Dogs Operated On, Then Killed

[westiemum]

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?)

Staranais its rare I disagree with you but I'm going to this time. If vet students are graduating with little basic surgical experience than agreed that is a problem. However its how they get that experience that is under question - not that they need it. All caring profession new graduates - human and animal - get 'let loose' on people or animals soon after graduation. If there are vets in the vet profession who do not see the supervision of students and the passing along of professional skills to future generations of vets as a life-long professional obligation (I certainly did as a Speechie and trained many students and new graduates in my time) then the veterinary profession has another huge problem. My vet seems to have a constant turn-over of younger vets - some would see that as a problem, I don't - I know he supervises, trains and then they naturally move on - a couple have gone on to specialist e.g vet neurolgy training in Melbourne after a stint as new graduates with him - I hope he is the rule rather than the exception.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[Staranais]

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.

Westiemum, I don't want to devalue your opinion at all, but in my experience the week watching animals getting stunned and killed at the meatworks, or the week working at the SPCA putting down kittens in kitten season, is going to teach vet students that some animals are disposable a lot more thoroughly than putting down one animal during a prac class ever will.

Unfortunately, animals are to some extent disposable in our society - witness what goes on in the meat industry, in the dairy industry, in the egg industry, in the SPCA. If you want a vet that really believes that animals are never disposable, you'll have to find yourself a vegan vet. Even then, they likely will have participated in the death of some animals during their training.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Staranais

[Flick_Mac]

Our salaries also need to be taken into account. Very low compared with medical doctors - I certainly couldn't afford to be paid virtually nothing in an intern year. Our fifth year at uni is this anyway essentially - we only have a month's worth of lectures, and the rest of the time is spent at the university and private practices. Unpaid I might add. Another year of this in my opinion would significantly cut the number of vets graduating purely because of financial constraints. Not only have I completed this 5 year degree, but have another 4 year degree before I decided I wanted to try vet.

I also want to add that virtual learning has a very valuable place, but it does not compare to doing it for real. We do cadaver surgeries prior to our real surgeries, but, as I've mentioned before they are COMPLETELY different.

I don't think there's much point in this thread continuing, as the use of dogs is not happening or will be phased out in the very near future.

I also wanted to add that I'm insulted by the notion that we're hardened and desensitised to the suffering and death of animals. I've dedicated five long hard years to learning how to treat them. Yes, there have been lots of animals that have been used in the process (all from pounds, abbatoirs and some times our pets), but none of those animals have been anything less than respected and thanked for their sacrifices.

[Flick_Mac]

I also think most (not all) farmers are more desensitised to animal suffering than vets will ever be.

[cmkelpie]

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.

I am a final year medical student, we do not do any pracs on livestock, nor does any other medical university in Australia. We do use human cadavers in anatomy class during the first two years of the course. Apart from that all our surgical training is done next to an experienced surgeon in hospitals.

As a medical student I have done 13weeks of surgical pracs, mainly holding instruments, suturing etc. As a junior doctor I will do at least one term in surgery, and then if you decide to become a surgeon you become a surgical registrar and you start performing surgeries (senior doctor is always meant to be present during these).

Edit to add- I am not entering into the vet student should/should not use animals for practice argument. I am simply correcting an incorrect statement.

Edited May 8, 2011 by cmkelpie

[jacqui835]

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?

You have to be desenstised to be able to perform at your optimum. Take surgeons for example. I did work experience with a gynie and when performing surgery, he always had the person's face covered. They can't operate on their family members because they can't think clearly. The ability to distance oneself is to the advantage of the patient, be them animal or human because the result is a professional who can focus on implementing their skills and assessing the task at hand, rather than being overwhelmed by the emotional context. They literally need to disengage the part of their brain that would be getting all worried about the fact that the life of a family member (be it pet or human) is in their hands, and what the repercussions of failure could be - ie children and adults becoming depressed, destroying lives etc.

