Thread: The Effects Of Lysergic Acid On A Cat

Originally Posted by Amethyst

However, when it comes to something like this where you're testing an animal "just to see what hapens," then I have a problem.

Why do you need to test a drug like this on a cat? You can easily observe the effects on human beings and I'm sure that scientists would find ample volunteers. Also, you can't ask a cat, "How did that make you feel?" It's just not going to work. It also makes me sick that people would smile and laugh at this cat who is experiencing these involuntary muscle spasms and who knows what kind of brain activity! That video shouldn't be on the Internet.[/b]

*nods in agreement*

The same people who are laughing at this probably wouldn't think it was as funny if it were them.

I dont know ... I have met some people in real waking life who would jump at the chance for free LSD

Originally Posted by Keeper

I dont know ... I have met some people in real waking life who would jump at the chance for free LSD[/b]

Which is exactly why those people should be used as volunteers for this "research" - hell they could even get paid to do it. Free LSD and $$ ??!! A drug-user's dream!

what was the point of doing it to a cat though?

Originally Posted by Identity

You, as well as Koala-girl, seem to have very little regard for the human race if you both are to suggest that from a human point of view (not God's, not mother nature's) we equate to a cats, or any other animal for that matter.
[/b]

Saying that humans equate to cats not only is not degrading humans, but it may be slightly degrading cats!

But seriously, it is not that I have a low regard of humans. It is that I have high regard of cats!
Yea, I think that cats are as good as humans or better! And why not? I've got seven of them, and some of them are kinder and more compassionate than many people I met.
Now, I am not crazy. I'm a 32 years old software engineer. I've got sense.
So, stop for a second and ask yourself this: if there are people in the world who seem to be sensible and believe vivisection is wrong, just maybe, just possibly, there is more to these animals that they love so much than "a commodity to satisfy those who think caring for a furry animal will somehow enhance their lives".

Originally Posted by dodobird

...who seem to be sensible and believe vivisection is wrong...
[/b]

The truth of the matter is that however wrong vivisection is, it is a necessity. Medicine would not be what it is today if it were not for vivisection. Humans will be trialing drugs that will kill them, for it was not tested on a rat or a monkey; therefore, no one would want to trial drugs. And who would take a drug that had not been trialed? Investing in drugs would be useless, and the whole concept of medicine would fall apart.

And it isn't just drugs; the effects of diseases and epidemics are greatly learned through experimentation.

The advances in medicine will not only cure humans, but let us not forget that drugs cure animals including cats! too.

Something necessary cannot be wrong. Morality, like any system, has to abide with the facts of life, however harsh. What is wrong though is opposing vivisection. This is very stupid indeed.

Oy. Why can't everyone just go "Hurr, the kitty's on drugs!" and move on? Everything turns into a debate here.[/b]

Because it's a forum. Forums debate things.

DURR

Originally Posted by dodobird

Saying that humans equate to cats not only is not degrading humans, but it may be slightly degrading cats!

But seriously, it is not that I have a low regard of humans. It is that I have high regard of cats!
Yea, I think that cats are as good as humans or better! And why not? I've got seven of them, and some of them are kinder and more compassionate than many people I met.
Now, I am not crazy. I'm a 32 years old software engineer. I've got sense.
So, stop for a second and ask yourself this: if there are people in the world who seem to be sensible and believe vivisection is wrong, just maybe, just possibly, there is more to these animals that they love so much than "a commodity to satisfy those who think caring for a furry animal will somehow enhance their lives".
[/b]

Software engineer? Automatic crazy. Sorry.

Personally, I watched the video and was extremely disturbed by it. I have three cats myself and I definitly love them a lot. If someone were to hurt them, I know I would make them regret it, even though I don't get mad quickly.

However...

