Humane
Charities List
"Primum non nocere" (Latin) - Hippocrates. "First, do no harm."
|
"Primum non nocere" (Latin) - Hippocrates. "First, do no harm."
|
|
|
If you would like to be listed on our database as a supporter of Humane Charities Australia Inc. please email us your name and postal address. We will then update you on any new charities and articles that are added to our site as well as any issues that we may require assistance with. Following, are some words of support from prominent personalities who are opposed to the use of animals in medical research - Senator Andrew Bartlett, Assoc. Prof. Eleonora Gullone, Marty Fields and veterinarian, Dr Andrew Knight. "As a long-time supporter of animals' rights, welfare and protection I am indebted to you and your colleagues for developing this comprehensive and long overdue website. Humane Charities Australia is unique among Australian internet sites in that it enables users to quickly and easily obtain information on all of the Australian health-based charities opposed to the use of animals in medical and health experimentation and research - which is great news for animals and those opposed to such unnecessary and cruel experimentation and research. This site should be a very powerful and influential tool in the months and years to come, clearly demonstrating that ordinary Australians can and will bring about significant changes in health and medical research and experimentation. The recent European Union decision on an immediate ban on the use of animals in cosmetic experimentation, where an alternative non-animal test is available, clearly illustrates just how influential ordinary people can be. Australia should follow the EU example." Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats.
There is now substantial evidence that people who are cruel to non-human animals also tend to be violent to humans. There is significant comorbidity between cruelty to animals and family violence (including child abuse). Conversely, people with high levels of empathy tend to be more sensitive to the needs of others, human and non-human. Most importantly, empathy is, in large part learned. A society that condones the use of non-human animals as "objects" and "resources" to be exploited is passing on the message to its members that it acceptable to treat living beings in whatever manner is necessary to meet the desired outcome. This differs little from the position taken by the perpetrator of family violence whose goal is to control and/o terrify their victim. Assoc. Prof. Eleonora Gullone, PhD, FAPS. Dept. of Psychology, Monash University
My support for non-animal research began at the age of eight when, at the
Royal Melbourne Show, I entered the exhibition by the Antivivisection Society,
and was so upset by the needless cruelty I saw that I was physically sick. My
parents thought it was because I'd had too many lollies out of the show bags,
but it was my feeling of helplessness and pity for the poor creatures in the
pictures I saw that made me ill. We are the God appointed leaders of this planet, and with leadership
comes responsibility. We need to respect other living creatures and treat their
lives as importantly as our own. I'm not dogmatic about this. Every species on
this planet dies, including us, and some have to die for a reason. But the
pointless experimentation on animals to derive questionable, unreliable and
irrelevant test results, some of which are even ignored, for products aimed at
creatures outside their species is deplorable. And the practice of labs using
animals for testing merely to gain access to funding as that is the only
experimentation the funders want to see is the left hand shaking the right.
Somebody has to stop the cycle and demand reliable non-animal testing,
particularly in medicine. The way that we have structured the world, we are all the animals have
got. We must develop a humane and responsible policy with regards to research.
Human products must only ever be tested on humans or synthetically. Instead of
spending time and money researching on animals, we should be spending that time
and money researching reliable synthetic methods for the testing of products.
Only then will the results be both reliable and honourable. If just for a heartbeat, every human could experience the terror that an
intelligent primate, a trusting dog, a timid rabbit or any other species that
feels any pain or emotion feels when strapped down and exposed to inconceivable
tests, vivisection would be eliminated overnight. Until we restructure our
thinking regarding subordinate species, we will never progress or evolve.
History shows us that the merciful eventually prevail. All these years after the Royal Show vomit episode, I continue to be
nauseated by the situation. But now I'm not hopeless or helpless. I am part of a
growing swell of support for responsible testing. And when the numbers of us
grow to a point where it begins to be reflected in sales, the tide will turn. I
hope the ebb is near. Marty Fields Actor, Writer, Comedian, Musician, Animal lover. www.martyfields.com
Those who make a
comfortable living from animal experimentation try to claim on the one hand that
animals are so similar to humans, that the results of these experiments can be
used to predict effects on human health, and on the other hand that other
animals are so different from humans, that it is ethically acceptable to poison,
burn, blind, electrocute, and physically and psychologically injure animals for
the sake of human beings. Of course it is not. The truth is that there are
innumerable differences at the cellular, organ and systemic levels, with
consequent differences in physiology, anatomy and metabolism, to name a few,
between different species of animals. Experimental results can vary even within
a species, due to differences in strains, or to individual variability.
Differences in the effectiveness or adverse side effects of a range of
therapeutic drugs, for example, occur even between rats and mice. They certainly
occur between humans and other animals. On the other hand, the central nervous systems of all
animals commonly used in medical research, product testing or teaching, are
certainly sufficiently developed that we know beyond any reasonable doubt
whatsoever that they feel pain. We are also becoming increasingly aware of their
capacity for self-awareness, memory, anticipation, and emotions such as fear and
sadness. And where doubt remains, shouldn’t one give the otherwise condemned
the benefit of the doubt, rather than subjecting them to grevious violations of
their interests, on the basis of imperfect human knowledge ? There is no doubt
that all animals have an interest in not being killed or forced to suffer, and
that we have an ethical burden to respect those interests, made all the greater
by our power over other animals. Most animal experimentation violates the most
fundamental interests of animals—the interests in not being killed or forced
to suffer—for the sake of the most trivial of human interests—such as the
toxicity testing of new shampoos, lipsticks, or other cosmetics. Animal
experimentation teaches us very little about human health. Rather, it teaches
that killing and otherwise violating the interests of those less powerful than
ourselves is acceptable, at enormous financial cost to society. Dr. Andrew Knight, Veterinarian
|
|
|
