poodlefan

Yep, get them checked. At 9 months, I'd not be expecting significant improvement in them if they are luxating.

I dont' see how calling those who are on the other side ignorant and callous is any better. It's right up there with calling two people (or recently even one person ) who disagree with you "hyenas" or a mob. Why people feel the need to personalise arguments beats me.

Anything's better than nothing. I know most junior vets serve a practical period of "residency" under the guidance of more senior vets in a practice. Most, but not all.

I honestly doubt anyone does. Although I hadn't prior to this thread considered the fact that practising students botch things and that survival post surgery for the animal might not always a good option. I'd like to see someone answer the question I posed in my first post here. Where is the harm in allowing this practice to continue? Anyone who argues that this process takes dogs lives had best point me in the direction of statistics that show that unwanted dogs aren't dying in this country in very high numbers. Whether or not you agree with euthanasia or whether or not you could operate on a live animal and put it too sleep are not the key issues IMO. Whether or not you think vet students should be denied a learning experience that has been described here as invaluable is what folk might care to focus on. UQ has been denied access to animals but guess what - dogs are still dying. The only difference now is that UQ graduates do their lessons on pigs. Our pets will be the first live dogs they operate on. Goody.

I've yet to read a report written by any mainstream journalist that provided a balanced, factually based view of an issue that gave equal coverage to all facets of a situation. The report that triggered this thread is a case in point. No offence Leela but if you've seen PTS day at a pound or how poorly some unwanted dogs are warehoused and treated, I wonder why you think allowing veterinary students to hone their craft on live dogs destined to be PTS is so much worse.

I hope reading the views expressed by vet students here causes those who hold this view to reflect on it a little.

Forget it.

Good on you. When an animal is dies, IMO you recognise the moment when it isn't "them" any more, but simply the place they once resided. Charlie will have moved on. If others can benefit from donating Charlie's body to science, then that's an enduring legacy by which to remember him. None of us wants our pets to die. But a bit of foward thinking helps prepare for what do do when the time comes.

I"ll add Pat Hastings interpretation of this argument. Conformation to the breed standard IS type. You can't have one without the other. What was her test: If you can't tell what breed of dog it is with just its head sticking over the fence, and with it in silhouette on a hill at sunset, it lacks type.

All thanks to the bleeding hearts who protested the practice no doubt. And the dogs now die without giving the benefit of learning. Wonderful. A real victory for dog welfare ;)

Aww, that blows. I'm trying to convince my local club to let me join and then kind of attend classes at the periphery and do my own thing. It's a big ask, I think. Seriously, if you're going to do your own thing, why do you need a class environment? ;) As an instructor, I'd not be happy about it.

There are many here (including me) who believe that a humane death for a dog is preferable to a miserable life. I appreciate that no one wants to see healthy dogs die. But the facts are that they do and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If they are going to die and can help other dogs and vets in the process, why object to the process? ;) As I see it, you're focussed on the wrong issue.

These would be the "its just a dog" kind of people. For many of us they are way more than that.. pets, companions, a hobby, a passion. Those telling you you're nuts have a completely different value set, that's all.

For the right dog from the right breeder? Anywhere in Oz or NZ.

I see a whole lot of jumping to conclusions based on bugger all information here.

Learn to groom them yourself!! You won't regret it.

;) Believe me when I say I know it's a hard time for a lot of people.

I'm sorry that my comments made you irritated and angry. However perhaps the substance of my comments and your reaction to reading them aren't necessarily directly linked. None of us can post with certainty that someone won't have a reason to take offence when a subject is rasied. I don't jump up and down calling people insensitive any time someone mentions suicide on this forum.. because I know that observations made here aren't generally intended to cause offence to those who've confronted personal tragedy. Losing a child is tragic.. For those who celebrate their mothers this weekend , let me assure you that 6 year old losing her mother is no cake walk either.

I don't have an issue with a parent who has lost a child taking issue with my comments. That is human nature. No one wants to have to live through those circumstances. Its the same issue that sees organ donation so difficult to achieve in this country. The time of a death has got to be the worst possible time to confront grieving relatives about anything to do with their lost loved one. But God bless our medical staff, in the absence of organ donor cards, they do it repeatedly in an effort to help the living. You can multiply by infinity the dilemma/grief for those who have just lost a child.