As I see it, whether or not making animals suffer for the good of human progress, is a question of whether or not they actually do. At some point, burns said that being able to reason had nothing to do with being able to suffer. That is exactly the thing I'm about to contest.
If I take a piece of paper and burn it, did I make it suffer? I would say most people agree with me that I'm didn't, because after all, the piece of paper didn't actually experience anything, as it can't have any experiences.
Of course most people will say: sure, but that's way different from animals, because they can feel pain. Whoever would reply this way, however, disregards the fact that in order to actually experience, you need a conciousness. simply having nerves that can send signals from and to the brain is not enough. these are just tools.
A pen contains ink as a material to allow writing. A knife has a sharp edge so it can cut through things. In other words, to do what they're supposed to do. An animal has a nervous system to help them know whether or not they're in danger (i.e pleasure = do this more often, pain = don't do that).

Like I said before, consciousness is what actually lets an animal experience (ie. be conscious of) things. It is what gives us the ability to reason, so that we can override our instincts. We benefit from this as we are advanced enough to, at times, have better judgment than our instincts.
When a plan is crashing and you have a parachute, your instincts will still say: "no! don't jump!". So then it's a good thing you have a conciousness.
Now lets look at a tiny animal with an even tinier brain. A bug. Lets say an ant. Ants have their instincts which work really well for them. Therefore, it would make no sense for them to have evolved a consciousness, plus, they're such low life forms that it's very unlikely that they would have developed one anyway. For that reason, they can't be made to suffer, because they do not experience.

The problem is that us humans probably aren't the only ones that are conscious. Certain apes, for instance have shown to be as inventive as to use a stick to get food from a place they can't reach (at least, this is something I once heard about), which makes it very likely that they have a consciousness as well.
This raises the most important question: where do we draw the line? what animals are conscious, therefore can feel pain and what animals aren't, and therefore don't. Cats and dogs are especially difficult in this question, as everybody loves their pets, and very desperately wants their pets to love them too. Like I said, I love cats myself, but if I look at it purely rationally, I believe the apparent love they show me is not so much love as it is a simple instinctual urge that makes them want to be with me, because it reminds them of the safety of being with their mother when they were kittens. Also, I don't see how a cat in his natural habitat would benefit from having a consciousness.
For these reasons, I believe cats are not conscious and therefore, cannot suffer, but this is not something I can know for sure. Which, as I've been saying, is the real problem here.

Either way, I, personally, couldn't bring myself to harm a cat or any other animal that shows obvious reaction. This, however, is because I would connect this reaction with the image of how I would react if I were hurt the same way. In other words, I couldn't out of a selfish form of empathy, which, in this case, makes me the victim of my own consciousness, as empathy is exclusive to conscious life forms.

Bottom line: whether or not a human is above or equal to a cat or whatever other animal, depends on if this animal has a consciousness.

I'm not sure you are using the word "conscious" in the correct context here. Conscious, meaning being aware of your environment - unconsciousness, meaning unresponsive and unaware of your environment.

In other words, all of the cats I examine every day are conscious, or awake. Once in awhile, an emergency will present with an unconscious cat (in a diabetic coma, respiratory or cardiac arrest). I know what you are trying to say, but I there's a big difference in meanings here. Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Originally Posted by Umbrella

For these reasons, I believe cats are not conscious and therefore, cannot suffer, but this is not something I can know for sure.[/b]

I CAN know for sure that cats feel pain and can suffer, seeing as I deal with pain management EVERY SINGLE DAY in my profession. For example, a cat can die very slowly and suffer from renal failure - you can tell they are suffering when they show all the clinical signs of pain, they stop eating, they withdraw from contact with their owners, etc. We know what these disease processes do to the body, which are the same as the disease processes in humans (renal failure in a cat is the same as renal failure in a human) - since, once again, humans are animals too.

It's funny how people with no working knowledge in a subject (such as if cats/animals experience pain and suffer) try to make a claim that they do. It's like me telling a computer guy something he knows for sure not to be true - who am I to contradict someone who has been educated and trained in that subject if I have no formal education/training in that field myself? Kinda like the people who come into the hospital and argue with the doctor because they read something different on the internet - you feel like saying, "excuse me - who went to medical school, me or you?!" I'm not directing this to you specifically, Umbrella, I'm just saying in general terms that it's frustrating.

