Starting next year, the United States military will no longer use animals in numerous vital areas of medical testing in which the tests will be conducted with human simulators. This comes on the heels of a PETA campaign to pressure the military to stop using animals in medical and other military tests.
According to Army-Technology, the six areas affected by the new Department of Defense rule include: advanced trauma life support, neonatal and paediatric resuscitation, obstetrics and gynaecology, nursing anaesthesia and continuing medical staff skills training, as well as field surgical and critical care training. The military will also no longer use monkeys when testing chemical weapons nor utilize other animals when teaching medical staff how to intubate patients.
The issue of medical testing on animals is a matter of morality and necessity. Not necessarily if, as PETA states, the US is one out of six countries that still conduct medical research on animals. Even Johnson & Johnson points out there are times when animals are needed for teaching, simulation or even testing for products and services the company makes.
I have no doubt the Obama Administration had a hand in this regulation change since animal rights is a branch of environmentalism and environmentalist groups are one of the key constituencies of the Democrat party. This victory for PETA is not about cruelty to animals but more about the group’s view of animal testing insofar as it is used to benefit mankind whom PETA hates. Like PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk who not only said that using animals in medical testing is immoral even if essential, in May of 2006 when asked about using animals for AIDS research Newkirk said:
Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I’d be against it on moral grounds.
So keep this in mind the next time you see animal rights protesters at a local fast food restaurant or on a college campus speaking out against animal testing. They are not just condemning your sustenance but also methods to develop medicines and surgeries that could be used one to day to save your life.
Green Jihad 
please do some research on what ‘animal testing’ really is and what is done to them and then what percentage of ‘animal testing’ actually results in useful information that can be extrapolated for humans.
it’s torture on living beings for no other reason than that we can as the ‘top of the food chain’. It’s wrong and immoral and I’m surprised and personally pleased that the US military has made such a step towards ethical treatment of those who can’t fight back or speak for themselves.
the animals never were asked or consented to be treated this way and then killed when their ‘usefulness’ to us is done.
Bravo, US Military.
-mike
LikeLike
I have done plenty of research on medical research using animals and the facts clearly demonstrate that medical testing on animals produces very good results in order to help develop life saving surgeries and medicines.
If it can be done without animals I have no problem with it. But it should be up to the institution as to wether or not they want to use animals or not. This is not a matter of defending the defenseless but rather the animals rights movement’s hatred of people.
LikeLike
they don’t hate humans anymore than abolitionists hated white people.
you don’t have to hate the opposite to be for something.
-mike
LikeLike
Yes they do hate humans. In their actions, words and deeds. Take for example this quote by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk when she said in 2003:
“I’m not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity.”
Or her comments on foot-and-mouth disease in 2001:
“If that hideousness came here, it wouldn’t be any more hideous for the animals — they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers. … I openly hope it [hoof and mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.”
Animals and humans are mammals but the stark difference is the means of survival each species uses in order to live. For humans it is reason, for animals it is instinct or predation. Animals are a resource of the planet (like oil, natural gas and coal) which humans have the right to exploit for our uses (like consumption or experimentation) so our species can survive and live.
LikeLike
Animals are a resource… wow. So interesting to see someone who so utterly changes living, breathing, feeling beings to the status of cord wood so easily. I once understood as you do from a Christian standpoint, but as I look at my dogs and remember that others in history have had the same attitudes about certain parts of humanity as you do about animals… it gives me both pause and a shudder.
Enjoy the day. -mike
LikeLike
Please see my latest post on this issue. Medical testing and consumption of animals for food is not the same as supporting animal cruelty. Enjoy your day too.
LikeLike
You are welcome to see my post as well. I was inspired by your use of a poem in one of your previous posts.
Again, enjoy the day.
-mike
LikeLike