Dogs Operated On, Then Killed

[RottnBullies]

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.

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.

I do not have an answer to the alternative of what happens to dogs with no homes, but that doesn't mean I have to like the alternative that Is being used now

The fact that Is kept being mentioned that "They were going to die anyway" just doesn't sit right with me. Oh and off course I do blame the owners that put them there In the first place, but It really isn't much consolation to those poor dogs now Is It and that be whatever their fate Is once they're In the pound

All I can say Is I look forward to new and better methods that will no doubt come In time....

[PAX]

I just find this all so ridiculous.

There are thousand of dogs sitting in kennels for years...they are saved from Euthanasia......I don't agree, they live a life of constant stress and isolation.

When most dogs go to the vets, it is stressful, no matter what the reason, bit like me at the dentist.

Dogs don't know if they are there to have life saving surgery, a vaccination or something else, its all the same experience.

I think it's great that student vets get to work on live animals, I know when they treat my dog they have already experienced all the things that are life saving, watching bleeding, blood pressure, aneasthetic depth, etc.

I think these poor dogs that are already on death row are doing our lucky dogs a great service, they are under GA, so they know nothing, I am sure they are getting loved and kissed by the students, and crossing to the rainbow bridge in loving arms at the end, where they where already going to go.

This is a problem for responsible dog ownership, if people did the right thing, these dogs wouldn't be on the euthanasia list:)

[Are You Serious Jo]

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?

[Rebanne]

I just find this all so ridiculous.

There are thousand of dogs sitting in kennels for years...they are saved from Euthanasia......I don't agree, they live a life of constant stress and isolation.

When most dogs go to the vets, it is stressful, no matter what the reason, bit like me at the dentist.

Dogs don't know if they are there to have life saving surgery, a vaccination or something else, its all the same experience.

I think it's great that student vets get to work on live animals, I know when they treat my dog they have already experienced all the things that are life saving, watching bleeding, blood pressure, aneasthetic depth, etc.

I think these poor dogs that are already on death row are doing our lucky dogs a great service, they are under GA, so they know nothing, I am sure they are getting loved and kissed by the students, and crossing to the rainbow bridge in loving arms at the end, where they where already going to go.

This is a problem for responsible dog ownership, if people did the right thing, these dogs wouldn't be on the euthanasia list:)

excellent post

[Souff]

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.

Perhaps you need to spend some time working for the RSPCA and see the dogs there PTS.

See how it really is before condemning the teaching institutions.

I can tell you who will be killing the greater numbers of dogs ..... and it won't be the unis.

Souff

[Souff]

Dean of Veterinary Science Prof Ken Hinchcliff confirmed the surgery practice, but said it was common.

"We use both dead and live animals in the instruction of veterinary students," he said.

"Use of live animals is a small but vital part of our surgery teaching program before clinical training.

"Dogs used in surgical teaching are anaesthetised before any surgical procedures are performed and are euthanised before awakening.

"All animals are treated with the utmost care and compassion. All procedures, sourcing, and housing of animals ultimately used for teaching is with the approval of the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne."

Prof Hinchcliff refused to reveal where the dogs came from, saying only they were "donated".

And Dr Hinchcliff, I will bet pounds to peanuts that the university does not gain monetarily from the deceased dogs bodies. If I am wrong and Melbourne University does have a fertiliser contract as an income stream, I would be happy to hear.

I keep shaking my head at the gall of this person, who for years has presided over an organisation that has euthanased thousands of dogs, to stick his hand up in the media and criticise the use of unwanted dogs for veterinary research.

Perhaps the volumes for the fertiliser contract have been down a bit, and of course that would mean less in the bank.

Surely not, Souff, surely you cannot think that way. No no, you must not think that way!

And dammit Troy, Souff cant find the shakehead emoticon in this newfangled site of yours!

[Sheridan]

And Dr Hinchcliff, I will bet pounds to peanuts that the university does not gain monetarily from the deceased dogs bodies. If I am wrong and Melbourne University does have a fertiliser contract as an income stream, I would be happy to hear.

I keep shaking my head at the gall of this person, who for years has presided over an organisation that has euthanased thousands of dogs, to stick his hand up in the media and criticise the use of unwanted dogs for veterinary research.

Perhaps the volumes for the fertiliser contract have been down a bit, and of course that would mean less in the bank.

Surely not, Souff, surely you cannot think that way. No no, you must not think that way!

And dammit Troy, Souff cant find the shakehead emoticon in this newfangled site of yours!

