I can seem to upload the link to this article ,the article was on the Hawkes bay Today website tilted ;Injured dogs to take part in HB blood-replacement trials ,can be found by doing a google serach .If the editors could somehow upload the link i tryed to ,would be appreciated...thanks

Injured dogs to take part in HB blood-replacement trials
www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm=

03.09.2008
KATE NEWTON

Injured dogs could become part of a blood-replacement trial being carried out by a Hastings company.

Controversial veterinary scientist Allen Goldenthal, often the target of animal rights protesters, has secured an international deal which could ultimately solve the world's shortage of blood for transfusions.

Dr Goldenthal has signed a contract between his company, Valley Animal Research, based at Stortford Lodge in Hastings, and a Hong Kong company to perform a clinical trial for an artificial blood-replacement product.

"It's nice that in Hawke's Bay, and particularly here in Hastings, we are going to be part of a major medical explosion," Dr Goldenthal said.



The company manufactures its product from bovine haemoglobin obtained from abattoirs in New Zealand, because it is one of only two BSE-free countries.

The trial will use dogs that have suffered acute blood loss because of surgery or an accident, and those with chronic cases of anaemia.

It's a contract worth about $150,000, which will not be a lot once it is shared around participating veterinary clinics, but it will put Hawke's Bay on the drug-testing map.

Hawke's Bay veterinary clinics will provide most of the cases, but Dr Goldenthal said he expected to have to find participants in bigger cities to reach the 100 cases required for the six-month trial.

Only animals in need of a blood transfusion will be given the product, but Dr Goldenthal said he expected that wouldn't stop the protesters. "They will always be up in arms," Dr Goldenthal said.

"But this product is going to be used on animals that require it by necessity."

Currently, vet clinics treat acute cases with blood expanders, which maintain blood pressure but don't have the oxygen-carrying abilities of blood.

"Some clinics are able to obtain the blood from canine donors, but the availability of donor blood is limited and has similar problems to canine blood transfusions," Dr Goldenthal said.

"It has to be matched and there is also a risk of the donor blood carrying infectious agents."

The artificial blood is expected to maintain both blood pressure and oxygen levels without the risk of rejection or infection, which in the past could mean the dog died.

"A successful clinical field trial will not only increase the survival rate, but once proven in dogs, the company will be looking towards human blood replacement therapy," Dr Goldenthal said.

"This would be a significant advancement in human medicine, in which problems such as donor blood shortages, incompatible blood types and the transfer of diseases such as hepatitis or HIV will be consigned to problems of the past."

Normally the Hong Kong company would choose to do its testing with companies from the United States, Britain or Europe, Dr Goldenthal said.

"Increasing ties with China will hopefully result in more products in the future to be tested here in Hawke's Bay and result in an increase in biotechnology in the area."

thanks for properly posting that for me!

He seems pretty reasonable to me. If this can help injured animals, then whats the problem? I think the amount of money involved is trivial. 150 K is not much for this kind f work. I wonder if it will be enough? It would be a shame if dogs suffer needlessly because of money.

Baaah. What about us sheep?

the man is a vivisector and is far from reasonable,he has a lab in the manawatu where he tests human drugs and whatever on Beagle dogs.If you read my correspondance with him you would not think he was reasonable,sure the testing in the article is intended for veterinary purposes but he would probably test anything ,he is a vivisector,in the business of poisioning animals for profit

dogs are already suffering needlessy because of money at the hands of this quack,read between the lines in the above article .Now I know vivisectors are very adept at spinning propagandah and this man is no exception

So it seems that you actually dont have anything against this guy, other than him practising vivsection.
There are points of view on whether vivisection is good or bad.
You have a certain point of view. Argue it! You arent putting forward any arguments other than "He is a vivisector - and vivisectors are liars! He probably hurts the beagles intentionally for money! He wouldnt admit it but.. .he is a vivisector - lying beagle-hurting vivisector!"

Honestly, you sound somewhat deranged.
Maybe the guy is wrong - that is open to debate. Maybe he isnt. So debate it. Argue your case!

I dont think this person is deranged at all,I have read enough from credible sources to know vivisection is useless.Why try and debate with someone who is already trying to discredit you by calling you "deranged".

www.curedisease.net
www.nzavs.org.nz

Just wanted to give you an idea of how it sounds to someone who is opposed to capitalism, but not necessarily vivisection. Thats just how you guys come across. no ofence intended.

vivisection is a part of capitalism as well,thats why it still exists to make money

"no ofence intended"
ahahaha

vivisection is part of capitalism.
So is organic hummus.
So is greenpeace.
So is soap.
So is food that is being eaten by a starving african. This whole world is capitalist.
We dont jude science and medicine as bad just because it is part of capitalism.

You still havent shown anything to make anyone mistrust this scientist. He seems quite reasonable. Has he actually done something or said something objectionable?
I know you are going to tell us that "Hes a vivisection dude" but that is totally meaningless in itself as an indication of his trustworthiness or otherwise.

