Dogs Operated On, Then Killed

[jackie_a1]

Doesn't it depend on where these animals are coming from? If they are donated from shelters and pounds and going to be put to sleep anyway why is it such a misjustice that they be operated on? They do not feel pain during surgery. And they are humanely euthanised after the students are done with the operation. I assume that the vet students all treat the animals with respect (or else why would they be doing vet science) and like someone had said earlier how will they learn surgery. No we don't kill humans to learn surgery but we don't kill humans in general now do we?

At the end of the day it is sad that any animal need to be euthanised merely for population and fund control but it happens. Instead of just killing these animals and incinerating the bodies (or throwing them in a tip) why should good not come of this? The students are learning and it is preparing them for the real world, for real animals not dummies. To understand how to correctly handle a dog etc which they will need to do in future, it is letting them acquire the skills they need. NO ONE is saying because these animals are being surgically experimented on that they are LESS important or not important than any other animal. I think that is interpretation. Because they are being operated on and then put to sleep people assume that those handling them have less consideration for them? No. I am sure the vet students are very professional and respectful and as you know in THE REAL WORLD death is a huge part. Being able to do this complete process will help prepare students for the REAL WORLD. Animals die. You have to put animals to sleep. That is fact. Or would you rather them practise on dummies and when it comes to desexing your pet they make a mistake?

These animals are a VALUED part of a society more so because even through their death they continue to contribute to science and humans. And that is what matters. That even in death animals help us.

[john.davey.1960]

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.

All dogs used in scientific studies are killed, that's the law. Testing in animals is for insurance purposes, nothing else. Stitching kittens eyes shut has not led to any ocular cures. Thalidomide was tested in animals and if penicillin had been tested in guinea pigs it never would have made it out of the lab.

Drugs have different effects in animals, are excreted differenly and metabolised differently.

As for eating animals, yes I do care how they are treated before being killed and we should work to ensure they don't suffer beforehand. We are carnivores in the end.

[jackie_a1]

John Davey we ARE NOT carnivores. We are omnivores so if we wanted we can survive on plant matter solely obviously you need to take vitamins but we can survive.

Dogs are NOT carnivores either they are facultative carnivores they can also be vegetarian (mind the spelling.)

Cats are TRUE obligatory carnivores.

I am in no way against killing animals for food but I had to correct you.

Edited May 11, 2011 by jackie_a1

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'm guessing JD eats meat then

[WoofnHoof]

jackie funnily enough plenty of vets are trained here and overseas without the use of non recovery surgeries, given that animal use in science is guided by the three rs (reduce, replace, refine) do you not think that there are many alternative training optiins that may be just as effective at preparing students for the 'real world' as you so emphatically put it?

[jackie_a1]

Woof there are plenty. I'm not arguing that.

But wouldn't you rather if these dogs are going to be euthanised that something come of their death? Or would you rather them be left to die in the pound and be dumped in the tip? Like I said depending where the dogs come from. If they are pound/shelter dogs/animals I am all for it.

[WreckitWhippet]

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.

All dogs used in scientific studies are killed, that's the law. Testing in animals is for insurance purposes, nothing else. Stitching kittens eyes shut has not led to any ocular cures. Thalidomide was tested in animals and if penicillin had been tested in guinea pigs it never would have made it out of the lab.

Drugs have different effects in animals, are excreted differenly and metabolised differently.

As for eating animals, yes I do care how they are treated before being killed and we should work to ensure they don't suffer beforehand. We are carnivores in the end.

Can you show me that please ?

[jackie_a1]

And not because pound/shelter animals are less important etc but because if they are deemed to that fate wouldn't you rather that something be learnt from their death. Other than them being put to sleep regardless and the bodies disposed of? The dogs do not suffer, they feel no pain and they are handled humanely (if they are going through the uni they have strict standards and procedures) so what is the problem?

That the dogs are being operated on? Or that the dogs are being put to sleep after?

[jackie_a1]

double post

Edited May 11, 2011 by jackie_a1

[jackie_a1]

triple post

Edited May 11, 2011 by jackie_a1

[Are You Serious Jo]

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?

[jackie_a1]

Rev

[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.

All dogs used in scientific studies are killed, that's the law. Testing in animals is for insurance purposes, nothing else. Stitching kittens eyes shut has not led to any ocular cures. Thalidomide was tested in animals and if penicillin had been tested in guinea pigs it never would have made it out of the lab.

Drugs have different effects in animals, are excreted differenly and metabolised differently.

As for eating animals, yes I do care how they are treated before being killed and we should work to ensure they don't suffer beforehand. We are carnivores in the end.

Can you show me that please ?

RSG - it may depend on the type of trial / testing being done, but for some there is a requirement for the animals to be euthanised at the end. I don't know if it is all, but I know we dissected rats at uni that were required to be pts at the end of the trial they were in.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[WoofnHoof]

Woof there are plenty. I'm not arguing that.

But wouldn't you rather if these dogs are going to be euthanised that something come of their death? Or would you rather them be left to die in the pound and be dumped in the tip? Like I said depending where the dogs come from. If they are pound/shelter dogs/animals I am all for it.

It depends, the issue is not as clear cut as getting something out of death it's whether it's ideal to be training vets in this way. I'm not convinced it is, I'm not convinced it isn't either that's why I'd like to see more study done about the impact on both current students and potential students.

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 never said it makes you callous I said there is a possible risk that this type of desensitization could be detrimental, as I said earlier there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion either way but I do think it's an important question and one that should be asked. We already know that there are psychological consequences for pound staff and vets who routinely euthanase animals, as well as other industries such as abattoir workers, we shouldn't be so quick to assume there are no detrimental effects to performing non recovery surgeries for the sake of practice.

You should know better than to suggest that a moral or ethical objection to certain practices is indicative of being scared or squeamish, as someone who works in animal welfare surely you are sick to death of people assuming that an interest in welfare makes you a tree hugging PETA loving all-animals-should-be-free hippy???

[john.davey.1960]

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?

Sounds like the Nuremburg Defence to me. Desensitisation to animal suffering goes a long way to explaining the attitude of vets who would rather see a dog dead than bred.

[Are You Serious Jo]

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.

[Flick_Mac]

John Davey we have dogs and cats used in flea drug trials at uni that are rehomed after their trial is completed. Some animals are euthanased after their trial as part of their requirements by ethics but definitely not ALL.

I don't think desensitisation is the thing that vet students develop, although may be in some cases. I think of it as objectivity. I would be very upset if I saw as many animals as I do and will see in pain, but I have to objectively put that aside and think about how I'm going to treat this and what is the best way to help the suffering. Yes terminal surgeries are different but it helps gain that objectivity by experiencing controlled painless death and I don't think that's a bad thing.

I think this argument is well and truly over - it is going round in circles and no one will be persuaded to the other side of the argument.

[vetrg]

"Desensitisation to animal suffering goes a long way to explaining the attitude of vets who would rather see a dog dead than bred." John Davey

Really?

That would explain the high suicide rate, the alcoholism rate (that runs second only to pub landlords) and the 80% divorce rate in vets then. They are all compensating for being such callous, heartless desensitised bastards.

[Souff]

We are carnivores in the end.

Omnivores here.