The role of a vet is not to counsel you, it's to save your pet and keep them as healthy as possible. If you need counseling, well there are professionals trained for that too. The skill sets and personal traits you require to be a good surgeon are extremely different from those you require to be a good counselor. I know which set I want my vets to have...

[Are You Serious Jo]

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?

[Staranais]

Yes, Flickmac, I guess the economic perspective is that salaries for new grads would need to rise if vets spent longer in school, or doing a vet degree would simply not be financially viable (it's already a pretty poor financial investment).

On the other hand, salaries would need to rise for practice owners if practice owners were expected to teach every new graduate employee surgery from scratch & supervise them for months on even basic surgeries (experienced vets are often very generous with their time to students and new grads, but you must remember that every hour they spend supervising a new grad is an hour they can't spend doing their own consults and surgeries).

I don't think most pet owners would want to absorb any extra rise in vet salaries, we already have threads on DOL about how expensive many vet clinics are. Farmers certainly wouldn't want to absorb the cost, either, many farmers couldn't afford to do so.

ETA, I should clarify that I'm not talking about recovery vs non-recovery surgery, here, but about a vet course with students not doing any live surgery at all until they graduate, as Hugh Wirth and some posters seem to be promoting. I can't see how that could be done without costing clients more, one way or another.

As an aside, I've been told that army medics often learn how to deal with trauma cases by operating on simulated bullet wounds in live pigs. I don't believe doctors do though, not here anyway. However, human surgeons do a much longer training course than vets do, which is subsidised heavily by the government (as it should be!), so they get their hand held for many more years than vets or army medics do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25735344/from/ET

Edited May 8, 2011 by Staranais

[kelpiekaye]

I also think most (not all) farmers are more desensitised to animal suffering than vets will ever be.

Im glad you added not all. Im a dairy farmer and I have cried over the death of a cow more than once. When you get cows in twice a day, milk them twice a day, help them through a difficult calving, treat them for illness etc etc you cant but help to get to know them and although we have to do whats practical it isnt always easy.

[cmkelpie]

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?

Not sure how long ago it was stopped, I actually did not even realise it was once the norm, makes sense though.

First time cutting flesh was on a cadaver in first year so no real pressure there, apart from fear of getting told off if you messed up the anatomy First time cutting on a patient in surgery was a little scary but we are very closely supervised, no surgeon is going to risk a medical student doing harm to a patient that is under their care.

Edited May 8, 2011 by cmkelpie

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[Flick_Mac]

Kelpie Kaye - I'm thinking more of the beef, sheep and perhaps poultry industries - where the interaction with animals is far less. I think dairy farmers are probably the big exception to the rule from my experience. But as I said, not all but I believe a lot of farmers are desensitised with a lot of the practices they carry out - dehorning, castration, tailing etc without anaesthesia. Vets are required (and I personally would always anyway if it wasn't) carry these procedures out with anaesthesia and analgesia.

My Dad's been graduated from Medicine for 30-ish years, and I think he told me once that they used dogs (not 100% sure if I'm remembering right though).

[cmkelpie]

Cadaver work just isn't the same, they can't be harmed and don't respond like a live body does.

I agree 100%, cadaver work is completely different to dealing with living tissue. Cadavers are so heavily preserved that they don't even look or feel like a human anymore. Great for learning anatomy from and practicing procedures e.g. inserting a chest drain. But they really cannot be used to simulate surgery.

Edit to add- Human cadavers are treated with the utmost respect inside medical schools. We appreciate that people have donated their bodies to assist with our learning. We follow very strict guidelines in anatomy labs and if a student acted inappropriately they would be dealt with very severely.

Edited May 8, 2011 by cmkelpie

[Staranais]

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.

I can't imagine the pressure of doing a major operation on a person full stop! It's bad enough doing it on someone's well loved pet, or best performing dairy cow.

Being supervised by a good surgeon as you work is really, really valuable though. They don't hold the scalpel, but they talk you through exactly what you're doing, and can tell you how to respond if things aren't going according to plan.

