Hear hear.

When the OSU story first broke, I wrote a two-part blog post about terminal surgeries and my own philosophy about them, for anyone interested in a vet student perspective.

Megan April 13th, 2009 11:32:25 AM

Megan: Sorry I missed your post. It's EXCELLENT!!

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 11:41:22 AM

I 100% agree.

Kelly April 13th, 2009 12:03:07 PM

Aw, thanks Dr. Khuly :)

Megan April 13th, 2009 12:06:03 PM

I just think there is so much "free" work that needs to be done out there that there are plenty of learning opportunities for vet students. Countless animals across the nation are euthanized because they come to rescues with health issues that rescues and shelters cannot afford to fix. I have not problem with these animals being given a chance (that they otherwise may not have had) at a recovery by going to a vet school for "practice". Obviously, the end result would be in more lives saved than are there currently. I know that our local veterinary schools regularly perform spay/neuters for our low cost spay/neuter programs in the city -- and also do reduced cost TPLO surgeries that are a great option for many people who need the surgery but cannot afford one of our specialists. It seems like there should be countless "test subjects" out there without breeding specifically for that, or causing problems that then need to be fixed.

Brent April 13th, 2009 12:14:08 PM

Megan: I will read your post. Back in 2004, the Boston Globe did up an article based on protests from a group of veterinary students on terminal surgeries and inhumane use of live animals. My memory serves me to remember deliberate breaking of dog's legs to learn repair.

Back in the 80's, I unwittingly participated in a terminal surgery with my own pet. This involved supposed-hopeful removal of lung tumors from a "fibrosarcoma" long ago removed on the exterior at vaccine injection site (between shoulder blades).

However, it is important for me to add, that the odds of successful surgery was stated upfront, the tumor was much larger and involved than x-rays showed, and my pet was, as far as I knew, treated with respect & humane.

I learned from that experience, and would never participate "knowingly" again.

And to qualify that statement, apparently, deceit is still employed at various clinics to not only include a terminal surgery, but, as my later experience has enlightened, to keep a hopelessly terminal pet alive, for the benefit of "education".

I would like to believe that most institutions of higher learning would not engage in such highly immoral, unethical, fraudulent, and inhumane behavior. And I would also like to ask: Aren't non-living alternatives available? Cannot one learn beyond basic s/n, by close observation and assistance for "truly needed live surgeries, from actual illness & accidents?"

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire, a true story of human and pet veterinary-related suffering

Barbara A. Albright April 13th, 2009 12:20:09 PM

I agree with Brent. I've always wondered why vet students can't practice by offering a low- or no-cost option for people who can't afford full-cost surgery. Many pets are euthanized because their owners can't afford the care they need; a student at a vet school would at least give the pet a chance.

This is done to a certain extent even in human medicine. According to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, "Dental schools can be a good source of quality, reduced-cost dental treatment. Most of these teaching facilities have clinics that allow dental students to gain experience treating patients while providing care at a reduced cost. Experienced, licensed dentists closely supervise the students. Post-graduate and faculty clinics are also available at most schools."

Why create problems in healthy animals when there are so many pets with existing conditions that need help? While using healthy animals is undoubtedly more convenient, is that a good enough reason?

Mary Straus April 13th, 2009 12:41:33 PM

Human surgeons take a prolonged residency with graduated degrees of supervision before they can practice. Our graduates need to know how to do surgery upon graduation. At the very least, they need to know the basics of surgery, anesthesia, and tissue handling. It is unreasonbale to expect the pet owning public to financially support 4 - 6 year residencies while students polish their surgical skills. Having said that, there is a fine line between humane teaching practices (such as appear to be the case at OSU) and what this student described. I think that in general, people that go to veterinary school are compassionate and care about animals. It would be a rare veterinary student today that would want to put a pet through repeated painful procedures. Donors and the public in general have to make sure that they have the facts before they let their emotions lead them to a quick decision.

Keith Niesenbaum, VMD April 13th, 2009 12:43:45 PM

Megan: I think I have said before: "YOU are going to be one hellava vet!" Your blog was excellent; your future patient/clients will be very lucky to have you.

Brent: We were busy typing away at the same time, obviously thinking the same thing.

Barbara/NH

Barb A. April 13th, 2009 01:25:38 PM

Having been a patient at dental schools, I think that it would be a fine idea to have low cost clinics where veterinary students could, under faculty supervision, perform needed procedures on sick and injured animals. I know so many people who are devastated by the cost when their companions need surgical care. If they had a lower cost alternative which would still allow them to obtain up-to-date care in a full-service facility, they would be delighted. Humans are worked on by students in teaching hospitals all the time, and often don't even know it. Why should it shock us to apply the same concept to animals, especially if the owner knows and consents?

Of course it would be abhorrent to deliberately injure any living being just for the purpose of perfecting one's medical techniques on him/her/it. But that's not what we are talking about.  Spay and neuter, and even other procedures, for pets from lower-income families, is a win-win proposition as long as the school/clinic exercises appropriate supervision.

Just one opinion here.

