Dogs Operated On, Then Killed

[gapvic]

I don't know much about the greyhound donation that Sir WJ describes, as we don't do it here. I guess if the dog doesn't suffer, and it's going to be PTS anyway, I have no problem with it. Although it's still sad.

I worked in the Canine Blood Bank for 5 years. The greyhounds used donate once a month, and retire through GAP if they are suitable.

Most private practices bleed greys that come in for euthanasia, so they have blood on hand when a dog needs it. The clinic I work in now does. Each greyhound is sedated before the procedure, one unit of whole blood is collected, then the dog is euthanased. In the whole time I've been a vet nurse, I've never seen a dog bled to the point of collapse (as mentioned in a previous post). Just one unit (450mls) is collected, then the dog is either euthanased or goes home with his owner.

Hope that explains it a bit more. Feel free to ask more questions if you like.

Sir WJ, you'll be very pleased to know that things have changed a bit out at W'bee :-). All the greyhounds now only stay in the colony for a limited time. Six weeks before their time is up, students are allocated a dog each and are required to put the dog through a sort of fostering program. The dog will be taught basic obedience, good social skills, how to walk up and down stairs etc. He will then come to GAP. Every single greyhound that is in the colony at W'bee now ends up at GAP :-).

[WoofnHoof]

My stupid computa hates those files and it takes me forever to scroll through the things but can you give me a rundown, Woof - looks like that study is only on the use of cadavers, not live animals?

Yeah not sure what the go is with the first file I think it's a PowerPoint converted file, essentially it surveyed the preferences for donated cadavers vs live terminal surgeries, students in early years showed preferences for the donated cadavers whereas the students in later years preferred live surgeries. The comments were interesting they talked about benefits and negatives of both, some students comments were controversial 'stop trying to ruin the vet course' and 'this is vet science not animal welfare'.

The second one referred to desensitization as part of a talk on the role of vets in animal welfare, interesting stuff.

[raz]

The second one referred to desensitization as part of a talk on the role of vets in animal welfare, interesting stuff.

Rightyo thanks buddy. What the second linky? I cant find it.

[WoofnHoof]

The second one referred to desensitization as part of a talk on the role of vets in animal welfare, interesting stuff.

Rightyo thanks buddy. What the second linky? I cant find it.

Here tis

[Swizzlestick]

I don't know much about the greyhound donation that Sir WJ describes, as we don't do it here. I guess if the dog doesn't suffer, and it's going to be PTS anyway, I have no problem with it. Although it's still sad.

I worked in the Canine Blood Bank for 5 years. The greyhounds used donate once a month, and retire through GAP if they are suitable.

Most private practices bleed greys that come in for euthanasia, so they have blood on hand when a dog needs it. The clinic I work in now does. Each greyhound is sedated before the procedure, one unit of whole blood is collected, then the dog is euthanased. In the whole time I've been a vet nurse, I've never seen a dog bled to the point of collapse (as mentioned in a previous post). Just one unit (450mls) is collected, then the dog is either euthanased or goes home with his owner.

Hope that explains it a bit more. Feel free to ask more questions if you like.

Sir WJ, you'll be very pleased to know that things have changed a bit out at W'bee :-). All the greyhounds now only stay in the colony for a limited time. Six weeks before their time is up, students are allocated a dog each and are required to put the dog through a sort of fostering program. The dog will be taught basic obedience, good social skills, how to walk up and down stairs etc. He will then come to GAP. Every single greyhound that is in the colony at W'bee now ends up at GAP :-).

Really?? Oh that has really made my day. So pleased to hear they all have a second chance.

I miss working with the hounds.

[john.davey.1960]

http://www.operationtoby.com.au/NO-KILL_australiapaper.pdf

Interesting paper. I'll take issue with one key assertion. The ACT is NOT a no kill territory. The RSPCA may have a low kill rate but it does not take on all dogs surrendered, nor does it deal with dogs impounded as roaming or for behavioural reasons. Those go to DAS and they do get PTS.