[raz]

To those who object to Vet students studying on a dog that is going to die anyway, would you object to a human receiving an organ donation?

[cmkelpie]

To those who object to Vet students studying on a dog that is going to die anyway, would you object to a human receiving an organ donation?

I don't object to students studying on a dog that is due to be PTS. However I fail to see the correlation between this and a human being whose condition/injury is incompatible with life, donating an organ to either save or improve another's life. There are very few people in society who do disagree with organ donation, and those that do tend to do so due to religious beliefs.

Could you explain this further?

[jacqui835]

To those who object to Vet students studying on a dog that is going to die anyway, would you object to a human receiving an organ donation?

I don't object to students studying on a dog that is due to be PTS. However I fail to see the correlation between this and a human being whose condition/injury is incompatible with life, donating an organ to either save or improve another's life. There are very few people in society who do disagree with organ donation, and those that do tend to do so due to religious beliefs.

Could you explain this further?

As I read it, benefiting through surgery on a being that is going to die anyway - either directly in the case of organ donation or indirectly through educational use (but potentially more benefit in the long run since a student can go on to save many lives if they have great training).

I had a friend who didn't want to be an organ donor, not because he was religious but because he wanted all of his 'bits' with him when he died. It was actually quite a contentious point for us.

[cmkelpie]

To those who object to Vet students studying on a dog that is going to die anyway, would you object to a human receiving an organ donation?

I don't object to students studying on a dog that is due to be PTS. However I fail to see the correlation between this and a human being whose condition/injury is incompatible with life, donating an organ to either save or improve another's life. There are very few people in society who do disagree with organ donation, and those that do tend to do so due to religious beliefs.

Could you explain this further?

As I read it, benefiting through surgery on a being that is going to die anyway - either directly in the case of organ donation or indirectly through educational use (but potentially more benefit in the long run since a student can go on to save many lives if they have great training).

I had a friend who didn't want to be an organ donor, not because he was religious but because he wanted all of his 'bits' with him when he died. It was actually quite a contentious point for us.

I should have made my point clearer. Does your friend object to organ donation full stop? Does it infuriate him that people are using donated lungs, hearts etc? Or did he simply find the thought of his own organs being donated distressing? Many people do not want to donate their own organs, but if they were going to die without a new kidney etc, they would be more then happy to be the recipient of an organ. So there are two levels of people who disagree with organ donation, those who are flat against it and those who do not want to donate their own organs.

Back to the actual topic. I remain unconvinced that human organ transplants should be brought into this topic. It seems very much like a troll's argument. If you read through these posts people that are against the use of dogs for vet practice state so for a variety of reasons, including-

a) Vets should be able to get enough experience in real surgeries i.e. in which the animal is meant to wake up

b) The animals must undergo a lot of distress in the lead up to the surgery and subsequent euthanasia

c) They disagree with euthanasia full stop

Organ donation does not really gel in with either of these arguments and I feel there is a risk of people correlating animal euthanasia with human transplants. This is the only reason I stepped into this argument. Believe it or not plenty of people still believe that if you are an organ donor, doctors will not 'try as hard' to save you. This is a complete fallacy. Discussions regarding human transplantation should remain completely separate from an argument such as this.

Edited May 8, 2011 by cmkelpie

[kelpiekaye]

Kelpie Kaye - I'm thinking more of the beef, sheep and perhaps poultry industries - where the interaction with animals is far less. I think dairy farmers are probably the big exception to the rule from my experience. But as I said, not all but I believe a lot of farmers are desensitised with a lot of the practices they carry out - dehorning, castration, tailing etc without anaesthesia. Vets are required (and I personally would always anyway if it wasn't) carry these procedures out with anaesthesia and analgesia.

My Dad's been graduated from Medicine for 30-ish years, and I think he told me once that they used dogs (not 100% sure if I'm remembering right though).

Know what you mean.

There are bound to be callous dairy farmers around but hopefully the times are a changing.