Susan April 13th, 2009 01:43:32 PM

If a pet is going to be put to sleep anyway, students might as well learn from it.  If the animal is healthy, there are people out there that will adopt as I have.

healthshotsrem April 13th, 2009 01:50:45 PM

As a one-time dental school patient who experienced a complication (that ended in my only root canal ever), I have to say that sometimes what comes cheap has a high price-tag attached. But as it was in the interest of learning, I didn't complain one bit. I ended up as someone's case study in "how not to fill a cavity." 

Doctors aren't born, they're made. And that process is not always pretty. Again, I refer you all to Dr. Atul Gawande's brilliant read: "Complications: A Surgeons notes on an Imperfect Science." It's the book I'd love to be able to write about veterinary medicine. But we can't all be Dr. Gawande. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 02:02:36 PM

As with a previous post of mine about farm animal training, I believe that some of the problem and much opportunity for remedy lies with the veterinary school system. Back in "them good ole days." when I was a student, our main surgical experience was watching and assisting the faculty. When we graduated ( with debts in the 100's of dollars, rather than the 100's of thousands ) we could take jobs with experienced preceptors at wages such that our mentors could (with varying combinations and degrees of patience and competence) take us through the stages of increasing responsibility in care of patients, including surgery. Two factors seem to have intervened. (1) With the adaptation (metastasis?) of the residency system from "people" medicine, there are fewer opportunities for veterinary students in the course of four years, to participate and assist with senior experienced faculty or attending surgeons. (2) The combination of high tuition, book costs, living costs etc. leading to heavy debt, has made it imperative for new veterinary associates to begin earning heavily on behalf of their employers "right out of the box." One possible remedy would be for a mandatory term of practice under a mentor in private practice before admitting veterinarians to enter further training at veterinary schools. Another important step would be to eliminate or, at least, greatly diminish the number of vice presidents, managers, and administrators -- or cap their salaries at 2X minimum wage -- to help lower the unconscionable debt burden of graduating students. At the same time the students should be limited to antenna TV and no more than one divorce during their four years of school as their contribution to debt reduction. Sorry if this has turned into a rant about tuition debt, but I think most of what is a problem with veterinary medicine today can be explained by tuition debt.

Dr. Steve Dubin April 13th, 2009 02:03:09 PM

Dr. Dubin: I don't disagree with your take on tuition debt. And your assessment clearly agrees with Dr. Niesenbaum's take on how much more it would cost the general public if veterinarians were required to remain in training for another two to four years. As it is, the public is having  hard time comprehending why a cat spay costs $200-$500. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 02:12:23 PM

I just tweeted this, but here is more detail. Oregon Humane Society partnered with the Oregon State College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Animal Medical and Learning Center (AMLC) opened in September 2007.

I feel that local humane and rescue organizations are severely underutilized by veterinary schools. Students could work on spaying/neutering, fixing hit-by-cars, abuse/neglect, infectious cases, etc. while providing a valuable service, not only to the animals, but the community as a whole. The animals spend less time in shelters, greater chances of adoption, and less chances for shelter-related behavior problems.

My aunt and uncle recently adopted a cat who had hepatic lipidosis and was successfully treated there. He adopted after the feeding tube was removed, and the cat is doing wonderfully in his new home. My friend adopted a lab for her father from the same shelter, after it was diagnosied and treated for some skin problems. Both animals would have likely been put down, had it not been for the pre-adoption care at the Oregon Humane Society.

Janet Tobiassen DVM April 13th, 2009 02:34:41 PM

I'm an undergrad at OSU, and the whole campus was in an uproar, mostly at the student newspaper that first published the story without doing much fact-checking on the vet school's side. Not that it was necessary - everyone's on the vet school's side anyways, as most of us have enough contact with the program to know that's not how it's run. Actually, all the mess did was tarnish the reputation of the would-be benefactor in the eyes of the student body, for having so quickly embraced and propogated the ill-informed opinion of a single student who hid under anonymity. I personally feel that it's no more cruel to perform terminal surgery on an animal slated for euthanasia than to simply euthanize the animal, so why not benefit those who will go on to provide veterinary services to the pet-owning population? It's not like the animal knows any difference - proper and compassionate pre-anesthetic handling w/a smooth induction and then never waking up...a pretty good way to go, considering the alternatives. And again, for those who abhor the fact that the animals are there in the first place...well, take it up with an irresponsible society, not the shelter or veterinary education system - it's a problem we've created. The student do get to practice spays and neuters through the shelter system - but only because the animals are unowned. Some have suggested reduced fee services for allowing the veterinary student to practice, but I don't think that's such a good idea...at the end of the day, that is someone's pet. If the student screws up, I'm sure some type of pre-procedure release form protects them from financial and legal liability. But it'd do nothing for emotional liability...and those of us with pets know that the money value of our pets is nothing next to the emotional value. Of course the owner goes into it (hopefully) aware of the increased risk due to the surgeon's inexperience...but still.

anna April 13th, 2009 04:40:48 PM

If we accept students have lower skills, is it really better to learn at a free clinic than on shelter animals? This suggests it is better that owned pets suffer at the hands of those with developing skills, rather than shelter pets be used in a way they are never conscious of (terminal surgery, the patient never wakes up). i.e.: Let the students practice on poor people's animals and the shelter pets go into a landfill?

emily April 13th, 2009 05:35:23 PM

Not to many pet owners lining up with their credit cards fanned-out like poker hands in this train wreck of an economy thats obvious.  Whining about tuition debt doesn't amke a very good impression either.

