Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Education And Debate

Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation

BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7335.474 (Published 23 February 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:474

Rapid Response:

Hardly the whole story?

The article 'Does animal experimentation inform human
healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of
international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation'
fails to mention the ethical consideration of animal
experimentation, i.e, the simple question of what gives
us the right to use animals for testing.

Secondly, the authors fail to give due attention to
the fact that profit-driven test results can be and are
manipulated to suit the sponsor's requirements. There are
also numerous other features they choose to ignore, e.g.,
how drugs which are deemed safe when administered to
animals can and do result in severe ADRs, including death,
when prescribed to humans. The 'warning' sections of the
FDA and CSM websites clearly testify to this reality.

Incidentally I write as one of the many type 1 diabetics
who on being changed to animal-tested 'human insulin' lost
all warnings of hypoglycaemias, and also began to suffer
CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), resulting in the loss of my
job and home. The list of complications I now suffer,
which would not have manifested themselves in animals,
is almost endless.

If the article is an attempt to defend animal testing,
then it fails - as all such attempts must do.

David Mitchell.
B.A.(Hons), MPhil, PhD.

Competing interests: No competing interests

22 February 2002
David Mitchell (Dr)
Herne Bay, Kent