The effects could not have been detected because they wanted hide them for economical reason.
I want say that the pharmaceutical industry can tell what it want about the results from animal testing. They can say we couldn't know because the animals gave different reactions. But they are conscious of that so they are totally guilty for the consequences.
They can say we didn't that specific test. Or we tested on the wrong animals... and so...
That is what some of the blog sources wish to imply, but it is not what the research papers say of Thalidomide. As for any medical testing the final stage is a series of clinical trials in humans, so it is unlikely there could be much manipulation of the type you claim. Even if there was the liability for damages is significant so it would be beyond stupid to try something such as what you have implied.
The rights exists but aren't recognised in lots of cases: gay rights, women rights, children rights, disabled rights, ethnic minority rights, animal rights and so on.
And until they are recognised and protected they do not exist. It is really that simple as even a law which is not and cannot be enforced does not actually exist as a result.
So you think the people useless for the society, people of which nobody care have no rights, because nobody has a practical interests in make their rights respected.
NO person, useless or otherwise have rights until society takes an interest, creates the rights, and the means by which they are protected. An unprotected right is merely a suggestion.
When the rights are not respected, not recognised in a society we should fight to make those rights respected by everyone.
You can, that is how rights are created.
I think I have your same right to the research of the happiness although in the Italian Constitution it's not written.
That may be, but those in say North Korea, do not.
And I think I would have the same rights of everyone if I was a dregs, outcast of the society and with nobody caring about me.
If and only if society had granted the rights to everyone. In some cases the rights were granted to only a portion of the society, such as those of a certain sex, racial background, religion, or age.
"It is not the case because nature allows any animal to do anything to another animal if that animal has the ability to do so. Be it killing, mating, wounding, playing, or any combination of things.So do you think nobody should fight for the respect of the rights of others? We should be more egotistical?"
Everyone, among humans too, can go to steal, to kill, to rape, to enslave, to hurt, to abuse, to sodomize, etc.
But it doesn't mean he has the natural right to do so.
Of course it does, but the human society created real rights which the society defends and those rights preclude the individual from a negative impact on the rights of others by a lesser right of that individual. This is where the example comes in of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". This means when your rights impact my rights, the greater right takes priority. Thus, protecting my nose form damage takes priority over your swinging of your fist.
There are some principle, morals, values that we should feel inside us.
But there are some who do not feel these things even when they are expalined to them.
These morals don't came from religions, cultures, politics, laws.
Possibly and possibly not. It can trun into a discussion of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Animals too have their ethics, their codes they feels they have to follow.
No, they generally have the eat or be eaten code of ethics.
There should be like an instinct inside everyone telling what is right and what is wrong.
If right and wrong were universal that would be expected, but since there is no such instinct there is no universal right or wrong.
This is linked to the talent to feel empathy, compassion, understanding.
And there are people who do not have such feelings much less the majority of the animal kingdom.