*moved to Extended Discussion*

Umbrella: Children, up until they're about 3-4 years old, have no real consciousness (in the way you define consciousness). They don't know who they are, they don't know where they are; they just cry when they need something. Should we test LSD on them too?

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-10-2003-44071.asp

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...130/ai_81110793

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/emotion.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals



Honestly, I can’t believe some of the opinions floating around this thread.

Cats/dogs aren’t able to feel emotions? Pain? This is based on what?

May I be so bold as to say that most of the people who would dare say that animals like cats and dogs don’t feel some level of emotion and/or pain/suffering feel that way because the animal can’t, in a human language, speak up and say “Hey, motherfucker, stop being such a dick!”
I mean seriously. How can you rationalize that a cat doesn’t “feel?” Have you ever heard the sound of an animal in agonizing pain? Have you ever seen a dog slip into depression at the loss of a companion – refusing to eat, drink – because of being without the person/animal that made them happy for years before their death/departure?
This is the behavior of an animal that operates on nothing but a basic need to survive?
Give me a break.
Umbrella, you have three cats? Tell me what about their behavior (besides the fact that they can’t tell you you’re wrong) makes you feel that they don’t experience?
You liken the nervous system of an animal (as opposed to the nervous system in humans, which you obviously hold in higher regard) to ink in an ink pen? Simply a tool. Nothing that demonstrates a conscious experience? How do you figure that?

[Edit: By the way, Umbrella, I didn't necessarily mean to single you out, ^ It's just that you seem to be the only one that
actually made an attempto explain your rationale, which I respect, so I'm simply prodding you a bit.]

Inventiveness:
You know a wolverine will put a paw up over its brow to sheild it's eyes from the sun, when looking off into the distance, much like a human?
You know a squirrel will, being chased by an animal, run around a tree, on the ground, disappearing on the other side of it, before changing direction and running straight up the same tree, so that it looks to the predator like it simply disappeared into thin air?
Ever seen a bird marvel at its own reflection in a mirror and try for hours to figure out why it is that the image is copying it's movements? It will flex its wings, bob its head back and forth, jump away from the mirror and then jump back just to see if the "copy" jumps back, too.
Ants. Let me tell you an interesting story about ants:
I was sitting on the porch one day and a couple of ants were just milling around on the table. Indifferent, I picked up a can and (thought I) trapped one ant beneath the dome piece on the bottom of the can. The rest scattered.
Later on that day I came back out and lifted the can to put it in the trash. The ant, below, was dead. It turns out that I’d crushed a part of it beneath the rim of the can. Oh well, another ant gone.
Check this out:
As I’m sitting there on the porch again, this dead ant just laying on the table, 3 ants crawl slowly onto the table, slightly scattered, but obviously “together”. One ant travels to one side of the table, another ant to another side. They both pace along the sides of the table as if manning separate posts. The third ant then comes straight up the center, picks up the dead ant and drags it off of the table as the other two leave their “posts,” converge in the center with the other ant, and the three (+1 dead ant) leave the table together.
My perspective on ants changed that day. Sure, every now and then I’ll just smash them because, hey, I can be a little ignorant, myself, but I’ll never forget the complexity they showed that day.

To ignore what possibly goes on in the mind of a “lower life-form” that can’t communicate it’s thoughts to you is (like Meidi said) akin to using babies as expendable subjects because, at their age, they are useless, primal and (arguably) non-communicative.

And let’s not relate animal testing that may save the lives of millions of humans with whimsical “lets see what happens” savagery toward animals - exercised by many because of the sheer ignorance that often comes with being part of the so-called “dominant species.”

Burns:
About the conscious thing. I know what you mean and English is not my first language, but after looking it up I must conclude that conscious can also have the meaning I was talking about. Then again, maybe aware would have been a better word.