And how exactly did said person learn his surgery skills?

[Kirty]

I have worked with the students who operate on these dogs, and each one of them has told me how grateful they are to use them, and how well the dogs are treated. These dogs are going to die anyway - at least this way, their death will not be in vain.

[WoofnHoof]

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 don't think it is the best of a bad situation though, I think it does contribute to an ugly side of veterinary practice. I know exactly why the phrase 'they are going to die anyway' sits badly with RottnBullies, it sits badly with me too because I've seen hints of it with vets treating my animals. Basically throwing in the towel because they are pretty much knocking on deaths door. It's going to die anyway so why bother wasting time and money figuring out what's wrong with it? Many vets I've dealt with over the years have had this demeanor, maybe it's their experience maybe it's their training but I do think that it's an issue which is often ignored and IMO needs further investigation.

To me it's not the welfare of these animals as people are so quick to point out, they will die anyway, however the toll on our young, learning veterinary students where they learn that 'oh well it's going to die anyway so make sure you don't cry or have any moral objections to it because that means you're just too damn soft and namby pamby to be a vet!!!', well that's a different story altogether. A vet tech student had an objection to a dissection experiment and was told by the lecturer "how are you going to be a vet tech if you can't handle that?!" (said with a certain amount of scorn and contempt), the problem is that people seem to think that a moral objection to something is somehow a sign of weakness. Excessive desensitisation is something I have a real problem with, we want vets to be hardened about death while training yet we want them to be sensitive and understanding while treating our own pets? Can you see how this would create a conflicting set of ethical values?

[Elise+Hudson]

I just find this all so ridiculous.

There are thousand of dogs sitting in kennels for years...they are saved from Euthanasia......I don't agree, they live a life of constant stress and isolation.

When most dogs go to the vets, it is stressful, no matter what the reason, bit like me at the dentist.

Dogs don't know if they are there to have life saving surgery, a vaccination or something else, its all the same experience.

I think it's great that student vets get to work on live animals, I know when they treat my dog they have already experienced all the things that are life saving, watching bleeding, blood pressure, aneasthetic depth, etc.

I think these poor dogs that are already on death row are doing our lucky dogs a great service, they are under GA, so they know nothing, I am sure they are getting loved and kissed by the students, and crossing to the rainbow bridge in loving arms at the end, where they where already going to go.

This is a problem for responsible dog ownership, if people did the right thing, these dogs wouldn't be on the euthanasia list:)

As a newly graduated veterinarian who myself was lucky enough to benefit from these wonderful dogs we had for our non-recovery surgeries I can assure you that these dogs were firstly treated with the utmost respect. We allocated half an hour before even pre-medicating the dogs to walking them, cuddling them and generally just being friends with them - giving them all of our attention. How many dogs at the pound have 4 loving people cuddling them in the hours before they are euthanased?

From a veterinary standpoint I cannot even begin to explain the amount of knowledge I gained through the use of dogs for these surgeries. We learnt huge amounts about anaesthesia, as we were able to be monitored while completing the whole anaesthetic from start to finish. We also learnt alot about the importance of blood pressure and how to monitor this successfully during surgery, but I think the very most important thing we learnt is how to ensure that we are tying off our knots and such well to prevent bleeding. A surgery which may sound as simple as a 'spey' takes alot of practice from a veterinary student and there are also things that can go wrong. These surgeries allow us to practice all of this, so that if we have a bleeder in our first week out in practice (even though we should have someone supervising) these is no stress - we have done it before. I can't tell you how much of a relief it is to know this. (And surely as a dog/cat owner bringing your animal to the vet this would have to make you feel more comfortable than the chance your pet might be the new vet's very first surgery.)

These surgeries are never going to go by without controversy in the news and the general public, although I do honestly feel that if people knew the full story - from the pound/shelter to the vet schools, this would be much less than we see now.

[Elise+Hudson]

I don't think it is the best of a bad situation though, I think it does contribute to an ugly side of veterinary practice. I know exactly why the phrase 'they are going to die anyway' sits badly with RottnBullies, it sits badly with me too because I've seen hints of it with vets treating my animals. Basically throwing in the towel because they are pretty much knocking on deaths door. It's going to die anyway so why bother wasting time and money figuring out what's wrong with it? Many vets I've dealt with over the years have had this demeanor, maybe it's their experience maybe it's their training but I do think that it's an issue which is often ignored and IMO needs further investigation.

