If you have read my blog for any time you will probably know that I'm a Pharmacist. As a Pharmacist I usually stand in front of a big wall of medications. You may know that every medication is prescription for a reason: it can be dangerous if used improperly. Some of those risks can be scary. For example: Have all your skin slough off leaving you incapacitated in ICU for months while you hope your system recovers. Possible side effect of Ibuprofen. If you are curious lookup Toxic Epidermal Nercolysis (TEN) or Stevens-Johnsons syndrome.
So, when you take an Advil for a headache you are taking a tiny risk or something awful for the very real and reliable reward of getting rid of a headache or worse.
The risk reward balance is very real and EVERY medication I have in the Pharmacy comes with those considerations.
......But what about the process that brought those medications to market?
Now I'm quite sure if you ask members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) they will say that they are adamantly opposed to animal testing. I'm going to waffle on that statement because while I certainly believe in treating animals humanely there is always the question of balance.
A certain number of animals must die so that humans can live. Don't believe me? Look up Vitamin B12, Cyanocobalamine. The only reliable natural sources of B12 is from animals. Yes, it can be made synthetically but on a natural planet some animals die so that people can live.
In that way I will say that a few animals dying to allow many humans to survive is something built into nature. But should those animals who will be sacrificed for us to live be treated ethically? Absolutely. Clean living conditions, good food, water, exercise,etc. All life is important so treat it with respect...well, just my viewpoint, feel free to your own.
I'll still make my point. Some animals must die as food for people to get proper nourishment. Vegan's today only have that privilege because of advanced science.
.....But how about with medicine?
<br.
If we take animals as food to keep us from hunger, is it ethical for us to use animals to keep us from getting sick? I'm going to use the same logic as before. Yes, some animals will need to be sacrificed so that people can live. It isn't a matter of IF there should be animal testing but HOW MUCH is acceptable. I think that comes back to the idea of Risk and Benefit.
Rabbits used to be used for years in cosmetic testing to see if a mascara was going to be irritating or not. I can only imagine how many rabbits were subjected to pain or blindness in the pursuit of a better eyeliner. But where does that fall on the risk benefit analysis? Rabbits suffer pain and die so women can look prettier? That's a pretty lousy trade if you ask me.
But how about medication that could save hundreds, thousands, millions or even potentially billions of lives? A useful drug can have a profound impact on mortality and morbidity of different illnesses. Could it be ethical to kill a thousand rabbits in order to save a hundred thousand humans? The risk benefit analysis for this comes out looking a lot more in favor of testing on animals.
Will I say some animal testing is necessary. In my eyes, Yes. Scientific advances and medical breakthrough's can bring huge benefits to all. If that requires animal testing then so be it. With a few caveats. Don't do more animal testing than necessary. Do it with the minimum amount of pain of discomfort to the animal. So have a watchdog to make sure that liberties aren't taken.
But be judicious with the numbers in the tests. Just like food products a certain amount is necessary for people to thrive. However, when it becomes burgers for every meal when there are more sustainable and nutritious foodstuffs available, why are we eating meat? In the same way, if there are better ways to test for medication safety why are we putting animals in harms way?
And sometimes the risk just isn't worth it.
Yesterday I read an article calling for a ban on mirror image biologics. Now to the lay person that doesn't sound scary. However, here's a little fun fact, most people are either left handed or right handed. Hmm.... you probably already knew that. You probably also know that most people write better with their dominant hand. Hmm... you probably knew that too. Okay but did you know that every amino acid is "left" handed and all the proteins, enzymes and structures they make would be left handed by extrapolation.
And I hear a resounding "So what". Well, because all these molecules everything designed to get rid of them or process them is designed to look for these left handed molecules. And yes, I still here the "So what?".
Here's the thing you could make something that would appear "identical". I mean look at your right and left hand, they look the same, right? Except they are mirror images of each other. If you made a mirror protein? All the enzymes and digestion for that protein is structured to break down a left handed molecule. If it was a mirror image? It may look the same but be invisible to natures natural decay. Or if you made a mirror disease? It could be all but invisible to your bodies natural immune system. Even many of our medications wouldn't work if it was right handed vs natures left handed.
Biologically you could make super strong natural items which resist decay which sounds great. But you could also make super diseases that could be resistant to all treatment and even your bodies immune system.
Consider the risk and benefit to that. I'm thinking....nope....not worth the risk!
But when it comes down to it people are going to do what they will do. I think it is really important to look at the potential benefits and the potential issues and make an informed decision on whether to proceed or not. In some cases the potential benefit wins and go ahead and further the science but in many the risk is just too great.
Of course the really hard question is who sets where that bar should be set?
I'm certainly not the one for that and I'm curious who should be setting the standards.
Curious to hear your thoughts and I always love feedback.
Thanks for reading.