As for the fact that animals are you job. I know that and actually kind of feared sharing my vision. I must admit. In the end, however, I reasoned that this is not necessarily something you can know, as I've often heard about scientists contradicting eachother on this matter and stuff.
I also meant with my reasoning that showing the clinical signs of pain is not proof of experiencing it.
On the other hand, like I said, I'm just guessing as far as cats are concerned and clarified what I was basing my guess on. Obviously, however, you're the pro in that subject and I realize you know better than I do. However, I wasn't contradicting you. I was reasoning on a subject that no one here had yet taken any stance on.


Meidi:
First off, I think 3 to 4 years goes a bit far, but it's true that you have yet to develop a consciousness when as a newborn.

However, it's not just about the animal itself. This baby probably has his or her parents or at least someone who really loves them and wouldn't like to see them become a test subject. Therefore, my answer to that question would definitly be "no".

Meidi:
First off, I think 3 to 4 years goes a bit far, but it's true that you have yet to develop a consciousness when as a newborn.[/b]

It's not really going too far. The neurons in the brain that allows you to understand who you are (really to develop an identity) don't evolve until you turn, roughly, 3 or 4. I don't know the name for these neurons in English, but they're called spindelneuroner ("spider neurons") in Swedish. Animals don't have as advanced spider neurons as humans, and neither do children.

However, it's not just about the animal itself. This baby probably has his or her parents or at least someone who really loves them and wouldn't like to see them become a test subject. Therefore, my answer to that question would definitly be "no".
[/b]

What about an abandoned baby? There are plenty.

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves.[/b]

Oneironaut, whenever I start reading one of your posts, I know I'm about to read a (somewhat lengthy) post that's very sensible and a supported by good reason. Because of that, I was kinda surprised when I started reading this one and found it started out with an ad hominem attack. Sure, you're not naming anyone in particular, but judging by the rest of your reaction I think I can safely say you include me when you say "Some of you people".
Let is be clear that when I say some animals are inferior to others, I have good reason for saying so and definitly don't have to be ashamed of myself. If my reasons indeed prove to be false, I will immediately change my opinion and take back my words, but still won't be ashamed.

That being said, I should also say that the rest of your post does have some very good points, which I'll try to react to as clearly as possible.

Cats/dogs aren’t able to feel emotions? Pain? This is based on what?

May I be so bold as to say that most of the people who would dare say that animals like cats and dogs don’t feel some level of emotion and/or pain/suffering feel that way because the animal can’t, in a human language, speak up and say “Hey, motherfucker, stop being such a dick!”
I mean seriously. How can you rationalize that a cat doesn’t “feel?” Have you ever heard the sound of an animal in agonizing pain? Have you ever seen a dog slip into depression at the loss of a companion – refusing to eat, drink – because of being without the person/animal that made them happy for years before their death/departure?
This is the behavior of an animal that operates on nothing but a basic need to survive?
Give me a break.
[/b]

I never said anything about dogs, and said that my guess is that cats feel no emotions or pain, but that I am by no means certain.
Of course, you may be so bold as to say what you've said, but I, at least, am not one of "most people" if that's how it is. What I states is that I believe certain animals do not have a consciousness. After all, some animals just aren't intelligent enough to benefit from one. These creatures simply haven't evolved to be equipped with a consciousness, because they are better off without it, comparable to the reason us humans have not evolved to have guills. Once again, I'm leaving the matter of cats and dogs in the middle.

As for the depressed dog stories. No, I've never seen that before. This might be explained in multiple ways. Perhaps dogs do have a consciousness or maybe there's some other explanation I couldn't possibly find out about on my own. Hell, technically speaking, it could be that none of those stories are true, although I believe they are, since I don't see why someone would deliberately lie about such a matter.

Umbrella, you have three cats? Tell me what about their behavior (besides the fact that they can’t tell you you’re wrong) makes you feel that they don’t experience?
[/b]

I fear you misinterpreted that part of my post. My cats' behaviour actually makes me feel quite strongly that they have emotions and experience everything. However, it's these "feelings" that I avoid when I look at something in a purely logical way. Maybe we only think a cat feels pain, because we imagine that we would in a similar situation. If (and only if) a cat has no consciousness, however, he won't experience any pain or anything, for that matter.