Evet April 13th, 2009 05:49:36 PM

What happens to this supply of animals if we actually achieve "No Kill"? Where does the Vet Schools get their "practice" animals?

Robert Garnett April 13th, 2009 06:00:50 PM

emily: This is especially true given that almost every veterinary school teaching environment offers concessions to patient health that are seldom available in a shelter setting. Pre-op blood work, extreme pre and post-op attention, three students and one floating surgeon per fifteen students, etc. etc.

Add to the mix the fact that vet students usually end up adopting their first spay and it's a no-brainer. These pets are almost always snapped up by the vet student body who waits for them every year as if they were Halloween candy. That's a benefit that's hard to quantify. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 06:06:50 PM

Robert: Interesting question. But no-kill will likely be achieved by more aggressively pursuing resources like these (as Dr. Tobiassen has pointed out). furthermore, there will always be a need for low-cost spay and neuter. That is, unless we achieve the holy grail of shelter medicine: The non-surgical spay and neuter.

Without the need to know how to spay, I'm afraid many general practitioner veterinarians' surgical skills will decline in breadth. Sure, we'll still be able to do the basics (mass removal, tube placements, wound treatment), but major abdominal surgery? No thanks. The board certified surgeons will multiply! (And I'm not so sure they'd like that.)

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 06:12:50 PM

A different OSU (Ohio State) has a program working with greyhound rescue that assists them in getting larger groups of dogs (10 - 14 usually) spayed/neutered (along with vaccs/bloodwork, etc) and the work is done by students working under direct supervision of the excellent team of Dr. Guillermo Couto and Dr. Christina Iazbik (and many others, depending on any special needs surgery). They have instituted a blood donor program using donors who are adopted dogs, instead of the kenneled dog system still employed in some teaching schools. Those dogs receive free/discounted medical service while in the program, and this work is done by students and supervising professors. There are even cases of cancer study on adopted dogs where treatments are discounted for greyhound owners (Dr. Couto's cancer studies in greys are very important, as 25 - 30% of greys die from various cancers).

There are few good reasons for shelters and rescues not to form partnerships with vet schools. Having an understanding that dogs who haven't been adopted yet, will help vet students learn by their use as subjects, with all proper precautions for safety that any vet would use, is far better than a shelter or rescue putting down or turning away animals in need of medical care. As Janet Tobiassen mentioned, this type of program works in Oregon, too.

Personally, I am a dental school guinea pig survivor, and while there were some things that I didn't enjoy, I got decent care at very inexpensive prices (for my parents). I have no problem doing the same with my pets, if it was something that needed a larger suite of expertise/technology than was available at my hometown vet. Columbus is only 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland, and I've traveled to the Akron Specialty/Emergency Clinic for a serious gastro problem - going to Columbus for a cancer/amputation thing would be sensible, since they do so many and I know several of the patients, who've had good outcomes.

KateH April 13th, 2009 06:47:02 PM

Robert -- as upsetting as it is, there is already an industry that breeds animals specifically for 'animal research' use. If no-kill became the norm in the U.S., I'm sure vet schools could turn to those 'laboratory mills' for their animals.

Pai April 13th, 2009 07:03:36 PM

Pai: Ouch! I don't think so. The way our society is moving, accepting the use of purpose-bred animals is not a thing I'd expect any future veterinary school student to tolerate. For now, maybe, with serious qualifications (as in, these animals were bred for another, more important research purpose and are now being "harvested' via vet students. But I see few future vets willing to take on this kind of teaching tool. IMO. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 13th, 2009 07:23:53 PM

In my experience, student spay/neuters can be a mutually beneficial experience for everyone.  Many shelters don’t have the time, space, or funding to get all of their animals surgery.  Often they beg, plead, and cajole to get vets to donate their time to get their animals surgery.  And getting surgery is the difference between an animal who finds a home and an animal who doesn’t.  Once the effort of a surgery is made, it makes little sense to choose that animal for euthanasia (or, ‘to be killed’, depending on your philosophy) when space is needed.

Shelters who work with vet schools can get surgery for their animals, almost certainly in a more modern, more aseptic environment, with a promise of follow-up care and adoption.  Yes, these are learning students, whose surgeries can take longer and potentially have complications more often than with experienced surgeons.  But they are also having surgery by people who care a great deal about that animal.  High volume shelter surgeons have a great deal of skill, but also work in an assembly line fashion, with little time for personal evaluation and care for each patient.  Animals sent to a university will receive physical exams, bloodwork, post-operative care, and pain management – something not available to every shelter animal who is altered.  The students performing the surgery are closely monitored by amazing clinicians and surgeons, and any complications intra-operatively or post-operatively are going to be addressed in the best possible way, another opportunity animals who receive surgery in the shelter may not have.

And no student will ever allow the animal that they personally performed surgery on to not find a home.  Student organizations and individual students work very hard to make sure that every animal that has come into their care find a home.  And, the experience will often lead students to learn more about their local shelter, and continue to volunteer and work with shelter animals – which happened to me, personally.