To me it's not the welfare of these animals as people are so quick to point out, they will die anyway, however the toll on our young, learning veterinary students where they learn that 'oh well it's going to die anyway so make sure you don't cry or have any moral objections to it because that means you're just too damn soft and namby pamby to be a vet!!!', well that's a different story altogether. A vet tech student had an objection to a dissection experiment and was told by the lecturer "how are you going to be a vet tech if you can't handle that?!" (said with a certain amount of scorn and contempt), the problem is that people seem to think that a moral objection to something is somehow a sign of weakness. Excessive desensitisation is something I have a real problem with, we want vets to be hardened about death while training yet we want them to be sensitive and understanding while treating our own pets? Can you see how this would create a conflicting set of ethical values?

I strongly dissagree that this hardens veterinary students or veterinarians against death. I for one will never forget those dogs I learnt from during my training.

I also think it is a bad generalisation that we see 'dogs on deaths door' and don't care because it 'will die anyway'. It is a sad fact of my job that some animals will die no matter what I do to try and save them, but one of the greatest joys you can have as a veterinarian is have a dog come into you 'on deaths door', find out what is wrong and do your very best to help it.

I think you will find that is why the majority of veterinarians work in the industry - not because we are hardened and don't bother with our very sick patients.

[WoofnHoof]

I strongly dissagree that this hardens veterinary students or veterinarians against death. I for one will never forget those dogs I learnt from during my training.

I also think it is a bad generalisation that we see 'dogs on deaths door' and don't care because it 'will die anyway'. It is a sad fact of my job that some animals will die no matter what I do to try and save them, but one of the greatest joys you can have as a veterinarian is have a dog come into you 'on deaths door', find out what is wrong and do your very best to help it.

I think you will find that is why the majority of veterinarians work in the industry - not because we are hardened and don't bother with our very sick patients.

It's great that you are not hardened, but I have heard a different opinion from a graduating vet. Some of my own experiences have led me to wonder whether it's really the best option for gaining surgical experience and whether it's as harmless as it appears on the surface. Many universities use internships as an alternative to non-recovery surgeries in the training process, I'd be interested in any evidence which shows significant differences between one or the other.

[haven]

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.

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.

I do not have an answer to the alternative of what happens to dogs with no homes, but that doesn't mean I have to like the alternative that Is being used now

The fact that Is kept being mentioned that "They were going to die anyway" just doesn't sit right with me. Oh and off course I do blame the owners that put them there In the first place, but It really isn't much consolation to those poor dogs now Is It and that be whatever their fate Is once they're In the pound

All I can say Is I look forward to new and better methods that will no doubt come In time....

As do we all!

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?

Exactly

[Staffyluv]

It breaks my heart that every dog (pure or mongrel) does not get the chance to live a long and happy life in a loving home but sadly the fate of so many these days is not so rosey.

As much as some of the statements in the story upset me, I do realize that our up and coming vets need to learn how to do these operations successfully

Deplorable but necessary

[Staranais]

The most concerning part of the original article for me is that Mr Wirth isn't just against non-recovery surgeries - he says that's against students operating on live dogs at all before graduation. If he gets his way, that will be a huge problem for animal welfare, as students go off into the world with no real surgery experience at uni, and get let loose on people's pets and stock as soon as their boss decides they're ready (or in some cases, as soon as their boss just gets sick of supervising them?) It doesn't seem to me like Mr Wirth has thought that out well at all, it is bound to create less skilled surgeons and huge problems.

I am quite sure that, given enough thought and resources, you could create a course that turns out good students without doing non-recovery surgery. But it is simply not at all appropriate to graduate a surgeon without them having operated on living flesh at all. It is a recipe for disaster.

As for the non-recovery surgery itself, from having gone through the process, I don't think the desensitisation argument really makes too much sense. That is to say, I didn't like our non-recovery surgeries, and I'm really glad we did them on stock not on dogs since PTS dogs always makes me feel terribly sad. But the truth is that during the course we have to do far more upsetting things than PTS our non-recovery sheep. Non-recovery surgeries aren't the most distressing things we have to do, not by a long shot.

Of course, the fact we see and do far worse things than non-recovery surgery doesn't automatically make it "OK" to do non-recovery surgery. But on the other hand, if someone is genuinely worried about vet students getting desensitised to suffering, I think it only makes sense that they should focus on removing the more distressing things from the curriculum - or more appropriately, remove them from practice and industry so we don't need to learn how to do them.