I'll agree with the point that hundreds of thousands of Australian homes take on new pets every year. However I don't agree that all of them are suitable homes for rescue dogs and nor will I agree that most rescue dogs are suitable for any home. Perhaps if more work was put into a dog before it was rehomed many problems could be averted but not all (such as resource guarding) are curable. As a dog trainer I see the heartbreak that impulsive decisionss made by novice dogs owners at pounds can lead to. The fact that these owners are motivated by thoughts of saving a dog just makes their problems even sadder.

Dogs don't come in a generic "one size fits all" package. Young working breed dogs are a case in point. The kinds of homes that suit them are limited. Whilst I agree that more effort needs to go into making rescue dogs both available and suitable for rehoming, I'd love to see puppy breeding and placement made better for buyers.

No point in madly bailing out the rescue pond if you can't stop the influx of dogs chosen impulsively, not socialised, not trained and past the point where you can "make them over". Getting pups out of pet shops would be a good start.

In the meantime and back on subject. The floodgates of rescue dogs unable to be rehomed will not close overnight. While dogs continue to die, personally I think they should be viewed as more than landfill. They are a resource that used ethically can provide valuable learning experiences for student vets.

We all need to think carefully about companion animals. They are made, not produced. Michael Vick's dogs are slowly being retrained from the fighting pits and are now pets and service dogs. Some may never be rehomed as the barbarity towards them was so bad they can never be trusted around other animals. Humans yes, animals no. Until Vick all such dogs were simply killed. using them for ethical reasons is not an option, it is barbarity just the same.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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

[Staranais]

My stupid computa hates those files and it takes me forever to scroll through the things but can you give me a rundown, Woof - looks like that study is only on the use of cadavers, not live animals?

Yeah not sure what the go is with the first file I think it's a PowerPoint converted file, essentially it surveyed the preferences for donated cadavers vs live terminal surgeries, students in early years showed preferences for the donated cadavers whereas the students in later years preferred live surgeries. The comments were interesting they talked about benefits and negatives of both, some students comments were controversial 'stop trying to ruin the vet course' and 'this is vet science not animal welfare'.

The second one referred to desensitization as part of a talk on the role of vets in animal welfare, interesting stuff.

I can't do powerpoint either, sorry, but I'd wonder if there was some relationship between vet student attitudes to animals, and the production animal vs companion animal preferences of vet students. If you're a production animal vet, you still are involved in animal welfare, but at the end of the day you are raising animals for food, you tend to be required to PTS animals if you can't fix them cheaply, and some methods of cattle/sheep/deer diagnosis require slaughtering individuals to diagnose what is wrong with the herd. So I'd wonder if students with a strong production bias might carry that over to their dealings with companion animals. No proof though, it's just me wondering. I could be dead wrong.

[WoofnHoof]

I can't do powerpoint either, sorry, but I'd wonder if there was some relationship between vet student attitudes to animals, and the production animal vs companion animal preferences of vet students. If you're a production animal vet, you still are involved in animal welfare, but at the end of the day you are raising animals for food, you tend to be required to PTS animals if you can't fix them cheaply, and some methods of cattle/sheep/deer diagnosis require slaughtering individuals to diagnose what is wrong with the herd. So I'd wonder if students with a strong production bias might carry that over to their dealings with companion animals. No proof though, it's just me wondering. I could be dead wrong.

I'm not sure from what I can tell there was no differentiation between specialisations, I don't know at which point in their study vets at this uni specialise but since the study took results from 1st, 3rd and 5th years it's probably across the board, but that would definetly be an interesting aspect which should be looked into further.

I've done a bit more digging and found some of the reference articles which are really interesting, hopefully a bit more computer friendly as they are PDF reports not powerpoint.

Ethically sourced animal cadavers and tissue

Training the animal doctor: Caring as a clinical skill

[Staranais]

The first paper especially seems a little out of touch with the real world, WoofnHoof, to put it mildly.

It says that using unethically sourced cadavers for dissection can lead to a bad attitude towards animals and desensitisation of vet students.