Rules vary, but I believe that students, if eligible for their license within 6 months, are usually able to perform surgery when under the tutelage of a licensed veterinarian.  This can occur at the shelter, so I think it’s reasonable and preferable for the first time this occurs for it to happen under the umbrella of a veterinary school.

In the end, shelters save money, animals get thorough (sometimes obsessive) care and a nearly guaranteed home, and students become comfortable performing surgery before their first day on the job in private practice.  And, unfortunately, the technology for practicing surgery on robotic patients isn’t really feasible yet.  We all need to learn sometime in order to help other patients.  I think it’s great we’ve found a way to do that that helps everyone involved.

Adam April 13th, 2009 07:27:15 PM

People volunteer to be teaching tools all the time: clinical trials, new surgical procedures, resident/intern examinations, non-insured travelling to teaching hospitals

I'm heartened to see a few posts offering reasonable alternatives/availability to companion animals in need. Dr. Tobiassen mentions a good win/win.

"Donors and the public in general have to make sure that they have the facts before they let their emotions lead them to a quick decision. Keith Niesenbaum, VMD": agreed, and offered in "writing" to include ALL the facts: prognosis, odds of success,whether for benefit of education, and any or all possible conflicts of interest.

I should add, that my "cost" back in the mid-80's for an unsuccessful procedure was "minimal", not that it determines any ethical obligations.

Dr. K: whaaaat? Prices for an office visit range $41-57, 4DX $42-52,14 amoxicillin $16-21---teeth cleaning $300-450

Medical and Education costs have gone to ludicrous expense

Barbara A. Albright April 13th, 2009 08:39:58 PM

Unfortunately there are vets at universities that do deliberately inflict pain and suffering for the sake of research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18538604?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Learning on shelter animals who require the procedures such as spay and neutering is a useful and necessary tool in my opinion. Exploritory surgery on a critically ill patient is also acceptable providing the animal is never allowed to wake and suffer. I think we All can accept that hands on learning must take place, but the difference between well supervised student surgery and deliberate malintent is not such a fine line that it can't be walked.

LorriM April 13th, 2009 11:26:42 PM

There is a huge difference between having students participate in spay/neuter on live patients who need the spay/neuter anyway and are going to be adopted vs. "terminal surgeries" and "detrimental" surgeries that result in either the injury or death of the animal. I have heard, and believe, arguments that the latter is unnecessary in this day and age. And, I firmly believe that terminal surgeries have a very deleterious effect on the veterinary students, psychologically and emotionally in terms of the attitude I want them to have if/when they ever become my pets' vet. I wouldn't want a doctor to unnecessarily kill humans as a part of his training and then expect him to be empathic about my loved ones. I would never trust such a doctor.

No one is entitled to Ms. Pickens money. It's funny how recipients start acting entitled. Nor do I think it's fair to make snarky "old bird" comments and because she doesn't want to give it to this vet school anymore. That's her right, and frankly, good for her standing up and demanding some positie change in the vet training curriculum. Gee, wish more cared enough to do that.

She is a big animal lover, I have heard directly from a PR/lobbyist guy who knows her. She is also active in trying to save wild horses. Good for her. I applaud her using her money and the leverage it buys for such purposes. Here is her website: http://www.madeleinepickens.com/

If I ever had that kind of money, I'd hope to be inspired by her as a role model.

Stefani April 13th, 2009 11:37:51 PM

BTW, she's apparently in her early 60s. Not that "old." She'll hopefully be advocating another 20 yrs

Stefani April 13th, 2009 11:53:37 PM

I am glad that you and others have clarified some of the differences between human doctors and veterinarians in terms of their training. When I was going through vet school 12 years ago we had a fellow student who was an animal liberationist and did not want ANY animals being practised upon for the benefits of learning surgical skills. While at first glance a noble goal, and he offered solutions such as models etc, my personal experience since as a veterinary tutor has been that there is no substitute at all for live tissues. You can have mock setups, but they don't have the tendency to potentially bleed (sometimes in seemingly random ways) which can really freak the new graduate out. I think you should not compare human surgeons with vets. As you point out, social expectations are vastly different. Most GPs are never expected to perform major abdominal surgery. And yet the general public expects that of every new graduate and every veterinarian of every skill level from the get go. Speys are major abdominal surgery. You can talk all you like about the financial cost passed on to paying clients by having surgical residencies for vets post graduation in the fashion of human surgeons. And you are correct in that the economics don't allow it. It won't, until the greater majority of the general public are really prepared to pay the cost that comes with that. For me, the greater issue with taking away the opportunity to train on live animals, WITHOUT providing a dedicated supervised training program post-gradudation (a la human medicine), means that new graduate veterinarians still have the pressures and expectations foisted upon them of being able to do surgery, and often without sufficient back up support. Most new graduates are not supervised as much as they need to be. What then is the cost, if we don't provide them with exposure to live tissues prior to graduation and immediately throw them in the deep end? The cost is huge - and finances don't come in to it. The stress, the mental pressure. When our profession is in the highest echelons for depression (a recent study in Australia, puts the number of veterinarians suffering depression at a third of all participants), and is probably among the top three professions (if not the very top), for suicide, then I see proposals to take away exposuer to live tissue handling, first hand, prior to graduation, without providing surgical residencies (with the massive prohibitive cost), and without changing societal expectations, you end up with some very sick new graduates. Our profession is truly unique. I cannot think of another, where the pressure is on to deal with profound medical and ethical issues, lifes are in your hand, and you are thrown in the deep end on the very first day of your career. I really cannot. This is the hidden cost.