I also wonder, if people are no longer allowed to use dogs for this, will we be allowed to use even dead pound dogs for dissection and practicing surgical techniques, as we currently do? The same ethical arguments apply. These dogs are unwanted, are going to be PTS as they have no homes, but at least their bodies do some good if we get to use them.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Staranais

[Flick_Mac]

Staranais - We've now been told that the pound dogs we get should be euthenased before being sent to us to minimise stress (fair enough), HOWEVER I think this will all but kill our adoption program unless they send out personnel to do temperament tests at the pound (2hrs or so away). I'm not sure if they'll do that, but I'd be very upset if we couldn't rehabilitate some dogs and save them from death row.

[Rappie]

Many universities use internships as an alternative to non-recovery surgeries in the training process, I'd be interested in any evidence which shows significant differences between one or the other.

I was in one of the first years through Sydney Uni to complete the course with the final year consisting of internship rotations within the university clinics and in private practice. We did surgery practicals on cadavers sourced ethically sourced through the pound. The dogs were not euthanased for us, they were already scheduled to be euthanased (and how they end up in the pound is an entirely different problem to whether vet students use their bodies after the fact).

A brief survey of my personal Facebook list shows that of my cohort there are a great proportion of vets in general practice, I have worked with several of them, one is a practice partner, on has gone on to do human medicine, another management. We have a diagnostic radiology resident in the UK, a surgical resident in the US, a dentistry resident in the US, avian and wildlife residents in New Zealand and a game park/zoological vet in Africa. I work with two vets who graduated a few years before me who are both surgery focussed and went from graduation into hospitals with high surgery load. I love medicine, neither of them do - we all graduated from the same type of program. I would hazard a guess that although non recovery surgery helps to develop skills prior to graduation, after that point the learning curve is so steep that skill development will really be dictated by the first practice/s you work in and the support you get. I quite like surgery, I'm a competent surgeon but I don't do much in the way of orthopaedics. Neither does my boss. One of our 'surgeons' will (figuratively!) elbow me out of the way to get at a ruptured cruciate, but would be one of the first to send a diabetic ketoacidosis my way. After a certain point, not having done something before becomes less of an issue. The great thing about being a veterinary graduate is that we have a great range of adaptable skills. We won't have seen everything that comes through the door at uni, or done everything that needs to have been done but that doesn't preclude us from being capable of doing it when we have to.

[westiemum]

This is a really difficult topic. I have to state up front that I think using live healthy animals and then killing them to train vets is wrong, regardless of what their ultimate fate was to be. The ends does not justify the means - and once it does its a slippery slope.

Human surgeons gain safe surgical skills through intern training - they don't operate on live patients and then kill them. If you believe that its OK for animals to be operated on and euthanased in this way but not for humans then IMO you shouldn't be a vet. Animals are not disposable and shouldn't be treated and valued in this way - not even for training puposes. The unintended consequence of what this practice teaches vet students, even subconciously is that animals ultimately are disposable. No they are not - ever. Not often I agree with Hugh Wirth but I think he's completely correct this time. It concerns me that the attitude that animals are disposable in the name of teaching or research is prevalent in some vet schools - there is always another solution if you look hard enough.

Lastly in the human surgical world, I believe students are now often taught vitually. And the organisation I work for is developing SLEs (Simulated Learning Environments) to train health professionals. It would seem to me that these applications should be used in vet schools as well.

I graduated as a Speech Pathologist not having done every last piece of clinical practice - I learnt a great deal under supervision after graduation (although I know I wasn't cutting into people or animals, the principle is still the same). I'm sure vets graduate having not competed the full gamat of procedures and must learn them after graduation and those necessary basic procedures could be learned 'on the job', through 21st century teaching methods such as compueter simulations or through internships.

Edited May 8, 2011 by westiemum

[raz]

Shooting the messenger rather than addressing the issue, typical of those insensitive to companion animal welfare. Working with a responsible surgeon capable of lots of procedures will do more for vets than one look and kill session at uni. Computer programmes exist to overcome these distasteful situations. Study them and learn. The Dr Mengele excuse that they were going to die anyway just doesn't cut it anymore. How we treat companion animals is a foretaste of how we treat each other. Is that another refugee camp we are building?

Whatever.. you just have to love it when we get down to the "I'm waaay more sensitive than you" level of argument.

While we're recommeding learning, I suggest YOU research Godwin's Law. ;)

Someone just had to mention the Nazis.

It was only a matter of time. I'm surprised it took Godwin's Law so long to appear in this thread after the last one.

Thanks to the vet grads and students for giving their side of the story.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.