It states that the body of a dairy cow that has been put down due to injury is unethically sourced since, even though she was not put down for dissection, as a dairy cow she was "used by an industry that breeds animals for killing". And also says that dissecting any organs or meat that are bought from the slaughterhouse is unethical, since it's not ethical to support the slaughterhouse.

That seems like rather an extreme view. Apparently using anything sourced from the meat or dairy industry in our training is unethical and desensitises us to killing. You don't need to read far between the lines to start to suspect that the author would prefer all vets to be vegan.

I wonder if she thinks the same of everyone who buys meat or milk to eat, that they are all unethical and desensitised?

However, this is getting a little off topic. I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion, since I don't think we'll ever agree. I'm a huge supporter of animal welfare, have protested against unnecessary animal use in universities before, and don't eat meat myself, but sorry, think that the kind of extremist view expressed in that article is only going to harm animal welfare - it alienates farmers and vets alike.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Staranais

[WoofnHoof]

Staranais I'm not talking about the entire content of the article I'm taking about the references to non recovery surgeries and desensitization as a concept for further investigation in terms of their relevance to this discussion. When I read an article which discusses a number of points I analyze those points individually, it matters not whether I agree with the entire philosophy of the author what matters is which points might be relevant to what I want to know. Those are reference articles for the original research I linked, the author of that research did not base their study on the whole of the article their reference was only pertaining to the section on veterinary training protocols and the possible impacts of desensitization. No one is asking you to agree with the whole of the article or even any of it, and you certainly don't have to agree with it even if you do have a problem with non recovery surgeries.

[Sheridan]

We all need to think carefully about companion animals. They are made, not produced. Michael Vick's dogs are slowly being retrained from the fighting pits and are now pets and service dogs. Some may never be rehomed as the barbarity towards them was so bad they can never be trusted around other animals. Humans yes, animals no. Until Vick all such dogs were simply killed. using them for ethical reasons is not an option, it is barbarity just the same.

How are your mice doing?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Sheridan

[spanky]

For everyone that feels so strongly against this happening, how do you feel about dogs used in medical trials that are looking for cures to human diseases? Dogs suffer from quite a few similar diseases to us and live in our environments, so it's a good starting point for finding if developmental treatments work before starting human trials.

I'm reading a lot of scientific articles around reproduction in dogs for an assignment and they are using beagles from their colonies for the research. Most are pts so the reproductive tracts can be removed. To me that is much worse than vet students doing non-recovery surgery on dogs allocated for pts at the pound.

We feel horrible about this happening because they are a companion animal and we are emotionally attached to dogs as a whole. Yet do you care about how your steak or roast was treated before it landed on your plate? Do you consider the living conditions, distance it was transported to be slaughtered and how it behaved walking into the kill area? To me the way your food is produced is much more important and impacting on your life.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[spanky]

Rev Jo, I'm not saying they suffer. I was attempting to point out that there are lots of areas that dogs are used in science and that it is just a fact of life. The number of pts dogs from pounds used by uni vet students would be a small part in the scheme of things.

Thankfully not all the articles I'm reading result in pts, but they do desex to get the repo tract. Apparently bitches are complex when it comes to IVF compared to other mammals.

I guess I wonder how many people make an educated choice about where their protein comes from and if they pay the higher price for protein that matches their ethics.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[spanky]

Oh I agree. No animal should be made to suffer in the name of science. I think dogs and in this situation... non-recovery surgery... attract the reaction they do because people see them as pets / companions. It's easier to distance emotions from livestock or rats etc and not be concerned about how they are treated.

The logic that it is acceptable for students to learn on cadavers from the pound, but not do non-recovery surgery on the same animal seems kind of flawed to my way of thinkng.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[WreckitWhippet]

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.

I think you need to bold that bit

[WoofnHoof]

Actually the POV I'm interested in is the impact on the vet students themselves, the articles I linked to suggested that there may be a negative impact both on current students as well as prospective students as they may be less inclined to undertake a course on the basis of non recovery surgeries being performed when it may not be absolutely necessary. Given that many unis can and do produce competent vets with the use of alternatives then I think it's worth further investigation.