AlexH April 14th, 2009 03:38:14 AM

I agree with Alex. There is no substitute for real tissue. Even the difference between using a suture model and using a cadaver dog is enormous.

My school does terminal surgeries on shelter animals and I'm glad--I do not want to "practice" on people's pets and I think it would be unethical to do so. No matter how much supervision you have, the likelihood of making a mistake or simply doing a subpar job is fairly high when you're a rookie, so best that those mistakes don't have to wake up afterwards! It is a sad thing, but at least their lives have some purpose.

Maybe someday there won't be such a surplus of unwanted animals at the shelters and we'll be forced to make do with alternatives. I really hope this will eventually be the case. But until then...

abc April 14th, 2009 07:59:22 AM

I think the comment calling Mrs. Pickens an 'old bird' donor was completely uncalled for. Anyone who attends OSU had better know who she and her husband are and that they are hardly the type of people to go running off on an animal rights rampage. In fact, she is a sterling animal advocate and thank God for her saving those wild horses! And everything else she does for animals and for this country.

If Madeline Pickens had an anonymous vet school student telling her what she heard, I'm sure she looked into it carefully as she and her husband have donated more money to OSU than anyone else, ever. As someone whose father and uncle was classmates with her husband, whose grandfather did his PhD work there (and experienced a lot of underhanded daily sabotage of his work causing him to move cross country to another university system) and who knows what the name Pickens means out there, I can easily see this type of practice actually being performed at this school. Know of what you speak. It's a fine school but like any and especially being in a part of the country where animals are manufactured in most people's eyes, not born, this scenario is completely realistic. And I would be very concerned too, if I were Mrs. T. Boone Pickens. All that was accomplished was to tarnish the donor's name? Hardly! A bunch of deans proclaiming this to be totally false is hardly what would convince me of anything. Of course they're going to say that. OSU and the name Pickens are inseparable and OSU had better make sure they are ship shape from now on.

As for the ethics of the whole learning on live animals, well vet schools are hardly the ones doing the most of that. And doctors aren't inexperienced with working on living beings when they go into the workforce, depending on their speciality, they have killed an awful lot of animals by the time they get there, especially dogs. That they are bred for that, so what. It's all terribly archaic and as has been pointed out previously, there are plenty of ways it could be done better and for the benefit of animals.

It's too bad that it seems to big progress vet schools have made in general is that students now have a choice to partake in these practices. Wow, big deal. That's something to get excited about - NOT.

Pat April 14th, 2009 08:45:25 AM

OK, OK, 'Old Bird' was uncalled for. After all, I get all up in arms when name calling happens in these comment threads--I shouldn't enagge in this kind of hypocrisy. I do, however, wonder why she didn't confront the veterinary school directly with her concerns so she could be treated to a personal tour of the student surgery ward.

In vet school I was the president of the student body (shocking, I know) and I was charged with giving prospective donors tours from time to time. They often had questions about the ethics surrounding certain profs' labs, etc. so I would show them around them (after asking the profs for permission, of course). to my knowledge, we never lost a donor who received an up-close and pesonal view.

Perhaps the vet school should have been more proactive about this but I don't know what happened behind the scenes here.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 14th, 2009 09:41:09 AM

I've chosen not to get involved in the nuts and bolts debate of this subject. That are a lot of issues involved and my personal views are a mix of hope and practicality.

But I will throw this out there, in regards to the 'ethics' of animal use: if one can't first obtain the animal's consent, then use of that animal is, probably, unethical.

There's really just no getting around the fact that animals don't sign up for virtually all uses humans make of them. And when it comes to taking their one and only lives, we only need look at ourselves, and our loved ones, to ask if we'd so capriciously "donate" their lives, even if it was for some greater good. People typically get to volunteer for such acts of generosity and bravery. Animals...not so much. ...And this is where the "ethical" issues are pretty black and white for me.

Each of us has only life. Animals are not interchangeable. Each one is an individual who just wants to live. There's an old animal rights mantra that goes something like, 'You can't save every animal in the world (from human abuses). But for every one you do save, it IS the world.' Each sentient being just wants to live. Taking a life shouldn't be so easy. All each of us has, really, is our lives. Intentionally (much less needlessly) taking a life, any life, should be a very big deal, and should only be an absolute necessity.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 09:43:12 AM

But then, by the same token, Marjorie, animals don't sign up, or consent to treatment of their illnesses. So why have a veterinary industry anyway? However, I agree with what you said, that for every one you save, it is the world.... Reminds me of a story about a man who was walking along a beach..... He saw an old man throwing a starfish back into the water, when there were thousands washed up by the storm the night before. The man said to the old man, "Why bother? Can't you see your efforts make no difference?" The old man continued on and threw in another starfish. "It made a difference to that one."

