want this, it is not possible to stop doing animal tests. If there were no animal tests, so many people might die or already have died because there would be not enough good medications and treatments. We would not be who we are now. In the labaratories they do the best they can for the animals by making a copy of their natural habit, by holding on to the charge. As long as there are no methods whose results are similar to the results of animal tests, we can not abandon them. Animal tests are neccesary, humans depend on animals, other animals depend on the animal tests. It is impossible to prohibit all animal tests. It is a fact that can not be denied.

Zoekmachines

..