Inventiveness:
You know a wolverine will put a paw up over its brow to sheild it's eyes from the sun, when looking off into the distance, much like a human?
You know a squirrel will, being chased by an animal, run around a tree, on the ground, disappearing on the other side of it, before changing direction and running straight up the same tree, so that it looks to the predator like it simply disappeared into thin air?
Ever seen a bird marvel at its own reflection in a mirror and try for hours to figure out why it is that the image is copying it's movements? It will flex its wings, bob its head back and forth, jump away from the mirror and then jump back just to see if the "copy" jumps back, too.
Ants. Let me tell you an interesting story about ants:
I was sitting on the porch one day and a couple of ants were just milling around on the table. Indifferent, I picked up a can and (thought I) trapped one ant beneath the dome piece on the bottom of the can. The rest scattered.
Later on that day I came back out and lifted the can to put it in the trash. The ant, below, was dead. It turns out that I’d crushed a part of it beneath the rim of the can. Oh well, another ant gone.
Check this out:
As I’m sitting there on the porch again, this dead ant just laying on the table, 3 ants crawl slowly onto the table, slightly scattered, but obviously “together”. One ant travels to one side of the table, another ant to another side. They both pace along the sides of the table as if manning separate posts. The third ant then comes straight up the center, picks up the dead ant and drags it off of the table as the other two leave their “posts,” converge in the center with the other ant, and the three (+1 dead ant) leave the table together.
My perspective on ants changed that day. Sure, every now and then I’ll just smash them because, hey, I can be a little ignorant, myself, but I’ll never forget the complexity they showed that day.
[/b]

The ant story here is definitly interesting. It could be a reason to suspect that they have a consciousness after all, or it could be another instinct. Either way, I cannot, and will not pretend to be able to tell anyone which animals have a consciousness and which don't. It simply seems illogical for every living thing to have a consciousness. consciousness is not some special feature that is above all other animal characteristics. It is something that has evolved over time just like every other aspect of life.

Here is the source that once convinced me of the logic that I'm using here. Maybe someone can find a serious flaw in this. At least made a lot of sense to me:
Why pigeons don't know they're alive.



And Meidi. In that case, you must be right about the 3 to 4 years. And as far as the experimenting on babies goes: sure, that's absolutly justifiable. I never once stated that humans are superior to other animals just for being human.

Oneironaut, whenever I start reading one of your posts, I know I'm about to read a (somewhat lengthy) post that's very sensible and a supported by good reason. Because of that, I was kinda surprised when I started reading this one and found it started out with an ad hominem attack.[/b]

Fair enough. I admit that was a bit out of character for me but, as an "animal lover", it’s sometimes hard to hold off on rhetoric like that. I meant it more as an expression than an insult. I do wanna clarify, though, that it was intended more toward Kaniaz and Identity X for some of their “it’s just a stupid animal”-ish remarks, and something along the lines of having no problem with harming an animal if it wasn’t a complete waste of time, or something like that. You’ve actually illustrated some thought behind your position, Umbrella, and like I said in my edit, I can respect that.
(and sometimes it’s hard to touch on every point in such touchy topics without making somewhat lengthy posts. I’m trying, damnit. )

What I states is that I believe certain animals do not have a consciousness. After all, some animals just aren't intelligent enough to benefit from one.[/b]

I can understand that. I brought up in another thread how creatures like urchins and jellyfish, though they express basic animal traits, are kind of ambiguous in terms of whether or not they have a consciousness.
What separates you from the “most people” I was talking about is that I don’t think your unconvinced stance toward a cat’s consciousness will allow yourself permission to torture one simply because “cat’s don’t feel suffering.” I’ve talked to many people that I couldn’t make the same claim about.
(I also submit that “most people” was just an assumption referring to most people I’ve come in contact with. Not a world-wide statistic.)