AlexH April 14th, 2009 10:10:40 AM

Well...(smiling)...AlexH, the premise is, presumably, that the veterinary care is for the benefit of the animal. Individual animals don't really "benefit" from being killed. The only exception might be actual 'euthanasia' (to eliminate further suffering). But the starfish story is the precise point I was getting at. (Thank you!) Many people view animals or entire species en masse, as though they're all one big entity, and one is interchangeable with another. But animals are as individual as we are (and where sentient beings are concerned, clearly have a drive to defend their lives). I see the individual chick/cat/donkey/earwig, and know each just wants to survive...like I do. :-)

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 10:23:02 AM

I know. But I can assure you, that the suffering of the many would be far greater if veterinarians were unleashed upon the animals of the world, with NO experience in surgery, and still expected to perform a spey (major abdominal surgery) in their first week by the public at large. And the backup is not there as much as we would like. You see, there is probably even less supervision of new graduates in veterinary medicine then there is in human medicine. Why? Because of hard financial reality - the public at large (definitely in Australia, at least where we have a Medicare or government funded health system and widespread private health insurance as well) has NO idea of the true cost of medical treatment - because they only pay less than 5-20% of treatment. When there is no Medicare for pets, and private health insurance is viewed as a luxury by owners, then you can see that there is not the experienced vet to new grad ratio that there should be. In fact many new grads (most certainly not at our practice, thank goodness) are left working on there own in surgery in their first year. I should know, I was in my first job. So if there is no guidance from a more experienced vet to help them, then the potential for animal suffering is GREATER because these surgeries are expected to recover. And when the complication rate is very high, the human suffering is high too. Terminal surgeries are not ideal. They weigh heavily on the mind of both student and tutor alike (I was both). But they are non-recovery and if the surgery does not go 100 per cent well, the suffering is alleviated because they do not wake up. The psychological stress is still there for the (trainee) surgeon, but it is not as great. There is less suffering on the part of the animal population and the animal individual. There is probably also less veterinarian suicide. I think people need to understand the shades of grey. It is not black and white.

AlexH April 14th, 2009 10:34:04 AM

I feel you, AlexH. I'm Canadian (national healthcare, too), and my best friend is a veterinarian. I worked as a vet. tech. while I was in university, trying to decide whether to become either a medical or veterinary doctor, before switching fields entirely. My very dear friend was not really "into" animals or anything, growing up. (We've been friends since grade 8.) She had planned on going into pharmacy, but sort of woke up one day and decided veterinary medicine was what she was going to do. I, on the other hand, had always believed I'd become a veterinarian or a doctor, my entire life. I've owned every imaginable kind of pet. I was a national-level rider for many years. So my friend, without much animal experience, became a veterinarian, while I did not. Her boyfriend (at the time) was the emodiment of the classic joke. He literally flunked dental school, and (for a short time) considered going into veterinary medicine. (There's even an episode of 'The Simpsons' where their vet. says, "It's times like this I'm glad I dropped out of dental school.") He's now an anesthesiologist at one of the most respected hospitals in the country.

There are usually many different motivations affecting those going into a given field. I've met an awful lot of veterinarians who have no distinct "love of" animals, per se. There are veterinarians who've been convicted of animal cruelty, for goodness sakes. It happens. There are bad apples in every bunch. Long ago I learned not to assume that because someone works with animals, they're especially caring or gentle with them.

I understand what you're saying about the additional costs of training veterinarians like we train medical doctors. I really do "get" that. Myself, I am willing to pay whatever it takes to get the kind of service I want. But, I suppose, not everyone is lucky enough to be in that position (or even to be living in a country that has, to date, avoided much of the worldwide economic crisis). It's just that I'm never particularly swayed by arguments that suggest this is the way it is, so we have to accept it. I much prefer acknowledging when something is wrong, and finding a viable, reasonable way to either improve it, or even permanently correct it. I pretty much live my life by the old saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." It's not that I hold myself up a as a goody-two-shoes who's always working on a solution for every problem. I'm just honest enough to admit those areas where I know I'm still part of the problem. I try not to be a hypocrite. And the status quo is more often the problem than the solution.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 11:03:19 AM

Sorry...went off on a tanget there. Long story short, we won't know if, or by how much, 'doing the right thing' will increase costs, but so what if it does increase costs? How much is 'the right thing' worth? :-)

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 12:03:58 PM

The right thing is worth everything to those who can afford it, and completely worthless to those who can't.

Anne April 14th, 2009 01:44:07 PM

Humanity can't afford to knowingly do the wrong thing. It diminishes us all.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 02:01:53 PM

"Humanity can't afford to knowingly do the wrong thing. It diminishes us all." Statements like that piss me off, that is easy to say if you can afford to do the right thing, and if you can't, then what. Yea yea I read your earlier post about not being a hypocrite but when you come out with a stament like that it is just elietest. I do the wrong thing all the time, proudly, it is just the best I can do. When there are no good options the best choice is a bad option and to claim otherwise is just passing the buck to someone else then judgeing them for it. Untill a viable alternative for live animal surgery for students, termanal or otherwise is available, opperate on as many live animals as that student needs. And by viable I mean as good as or better. If you see a problem with the procedure work towards viable alternative and leave alone those people who are doing the best thay can with bad options.

Jacob L'Etoile April 14th, 2009 03:38:27 PM

<<Humanity can't afford to knowingly do the wrong thing. It diminishes us all.>>

well said Marjorie....

