Are You Serious Jo

Do you know that ethics committees are comprised of people from the general community as well as animal rights people. They have a set criteria of category of people they need to have on there, it must include laymen as well as professionals. I think you can look up the committee reps on the uni websites, but don't quote me on that. So it's not like there are a bunch of people in secret just protecting their own interests.

Bugger

Yes, stop at Renmark! There is a nice park on the highway or by the river, if you want to have a quick catch up let me know, if SK wants to and can make it I'm pretty flexible.

I probably didn't make myself clear about being squeamish and moral objections, the cupboard was bare today and I had to eat ice cream and am a bit all over the place Ok, try again, I think desensitisation is important for the reasons above, you need to make what you do automatic, like you do with driving. The first time you get set loose in a car you are a bundle of nerves but after a while you can concentrate on the important stuff because most you just do without thinking. I agree there are detrimental consequences to seeing lots of death, but rather than becoming callous I think it goes the other way and causes emotional harm, especially in the case of vets. I really can't see that doing a few non-recovery surgeries while a student can have that much impact though, unless you are already fragile. As for abattoir workers, I think they already have to have a certain mind set before they apply for the job because you already know it involves killing a lot of animals.

My understanding is that animals such as rats that come from places that breed them specifically for lab work can't be rehomed for a few reasons, one of them welfare. Some are bred to have particular gene mutations etc which makes them unsuitable for life as a pet. Also some types of procedures would involve pain and suffering if they were kept alive afterwards, so the committee decides they should be euthed. I personally don't ever involve myself in invasive research, I understand in some cases it is necessary but it's not my thing. There is such a wide range of scientific testing that it does get old when the AR people hear the word science and automatically assume you are wiring open baby bunny eyes. They need to fully educate themselves on the wide gamut of animal science before they start their rants.

I know about the three Rs, but to me it doesn't really apply when the animals are a by product of something else. For example, say I want to look at mirror self recognition in marmosets and tell the ethics committee I need a sample of 20. They come back to me and say they think I only need 10 because previous studies show it can be investigated using less. But the dogs being used by the vets are not specifically sourced to be only used as training tools, they are a by product of another process, whether they are used for teaching is separate to their fate. How do you reduce, replace and refine their deaths as unwanted dogs when it is the pound system that is responsible for the outcome? If the vets use them or not, they are going to die. Surely, if anything making the most out of any death is preferable. Same as using slaughterhouse by product for dissections, better than killing an animal for the purpose alone. I don't buy into the argument that the practise should be stopped because it desensitises vet students either, I think that insults the intelligence and motives of vet students as well. You can become callous to something unless you are already of the mind set that allows you to do so. I'm just as sad now at the death of any animal unnecessarily as I have been in the past and I've seen more animal death etc than the average person. The argument that simply being exposed to death makes you automatically callous is a false one and desensitisation is important to allow you to function at your job. Who wants a scared or squeamish heart surgeon cutting into their chest?

I'm guessing JD eats meat then

My best guess was that it had something to do with them bastardising bull arabs, but the spelling was hilarious and it didn't dawn on me that it might be bull arab related till the next attempt on the notice board

It is flawed thinking to me too, and seems to be borne from emotion only. Which is where it all falls apart because we all react differently to different animals and have varying moral opinions. If you have a set standard such as does the animal suffer and leave out the human based range of philosophies then you can address the real issue of welfare. I hate the idea that my life is dictated by someone else's ethics when they have no real evidence or rational argument. Protesters getting dogs stopped from being used as teaching tools sums it up for me, they become a PITA so get their own way, regardless of what reality is for the dogs.

Their new ad got changed to "Arobian" I think, can't quite remember, but I was pretty still WTF from the first one. They are a funny bunch up this way aren't they

But whether they suffer makes a big difference to what I'm prepared to accept. I see that a lot of people object purely on philosophical grounds and the impact on the animal seems to be ignored by them, whereas to me it is the key consideration.

For essential medical testing I'm on board as long as there is no suffering or it's kept to an absolute minimum. I don't like it but we cannot continue to have the same standard of medical care without some sacrifice. If the dogs are well cared for then how do they suffer? Plenty of dogs live a far more miserable life in a backyard, so those dogs if properly looked after would probably have a better quality of life. As far as food, we try to eat meat that we have butchered ourselves as much as possible, I agree you have to consider where the protein on your plate comes from.

I can't help because I'm still trying to work out what the hell the "Areobian" mastiffs are that were advertised on my local notice board

What does Vick's dogs have to do with this debate, have you found the link to those "studies" yet?