"has he done or said anything objectionable",i dont think you quite understand what this man is about and what he is doing

"Has he actually done something or said something objectionable?"

Apparently he tests drugs intended for humans on beagles, for money. I find that quite objectionable. Results from experiments on non-humans cannot be generalized to humans, otherwise why not test drugs on rocks? Thus, vivisection is about legal ass-covering, not rigorous science.

'Part of capitalism' does not mean the same thing as 'part of the human society that also includes capitalism'. If someone made organic hummus in your home, for enjoyment, I doubt you would object. If someone poisoned dogs in your living room for fun, I hope you would. Both of these things are done for money at times, but only one of them still looks ethical when it isn't being done for money. This is because of the screwy logic of capitalism, which is why I agree that "vivisection is part of capitalism".

Peace
Strypey

Animals are not tools for humans

Stypey,
Thanks for your reply.
I understand your objections about testing a drug on an animal, and then using that as proof that it would work on human beings.
That isnt the essence of vivisection though is it. Testing on animals is done as one step in a chain of tests and studies. Sucks for the animal? Maybe. If the animal is sick and dying anyway, then the treatment may help. Otherwise yes, it is tough on the animal. Sometimes it can actually hurt the animal, and that is unfortunate.
But its an ANIMAL. If testing that hurts a hundred animals can help one person from unecessary pain, that is worth it.
Animals are not human beings. It is valid to feel sad for the animals. but as a father of two, I can say without hesitation that if it spares my children hurt, then it is worthy of doing.
Animals are not tools for human beings. We live together with them and co-operate - but not as equals. An animal is not the equal of a human being!

i read in newspapers regularly of drugs that have been tested on animals making humans sick and even killing them,have an open mind ,have a look at curedisease.net they are actual scientists oppossed to vivisection

So it seems there is an argument here.
I have found the links useful and informative, and while they portray one side of the argument, there are others.
I dont think that we should kill animals to test cosmetics. I do think that the suffering of animals is acceptable in *actual* medical research.
Under capitalism medical research, like organic hummus, is a commodity. Thats as unavoidable for Dolly the sheep as it is for Mike the mechanic Lisa the hummus maker.
I prefer medicine as a commodity to bubonic plague as a natural, GE free lifeform, whether the plague is a communist or a capitalist I dont realy care.
Thanks for the info! I will now leave you in peace. I will continue to read, but not to post as I dont mean to be intrusive.

Annoying Anon

Quite apart from the scientific question of whether vivisection is useful (which I will pass over for now) the best that vivisectors can claim is that testing on an existing animal may help an as yet non existent human in the future. I have philosophical difficulties with the concept that the rights of anyone not existing can take precedent over the rights of anyone existing.

And instead of bluntly claiming that a human is worth more than an animal, it needs to be argued as to why. My life is important to me; supposedly yours is important to you. But an animals life is just as important to him/her. And pain is equally painful no matter who is suffering it. So if avoiding pain or preserving life is a moral imperative, then why does it matter WHOSE pain or WHOSE life.

As for the argument that my son's life is more important than an animal's, and if my son was dying I would choose his life over that of a pig, that is likely true. But by the same token I would choose my son's life over YOURS. Does that mean his life is intrinsically worth more? If not, then you also need to explain how you come to your conclusion on intrinsic worth from statements about subjective worth.

Phil

"......if my son was dying I would choose his life over that of a pig, that is likely true. But by the same token I would choose my son's life over YOURS. Does that mean his life is intrinsically worth more? If not, then you also need to explain how you come to your conclusion on intrinsic worth from statements about subjective worth........."

The last poster has done us an important service. Raised the issue of the RELEVANCE of "intrinsic worth". In other words, need to explain not statements about intrinsic vs subjective worth but ones indicating that "intrinsic worth" sometimes/ever controls our ethical decisions. Because if not, then whether or not "intrinsic worth" exists becomes besides the point.

Cool, I like these sorts of discussions.

It is certainly relevant to think about whether intrinsic worth does guide our ethics, and looking at my last posting I have noticed an apparent inconsistency in extrapolating from the worth an animals life has to him/her to intrinsic worth. But the point I was trying to make is that we use the same extrapolation in our (often unstated) assumptions that human life somehow has intrinsic worth.

In other words we use the maxim "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and apply it to other humans. But this maxim could equally be applied to any sentient being with an interest in staying alive, experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain. So if we are basing morality on the "golden rule" we are assuming intrinsic worth.

I teach environmental science and one of the debates I use is whether nature and ecosystems have intrinsic worth or are just instrumentally valuable to humans and other animals. Trees and ecosystems cannot feel pain, or pleasure (or so most would believe), so the "golden rule" argument would not apply to them. But most people intuitively believe that it would be morally wrong for the last sentient being on earth to cut down the last Kauri tree. Environmentalists therefore also seem to base decisions on intrinsic value. And in fact the intrinsic value of biodiversity is part of the government's biodiversity strategy.

Phil