Maybe we only think a cat feels pain, because we imagine that we would in a similar situation. If (and only if) a cat has no consciousness, however, he won't experience any pain or anything, for that matter.[/b]

This I’m not so sure of, though. A cat can do everything in its power to let you know that it’s feeling pain. Besides the hypothesis that they may not feel pain (and their inability to put it to you in English) what about their actions, when (apparently) experiencing pain, would make you feel that they may not experience it at all? The sounds they make can vary from a low, continuous whine, to a sharp screech, depending on the pain inflicted. What, objectively, would make you discount that as sufficient evidence?

Didn’t really mean to come on so strong in the first place, but damn, some of the views expressed in this thread, so far, kind of warrant indifference to the insult of those that posted them (Namely Kaniaz and Identity X - unless they'd like to go further into the logic behind how they feel).
You, however (though we may disagree on some things), have been somewhat logical and I didn't necessarily mean to throw you in the mix with my comments toward them.

I’ll check out that link when I get home

Haha, don't worry about it Oneironaut. Although I'm advocating the stance that humans are "superior" (although it's not really my word of choice) to some animals, and possibly to cats, I am actually an animal lover myself. You can't really say I'm just playing the devil's advocate, as this is my actual opinion, but as I implied in my first post, I could never hurt my, or any other cats.

A cat can do everything in its power to let you know that it’s feeling pain. Besides the hypothesis that they may not feel pain (and their inability to put it to you in English) what about their actions, when (apparently) experiencing pain, would make you feel that they may not experience it at all? The sounds they make can vary from a low, continuous whine, to a sharp screech, depending on the pain inflicted. What, objectively, would make you discount that as sufficient evidence?[/b]

The case is, that instincts can be more complex than just doing pretty much nothing like a jellyfish. And a reaction to pain that you're talking about, although it must indeed be meant to let others (maybe originally the cat's mother or something) know something's wrong, is also an instinct. In fact, it's the exact same instinct as small children crying or adults cursing loudly when they're in pain. All are obviously derived from a baby's instinct of crying when they want their mother.

This is why I'm saying we should not so easily state that we can see a certain animal displays emotion. In fact, I'd say many, if not all emotions are originally instincts. They've only become emotions to us because our consciousness allows us to surpress them. Love and pleasure to drive us to reproduce and multiply our genes, anger and pain to fight against and avoid that which may kill those genes.
Because we are aware and conscious of ourselves, we can oppress those instinctual feelings if this is desired over acting upon them. Makes sense, doesn't it?

And Meidi. In that case, you must be right about the 3 to 4 years. And as far as the experimenting on babies goes: sure, that's absolutly justifiable. I never once stated that humans are superior to other animals just for being human.[/b]

I love you simply for being logical in your reasoning. In that case, we'll just have to agree to disagree - I don't think it's ethical to experiment on any creature that feels pain (and that hasn't agreed to it), and you think it is, as long as they're not aware of their own identity. You have no idea how many times I've brought up the animal/baby analogy (I'm vegetarian )and have people go "but it's not the same thing!"

Originally Posted by Identity

are you suggesting that human rights are worth violating so that animals don't have to 'suffer' at the hands of science? And as for suggesting that I be a subject, well I'll tell you where to stick that scalpel...
[/b]

No not human rights, just your rights. Well not just you maybe a few others too.

Originally Posted by Identity

Oy. Why can't everyone just go "Hurr, the kitty's on drugs!" and move on? Everything turns into a debate here.
[/b]

Because we're not all that ignorant.

Here's some info for those of you who don't believe cats/animals feel pain.
I've bolded the bits that are most related to this discussion.

FYI: (for those of you not familiar with the terminology)
analgesia = pain management; analgesic = pain medication

Perspective: feline pain management

Over the centuries of providing care for animals, we have generally neglected the most humane and basic aspect of care, namely freedom from pain. As we have become more sophisticated in our diagnostic capabilities, and have more therapeutic options available, we have drifted away from compassion and empathy.

