BUAV has published a guide, as to which charities are ethically sound when it comes to donating. It describes itself as:
to help animal lovers support health-related charities, secure in the knowledge that their donations will not fund animal research.
Such a publication has to be commended, and a step forward. It is interesting to note that the RNID is not listed so does this mean they fund animal research, and not suitable for BUAV's list? Their quest to eradicate deafness comes with funding animal testing through medical activities? Fund the UK version of this, perhaps?
As we know the CEO in waiting of the RNID - Jackie Ballard - is currently the Director General of the RSPCA, which promotes the welfare of animals. She's gone on record as supporting this, examples can be seen here and here. Will her new job contradict her old one?
Please use the comment box as to your views on the differences between cosmetic and medical testing, what is necessary and not. Are attempts to eradicate deaf people a necessary procedure?
One comment I do have to make about this guide is how it makes the distinction between funding research (which the guide focuses on) and the indirect support organisations perhaps give?
For example, NDCS is listed in the BUAV guide (see page 7), thus ethically sound and a good donation choice? (There should be a disclaimer here in the interests of transparency, Michelle Thew was once acting CEO of NDCS, now CEO of BUAV). NDCS as an organisation operates a policy of informed choice, and within this produces such publications as Quality Standards for Cochlear Implants. Whatever your views on CIs, quality standards are possibly ultimately about safety, and to ensure say a CI is safe, it will have been tested someplace else. Thus whilst not direct funders of testing, there is an indirect element here, and could be said riding on the backs of others?
CIs is just one example, and the same could be said for genetics, tinnitus even a new implant has been tested on animals in respect of balance disorders.
I do know that the same argument in respect of secondary or indirect effect, and part of a bigger system could be applied to many of the other charities that are listed on that publication, perhaps with the distinction without intervention a human dies, e.g. cancer.
Perhaps one could argue, if you can't beat the system or change the world (you are just one building block), just do the best you can to work with it. Or should people be promoting organic communication, and changing society? Where do you think charities should be the agents of change in respect of this. Who dictates direction: the status quo or the norm, or a minority group?
However, since the BDA is focused on sign language, how come its not listed? Or is that too obvious, but the point is there re promoting viable alternatives to communication, where no compromises have to be made. Or is the BDA secretly funding Koko now?(!)
My question is: where do you draw the line with support for animal testing? Where does support begin and end? Do you think deaf charities are supporting animal testing, either directly or indirectly? Would you give money to charities that fund animal testing? What do you think? Discuss.
Source:
BUAV Guide [PDF]
Third Sector
See also:
New RNID CEO: Jackie Ballard, Acting CEO Brian Lamb
Comments (11)
would be interesting to know if its just because BUAV don't consider either BDA or RNID to be one of the 'health-related charities'
Posted by Anonymous | August 9, 2007 1:40 PM
Personally I view rnid a lot more health orientated, probably just behind Defeating Deafness or Deafness Research UK as its known these days.
It does fund medical research, if you look at previous jobs advertised on DUKJ you will see this. I'm pretty sure I've seen somewhere re their aim to cure deafness. Wish I could locate the source, as its one of those things I read at the time but didn't make note of the reference.
Perhaps the BDA doesn't come under the heading 'health' related, thus not included? Either that or its funding similar to Koko?!
Posted by Alison | August 9, 2007 2:28 PM
http://www.rnid.org.uk/howwehelp/research_and_technology/ perports to show where the research money goes via the RNID.
Posted by MM | August 9, 2007 2:39 PM
Animal welfare is a slightly different issue to animal testing. Many people are not against animal testing even if they are very conscious of animal welfare issues.
Posted by Anonymous | August 9, 2007 7:59 PM
this is rong that cat is buteilful no need to like kill it i would be very mad if pepole walked up to me and put al this stuff and crap on me!
Posted by anonomis | October 30, 2007 12:21 AM
I disagree with all animal testing. You are killing poor innocent animals who have no say in the matter. What really pisses me off is you guys testing cosmetics on them. What if you were an animal and they tested on you, and they killed you bam your dead, this is what you are doing to these animals. You can't even get an accurate count on how many animals are tested and killed on today, because they as in you guys don't count rats, mice..etc... Its not right it's not safe and its so cruel. Stop what you're doing and think about ti before you do anymore
Posted by samantha | December 11, 2007 1:41 AM
ya know im totally against animal testing. I show my dogs and i am trying to fight against animal testing. I love my pets and can't believe that they have to do this to poor innocent creatures. they are just loving and have never done ANYTHING wrong. Please post this on other sites if you agree.
Thank you
Sandy
Posted by Sandy | March 31, 2008 3:30 PM
I think that animal testing is getting way out of hand, and how could ANYONE stoop so low and do this to an animal ment for a pet. Would anyone reading be able to just watch this animal suffer and know that the way it looks at you and you dont feel horrible or guilty...id want to kill myself if I did that. why test on animals..they dont have the same side effects as humans. And after you let the poor animal suffer you guys KILL it. I'd go on but im just making myself get put in a bad mood. screw you animal testers!
Posted by Michelle | April 5, 2008 2:32 AM
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Animal testing is sooo wrong!!! Stupid people like that or anyone should be aloud to do things like this!!! I wish people in this world were nicer, but this whole world is fucked up!!! I wish i could go to those lab's and kill everyone of those people and make them sufer like these poor animals, who doesnt have a voice or cant fight back!!! I would like to bring the most pain to all of those mean people who hurt poor animals. I wouold rather them do tests on people instead of the animals. Hopefully one day this stupid, dumbass, selfish people wake up one day and realize what they are doing wrong. These tests are useless. It angers me so much that i can't do anything about it either! Those people will get paid back one day!!! And it upsets me that the government or noone will help the animals or do anything about it!!!!!
Posted by Linsey Smith | May 22, 2008 9:23 PM
i understand about animal testing for medical reasons but its getting way out of hand. you guys are testing makeup and cosmetics on animals when they have done nothing to desearve being treated like this. animals are our friends and we shouldnt take their rights away from them so that we can look good when we go out. there is no need to test things like that on animals, i know of loads of makeup that isnt tested on animals and its perfectly fine to use. people test on animals for the sake of it. for example, penecillin. people have used that for years and yet they still test it on animals. running electrical currants through monkeys heads, whats that got to do with anything?????? we all already know that it will kill us, its just no use to us to find out something we already know!!!!! and after all the testing, the animals are discared into a bin bag and thrown away!!!!!
Posted by samara townley | June 16, 2008 7:47 PM
ANIMAL TESTING IS SOO WRONG, IM 13. PEOPLE HU CAN DO ALL THIS TO ANIMALS ESPECIALLY FOR COSMETICS MUST BE SO FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD. ITS SO INHUMAN! SERIOUSLY U MUST BE SOO HEARTLESS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT TO A POOR INNOCENT ANIMAL. ID ACTUALLY KINDA PREFER IT IF THEY TESTED ON HUMANS, ESPECCIALLY FOR THINGS SO UNNECESSARY LIKE MAKE-UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by claire | July 2, 2008 8:42 PM