Without going into it on this thread, as a bereaved parent there is not a chance in hell that I would have allowed my baby to be used for this. It is singular one of the most devastating things to happen to a person and we hold them so precious and dear. I am really irritated at the insensitivity of these comments, maybe I am over reacting but there you have it. In this day and age I am sure we can recreate a crash test dummy that would be able to simulate the impact etc a car crash would have on a doll. Not without building it using data based on observation. And that data is, as I have said, simply not available. You can't simulate anything without factual parameters to build the simulation. Adult crash test dummies are built using parameters obtained by crashing real bodies in real cars. Perhaps you might care to read my entire comments about the use of children's bodies for research. I said: Sorry, but I fail to see how this is an insensitive comment. I'm not making light of the devastating impact of a child's death on a family. If you don't believe that failure to be able to accurately simulate the impact of car crashes on children causes issues for car/child safety, I can only encourage you to research the issue for yourself. I make no apologies for thinking this is a shame.

I'd like to think that a dog destined to die on an operating table in a veterinary school gets a silent thank you from the student that learned from it as it dies. My guess is some of those students will never forget that dog. If anyone really believes that's a less dignified or less humane death for a dog than euthanasia as one of many in a pound and ending up in a garbage bag at the dump, then I'd appeciate them explaining it to me. Neither death is ideal. We don't live in an ideal world. The practical outcome of stopping this practice would be less skilled vets and dogs that died anyway. How is that a win for dogs?

It's not "right" that healthy dogs are available for these programs because they are unwanted. But they are and these dogs provide learning opportunities that benefit others. Few issues are as simple as "right" and "wrong". Its the shades of grey and the outcomes/benefits of these dogs deaths than need to be used to place what's happening in perspective. I have to ponder the irony of Dr Wirth getting his knickers in a twist about this when thousands of dogs spend their entire lives in appalling conditions in puppy mills in his state with barely a murmour of objection from him.

There is a person I know who treats her dogs wonderfully, with great care and love shown all the time, why would any other person be different.... Universities are independant of each other. Of course there would be differences. Is there is this case? No-one knows unless questions are asked. All Universities have ethics committes Anne. Any any living animal research has to pass scrutiny both before and during the process. You know that.

Cadvers don't bleed, don't breathe and don't die when you get it wrong. If you're happy to trust your dogs life to a vet that's learning to deal with that on your pet, then good for you. I'm not. Its all well and good to be squeamish but some deaths profit others. I'll give you a perfect human example. The reason so little information is available about the impact of severe car accidents on children is because researchers have never had sufficient access to children's cadavers for crash test research. Society can cope with adults being used to build the data that modern crash test dummies incorporate but the child dummies are scaled down adult ones. So we have no accurate way of gaining data to make cars safer for kids. And living children suffer as a result. I call that a crying shame. I know it is hard to learn on cadavers, and it is a constant debate in society I think between whether dogs should be treated with the respect etc as humans... but why, if humans can learn on cadaver humans, why can't they learn on cadaver dogs? And I am CERTAINLY not happy to trust my dogs life on someone who is learning to deal with that... I just don't agree with it. But I respect that others do agree with it. And that is interesting about the kids. I think thats a shame as well - but why can't people get a hold of children cadavers? Is it because the parents wont release the body for research? Yep, grieving parents are quite understandably very reluctant to allow a child's body to be used for such research. The bodies used initially were made available without parental consent. That's no longer possible. Learning on cadavars of any species is not optimal learning. Society does not and will not condone the use of humans for the kind of research that animals undergo, I'm all in favour of humane treatment of research animals but in my view what Melbourne Uni is doing is humane and does benefit other dogs.

Yes, true. The accuracy of the statements must be questioned. Still, there are a lot of statements in that one piece that do not sound just. Where there is smoke there is fire as they say.... I doubt any picture painted will be rosy. However the thread about this practice in Brisbane revealed that the colony dogs used there were treated well, got a lot of TLC and their management for procedures and eventual euthanasia was respectful and considerate. Why would Melbourne necessarily be any different.