Why is this?
1) Belief that non-human animals don't experience pain the way we do
2) Inability to assess pain in non-verbal individuals
3) Fear that illness may make our patients susceptible to adverse reactions to analgesics
4) Lack of understanding about analgesic agents
5) Few choices for analgesics in the past

Interestingly, many of our clients are aware that their cats are painful and are grateful when we offer their friends analgesia. Clients relate to pain more than any other thing we discuss with them.

Let's look at each one of these false myths.
While there are species as well as individual differences in the magnitude of pain experienced, some of which is based on expectations or anticipation, pain is a real phenomenon that occurs as a result of a tissue injury induced neurologic response. This nociceptive response sends signals to the brain, via the A fibers (quick pain) and C fibers (delayed sensation) of the spinal cord, resulting in the interpretation and experience of PAIN!!!!!

Worse still: pain interferes with healing and can; in fact, make the disease process more harmful. Hypotension, gastrointestinal injury, hypothermia and immunosuppression may all occur as negative physiologic results of pain. The body in response to the trauma releases all sorts of leukotrienes: some of these are helpful, but many aggravate the problem.

As a result, if a patient has, or is going to have tissue trauma, analgesic therapy is required. Assess the pain potential of the procedure. If it is something that would hurt you, give your patient the benefit of the doubt and offer analgesia. Start analgesia BEFORE the pain occurs. Once it starts, it is harder to control. This is the concept of "pre-emptive analgesia". Tissue and nerve trauma causes release of leukotrienes and prostaglandins, which stimulate the C fibers (dull aching pain) and A fibers (sharp pain). These stimuli are related to the spinal cord, which transmits the messages to the brain. Once the nociceptive response has been recognized by the cerebral cortex, "wind up" occurs and the pain is more difficult to alleviate.

What if you aren't sure if the patient is hurting, as he/she is anorectic and lethargic, but there is no history of trauma? Because it can be difficult, especially in cats, to determine of they are in pain, it is humane to apply a "test dose" of a short acting, reversible narcotic agent to see if their demeanour improves. If this is the case, analgesia must be considered in planning the longer-term care.

What are signs of pain in the feline patient?

• Inability to rest/sleep
• Inappropriate activity level
• Mental attitude/demeanour (stupor or anxiety)
• Changes in attitude/personality
• Poor haircoat
• Facial expression, staring, fixed gaze, dilated pupils
• Lack of appetite and thirst
• Self-mutilation
• Vocalizations
• Posture
• Tachycardia
• Tachypnea
• Hypo- or hyperthermia
• Hypo- or hypertension

[/b]

Source - and might I add that VIN (Veterinary Information Network) is the #1 source of information for practicing veterinarians. You have to pay a $100/year membership fee to access the informational database, including forum and roundtable discussions. It is available to licensed veterinarians only.

Giving huge doses of drugs to animals can serve the purpose of determining the LD50 of a given substance and afterward an estimate can be extrapolated for humans. Its not like they perform these tests on endangered animals or anything, that would be illegal. So it actually can serve a purpose. Lets not forget either that science is based on observation and that's what all the scientists in this experiment did, they observed the cat under the influence of LSD (probably an abnormally large dose). I'm all for animal testing in case no one noticed. I would like to thank all the animals that have died so that other more advanced and evolved beings may live.

giving a cat drugs in no-way helps us

A cats biology is different, so when it was given the drug, you get nothing usfull from it

those people who did that have no shame

Originally Posted by Identity

The truth of the matter is that however wrong vivisection is, it is a necessity.
[/b]

I will not argue with you against experiments on animals that benefits medicine ( although I do object to them as well, because personally I don't think you should sacrifice one against it's will for the needs of others ),
But the problem is that many of the experiments are not necessary at all, and have nothing to do with medicine: cosmetics, military, behavioral studies, pet food development.

Just in my country ( Israel ) the military admits to killing each year tens of thousands of dogs, cows, pigs, and rabbits to try out weapons such as bombs.

Originally Posted by Merck

I would like to thank all the animals that have died so that other more advanced and evolved beings may live.
[/b]

If the animals could speak English, they would say: "You can take your gratitude, and smack your face with it"