LorriM April 14th, 2009 04:53:17 PM

Well, Jacob L'Etoile (the star!!), I have to say that being proud of doing something you know is wrong is...well...a surprising attitude. ("Don't be afraid to be who you is!") But hey, it's not for me to say what you should or shouldn't do. That's up to your conscience. I desperately try not to do anything I know is wrong. And when I do, I try to make sure don't do it again. I wouldn't be proud of doing something I know is wrong, but I might explain my reasoning, or even attempt to justify it, under the right circumstances. I wouldn't deny I did something wrong, if I knew I had. That's just how I roll. ;-)

I usually bristle at name-calling. I am far from "elitist", nor do I ever "pass the buck" that I can think of. (Those who know me have described me as being "mired in reality"...far from avoiding responsibility, I usually jump right in with admission of my own sins.) I'm probably the least "judgemental" person with whom you'll ever interact. And I'm often disappointed by how judgemental are most people I meet.

Personally, I think it's a 'no brainer' to leave archane, outdated, unethical practices behind, once better and/or more ethical practices can be found. However, those alternatives will only ever be found once people acknowledge there is a need to find a better way, then set about doing so. Absolutely no progress is made when we all just throw up our hands in defeat, theorizing all sorts of fatalistic obstacles to a solution.

You finish-up with, "If you see a problem with the procedure work towards viable alternative and leave alone those people who are doing the best thay can with bad options." I'll assume you meant that as a general statement, and not directed at me, since I haven't 'done' anything to anyone concerning this issue. ;-) I certainly have no ill will/feelings towards veterinary students involved in such practices. With little doubt in my mind, whether or not live animal teaching is considered ethical, I am convinced the goal for the overwhelming majority of those taking part is for the greater good. And no one should be faulted for that.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 05:25:33 PM

Thanks, LorriM! I appreciate the solidarity. :-)

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 05:26:19 PM

LorriM, "Unfortunately there are vets at universities that do deliberately inflict pain and suffering for the sake of research."

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

<a href="http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-auburn.asp#top">Animal testing</a>

<a href="http://alabamavetboardwatch.110mb.com/Asp-index.htm ">Asproolee's Story</a>

Fotini April 14th, 2009 05:50:11 PM

Sorry...just to add to my earlier line of thinking...a little grin tends to wash across my face whenever I'm involved in contentious issues, and think of a former physics prof. who used to delight in reminding us that most of what he was teaching us would eventually be proved incorrect. Such is the nature of science, and even civility. I mean, we no longer believe the expansion of the universe is slowing down; that alchohol is a stimulant; that being boiled in oil is a reasonable punishment for a crime; or that animals don't feel pain/loneliness/anxiety/etc. Society moves along, incorporating new understandings of facts, and then developing moral attitudes about them.

My point being, I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm really surprised by those who claim they do. Most of us are eeking our way along, just trying to understand the natural world around us, using the best available information we have at this point in history. There will be new facts tomorrow. They will lead to different understanding than we have today. That may very well lead to different social values than our parents taught us. If anything's constant, it's change.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 05:51:41 PM

Re Alex: "the suffering of the many would be far greater if veterinarians were unleashed upon the animals of the world, with NO experience in surgery, and still expected to perform a spey (major abdominal surgery) in their first week by the public at large."

Surely, however, terminal surgeries are't the ONLY option to prevent that.

Someone previously mentioned surgical residencies and the fact that vets don't get them. (OK, I have to admit, I never consciously confronted that fact -- but I find it even funnier now that people keep telling me how much better trained vets are than doctors, which people tell me all the time when I'm critiquing the quality of vet care.)

Why not?

Can't we fix that?

You might say: That doesn't solve the problem because surgical residents would still be more error prone than experienced vets so someone's pet's still getting sub-par care.

But perhaps those residencies could be done at shelters and on charity cases in ER settings, and the resident just assist. This happens all the time with humans actually where in certain setting humans knowingly allow less experienced residents to assist in surgery at teaching hospitals, in charity situations, etc.

At least then they'd be TRYING to treat the animal for a real ailment and TRYING to save the animal. You can't tell me that a vet can't learn not to ligate ureters during a surgical residency.

The point is, saying the killing must continue and not thinking creatively about alternatives seems lazy to me . . . and given the stakes, the fact that beings are dying, immoral. It's cognitive dissonance for me that people here are generally AGAINST "convenience euthanasia" but FOR terminal surgeries. What's the difference?

I think it must be soul-killing (someone used the word "desensitize", thank you) for young vets, especially the BEST of them, to have to do this stuff.

Here are people who are finding options:

Western University of Health Sciences Veterinary School, who I saw present at a conference. They publicize the fact that animals are not harmed or killed in their teaching programs. They use models and willed animals and other cadavers . . . http://www.westernu.edu/xp/edu/veterinary/wave.xml

Stefani April 14th, 2009 06:39:09 PM

Someone mentioned that medical (human) schools are participating in this; research indicated that "only a handful" (7-8) out of 125 still continue with live animal surgical training.

