The sexes don’t feel pain the same way • Hacker News Board

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#51

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 6:52 AM UTC

kranner wrote: post #46

adimitrov wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few hundred? There's plenty of folks who already think animal testing is barbarism. Unfortunately, like the "doctors" of the bad old days, for medical purposes we don't really have a choice, do we? We do, however, have a choice when it comes to cosmetics and non-critical research, and I stand by my conviction to use cosmetics not tested on animals exclusively.

What if humans were so different from other creatures that testing human medicines on other species made no sense and the established practice was testing on human “volunteers”, i.e. poor people. Would it still make sense to argue that we didn’t have a choice?

That is literally our choice. Human volunteers as first test subjects or animals. There aren't any other choices besides putting drug research in stasis.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#52

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #6

My girlfriend seems to handle "direct" pain, like hitting stuff, getting cut or back pain, compared to me. Most times she just keeps going without uttering much at all. But she's significantly worse at dealing with cold, heat and high brightness. One thing is that her body may be worse at regulating temperature, but she can't stand going out in the cold even for a few minutes unless she's dressed like she's visiting…

I think temperature tolerance might be directly related to sex hormones. I'm on testosterone replacement therapy and when my T-levels are high I notice my temperature comfort range is 63-83. But when my levels fall because I ran out of a prescription my threshold changes to 68-78 a narrower band of comfort.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#53

Post by dunstad » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:00 AM UTC

randomacct3847 wrote: post #38

The first thing I thought to myself when I read this headline is that certain people are probably going to get offended by someone pointing out physiological differences between sexes.

I can understand why you might find that a silly reaction. It is indeed obvious that there are many physiological differences between men and women. However, one reason I think people get worried about this kind of research is that it can be cited as justification for treating men and women differently in situations where it is certainly not warranted.

I'm not saying there's no value to research like this, but I also believe that if it makes some people uneasy, their fears come from a good place.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#54

Post by kranner » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:14 AM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #51

kranner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if humans were so different from other creatures that testing human medicines on other species made no sense and the established practice was testing on human “volunteers”, i.e. poor people. Would it still make sense to argue that we didn’t have a choice?

That is literally our choice. Human volunteers as first test subjects or animals. There aren't any other choices besides putting drug research in stasis.

Fair enough. Humans can at least give consent, in a way (given that economic necessity is not consensual).

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#55

Post by PeterisP » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:18 AM UTC

kranner wrote: post #46

adimitrov wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few hundred? There's plenty of folks who already think animal testing is barbarism. Unfortunately, like the "doctors" of the bad old days, for medical purposes we don't really have a choice, do we? We do, however, have a choice when it comes to cosmetics and non-critical research, and I stand by my conviction to use cosmetics not tested on animals exclusively.

What if humans were so different from other creatures that testing human medicines on other species made no sense and the established practice was testing on human “volunteers”, i.e. poor people. Would it still make sense to argue that we didn’t have a choice?

Since humans are sufficiently different from other creatures that animal testing alone isn't sufficient for neither efficiency nor safety tests, we do run clinical trials on human volunteers, as we don't really have a choice. Launching new drugs without such tests costs more lives, and not launching new drugs also costs, so we do human testing with the understanding that sometimes it costs lives and causes other grievous harm.

However, since testing human medicines on other species does have some sense, we would consider it unethical to run potentially risky tests on humans if that can be avoided by doing preliminary tests on animals instead. If it turns out that some drug which seems safe in vitro actually turns out harmful in the whole organism, then we do want to determine that before trying it out on humans even if that process takes the lives of a lot of lab mice.

If your experimentation kills a patient because you intentionally didn't do the due diligence in order to save some animals, that's not an excuse, that's IMHO as good as murder.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#56

Post by kranner » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:29 AM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #55

kranner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if humans were so different from other creatures that testing human medicines on other species made no sense and the established practice was testing on human “volunteers”, i.e. poor people. Would it still make sense to argue that we didn’t have a choice?

Since humans are sufficiently different from other creatures that animal testing alone isn't sufficient for neither efficiency nor safety tests, we do run clinical trials on human volunteers, as we don't really have a choice. Launching new drugs without such tests costs more lives, and not launching new drugs also costs, so we do human testing with the understanding that sometimes it costs lives and causes other grie…

My question was about a sci-fi hypothetical scenario, not the current state of things.

However the hypocrisy of the current state of things is staggering to me. Using words like 'ethical' and 'unethical' makes it worse. Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. To avoid a result "as good as murder" in humans, we are actually murdering other animals.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#57

Post by golergka » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

debatem1 wrote: post #40

I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.

I doubt that the current trend of indulging empathy instinct to no end can last that long.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#58

Post by belorn » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:43 AM UTC

debatem1 wrote: post #40

I understand the need to test pain response for medical purposes, but I can't shake the feeling that in a few hundred years we're going to look back on the use of animals in pain studies and think it's barbarism.

If we reach a point where computer models are close enough, I don't think people will look back and see it as barbarism more than now. People will simply look back and see it as the strange and alien time before computer models, and mostly be fascinated how different life must have been.

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#59

Post by Godel_unicode » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

kranner wrote: post #56

PeterisP wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since humans are sufficiently different from other creatures that animal testing alone isn't sufficient for neither efficiency nor safety tests, we do run clinical trials on human volunteers, as we don't really have a choice. Launching new drugs without such tests costs more lives, and not launching new drugs also costs, so we do human testing with the understanding that sometimes it costs lives and causes other grie…

My question was about a sci-fi hypothetical scenario, not the current state of things. However the hypocrisy of the current state of things is staggering to me. Using words like 'ethical' and 'unethical' makes it worse. Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. To avoid a result "as good as murder" in humans, we are actually murdering other animals.

> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse.

Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?

Re: The sexes don’t feel pain the same way

#60

Post by kranner » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #59

kranner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question was about a sci-fi hypothetical scenario, not the current state of things. However the hypocrisy of the current state of things is staggering to me. Using words like 'ethical' and 'unethical' makes it worse. Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. To avoid a result "as good as murder" in humans, we are actually murdering other animals.

> Nothing makes a human being's life more important than the life of a lab mouse. Is this hyperbole, or do you seriously believe this?

Of course I seriously believe it.

It really should be necessary for people who don't believe it to explain themselves. That is rejecting the null hypothesis, so to speak.