Please cough up the research that supports your claim of 500,000 homes looking for pets - God knows there's plenty of rescuers who'd be pleased to find them. What animal welfare organisation are you involved with? http://www.operationtoby.com.au/NO-KILL_australiapaper.pdf I found the bit you are referring to, but that PDF doesn't have any references. It says "recent studies" (can't copy the paragraph I want and can't be arsed to write it all out), but fails to reference those so called studies. So basically what you are claiming has no back up if you are relying solely on that document. I could publish a report on the net and say whatever I like, but doesn't make it true. This is what happens when people just read things without having any facts to back them up. Try again dude, see if you can find some references to actual studies to back up what you claim.

Can you send me your address, I'm going to get all the dogs out of the pound each week and bring them to you. As for the no kill movement in Australia, from what I've seen when the no kill shelters are full the other organisations kill the dogs that they turn away. So kill happens but someone gets all warm and fuzzy because someone can say they are no kill.

You've explained it really well OSS.

I've done dissections and living flesh is very different to dead flesh. The surgeons can't hold the instruments for you, they have to let you go it alone and I can't imagine the pressure of your first time manipulating living tissue on a real person. Cadaver work just isn't the same, they can't be harmed and don't respond like a live body does.

How long ago did they stop using livestock? Because that was the norm. So your first time cutting into living flesh is on a human, how do you feel when you do that?

Vet surgeries are businesses, they can't afford to run as a teaching school, the pressure is on to get the new vet working independently fast.

I also don't agree that being pragmatic and being able to control your emotions while doing a difficult job means you are callous and heartless. You need to become desensitised to a degree to be able to cope under enormous pressure if you fall apart when an animal is in crisis because it hurts to see them that way you are not going to be able to cope long term. I don't think the high suicide rate among vets supports the theory that they become desensitised through live animal learning. Once they graduate they are also doing live surgery where sometimes the animal doesn't live and had little chance. Doesn't mean they automatically don't care because it was going to die anyway. For those that think doctors go through and get all their skills without using live subjects then think again, they just get pracs with livestock, so no, human doctors don't get by with cadavers and internships.

Liking something and thinking it is making the best out of a bad situation are two different things. You speak as though we are happy dogs are dying, I can assure that I don't know anyone who agrees that it is acceptable to use the dog's bodies are happy they are PTS. Who has said they like it?

I guess If you keep telling yourself this It seems to make It more acceptable!, I don't think this Is a good argument for the In favor group So what is your alternative for the dogs that have no homes, do we drop them all at your place? Are one of this that think this is cruel in any way? I keep asking people who claim it causes suffering but none of them can answer me about the suffering part. I'll spell it out again. If a dog is going to be PTS anyway then I cannot see what is wrong with using the body. They are not being PTS especially for the vets. Of course I hate the idea that they have no homes in the first place, but since they are being PTS then make the best of it. What is your alternative to the thousands of dogs being PTS daily? If you want to blame someone then dish it out to the owners who put the dogs in there in the first place.

Firstly, you have no idea if the person quoted was accurate in her assessment of the dogs, she may have been exaggerating for effect because she didn't like the situation. Secondly, there are plenty of dogs that don't like walking into a new place with strange smells. I've got one dog that does that, shame on me for ever taking her out or to the vet? the quote says MOST dogs Can I just add that many dogs we take away from their owners to admit for surgery often act the same way. Some plant their feet when they realise they're not going back with their owners. Many need carrying. Even after a pre-med, some dogs still become quite nervous when you're giving them their GA. So is that 'shame on us' too? Are we terrible people for operating on a dog and fixing its broken leg, because the dog was scared prior to surgery? I can see I've hit a nerve. It is disgusting that our society, in it's throwaway nature largely looks the other way when huge numbers of pet dogs and cats are euthanased. I think it is shameful that a number of these condemned animals spend the last moments of their lives in fear and or panic. The resistance of a sick animal is not what I am talking about. If they show confusion at least they are there for the good reason of being healed not killed. If an animal is reacting badly it is a professional task to try and improve the situation, but that is not this topic. Sorry but you haven't hit a nerve, I'm just trying to highlight the obvious flaws in your argument that you cannot see. Do you realise these dogs are going to die anyway whether the vets learn from them or not? All protesting does is make their deaths even more meaningless. They still get euthed, don't you get that, but when they go instead of a grateful vet student giving them a cuddle while they go under they get PTS in a pound.

How does that change things, she might have exaggerated that too! It might have been a few or none, or maybe one or two were a bit hesitant. Good rule of thumb, don't believe everything you read.