How about the methods recognized internationally by this organization?: InterNICHE

www.interniche.org

(nice find , courtesy of Fontini)

Barb A./NH April 14th, 2009 07:58:50 PM

Stefani, I agree, it is soul-destroying for students to have to work on terminal surgeries. That is undeniable from my experience as both a student and tutor.

But stop for a moment. You said "The point is, saying the killing must continue and not thinking creatively about alternatives seems lazy to me . . . and given the stakes, the fact that beings are dying, immoral. It's cognitive dissonance for me that people here are generally AGAINST "convenience euthanasia" but FOR terminal surgeries. What's the difference?"

I'll be honest, this got my hackles up a bit. It seemed to imply that animals are being killed purely so vet students can be trained. But they were slated for euthanasia anyway, at the pound. So if we abolish terminal surgeries, we haven't saved that animal have we? We've just washed our hands of that particular ethical quandary, like Pontius Pilate, and spared vet students the hypocristy of what you call "cognitive dissonance". We've just for them, taken the problem of our shelters overflowing with unwanted animals, out of their face when before it was SO personal.

AlexH April 14th, 2009 09:44:47 PM

AlexH: Aren't most anti-vivisection state laws prohibitive of shelters donating live animals for "educational use"...I thought that was the purpose of those laws?

Barb A. April 14th, 2009 11:09:14 PM

Alex, I see your point about the fact that you aren't saving them anyway/they die anyway. But given the role that companion animal vets play in our society, it seems . . . innappropriate is too weak of a word. Counterproductive is also too weak of a word. Using them in this way seems obscene. Killing healthy animals is obscene, granted, and many here have railed against that and I agree, athough I struggle for the solution with everyone else.

Aren't there enough animals that genuinely NEED operating on that we don't need to do this to healthy creatures, whether or not they are slated for euthanasia?

I'm not sure I buy the "benefit" of having the shelter problem so "in their faces."

There is also the "First do no harm" maxim which as a pet owner (civilian) I would hope extends to vets.

There is something so Mengele about the whole thing.

It just feels that it shouldn't be the province of vets to kill healthy animals. Why do we want them to get used to doing that?

Stefani April 14th, 2009 11:38:12 PM

LorriM,

"Exploritory surgery on a critically ill patient is also acceptable providing the animal is never allowed to wake and suffer."

Would you please elaborate on your statement?  My companion was seriously ill, had an exploratory surgery, and died after surgery.  Did he suffer?  Please be more specific, as I am going crazy with the idea that  my companion suffered needlessly if exploratory surgery is fatal for seriously ill companions.

Asproolee's Story

Fotini April 15th, 2009 01:49:43 AM

I'll be honest, this got my hackles up a bit. It seemed to imply that animals are being killed purely so vet students can be trained. But they were slated for euthanasia anyway, at the pound. So if we abolish terminal surgeries, we haven't saved that animal have we? We've just washed our hands of that particular ethical quandary, like Pontius Pilate, and spared vet students the hypocristy of what you call "cognitive dissonance". We've just for them, taken the problem of our shelters overflowing with unwanted animals, out of their face when before it was SO personal.

If you are talking about healthy animals, they were not scheduled for "euthanasia." They were scheduledf or convenience killing. Healthy animals should not be scheduled for convenience killing. You cannot evade moral responsibility for  conducting terminal surgeries on healthy animals simply by saying that someone else was going to kill them some other, less "useful" way. You are responsible for your own choices--and as Stefani said, this argument is Mengelean.

There are also many animals that shelters deem not adoptable because they need medical care, that the shelter doesn't have the budget for. Rescues also have the problem of not being able to afford expensive surgeries for animals they would otherwise deem saveable and adoptable. And there are all too many people with much-loved pets who, especially in these hard times, need expensive care for which they simply do not have the money or the available credit.

If vet schools stop giving themselves the moral free pass of "they were going to be killed anyway, so it doesn't matter what we do to them as long as they never wake up" there are a lot of opportunities to provide learning opportunities consistent with the intend role of veterinarians, rather than in (by your own admission) soul-killing contradiction to it.

Lis April 15th, 2009 08:13:30 AM

Marjorie: I responded to what you said, and I did aim my comments at you as teh person who said them. I am sorry. It was impolite and irrational to equate an entire personal philosophy with a single line in a comment on a blog and I am sorry. When I said I do the wrong thing all the time, I was being a little tongue in cheek, honest but with some hyperbole. WHat I meen is that there are often choices we must make between bad options, no action being always an option. As an example I am a farmer and sometimes I use chemical pest control. Is it a 'good' option, no. Is it a bad thing to do, yes. Is it the best option, yes. I can defend that point all day, having given it much thought. I will not lay the arguement out here unless asked, but for the purposes of this discussion it is the best option. At the end of the day I am proud of the work I did. Was it perfect, no but I did the best job I could, and if I may say so I am a good farmer, and a good pesticide aplicator and I am proud of that. If I was a vetenary sugery student I would feel bad that an animal I was careing for was going to die, but I would be proud of doing a good job, learning everything I could and having to do it the fewest times possible to attain an apropreate level of skill. I would be relieved that the mistakes I made were not endangering someone's pet. I feal very strongly about that fact. If you would personaly volenteer YOUR beloved pet to be practiced uppon, then ok. I would not. If you would volenteer your pet to be someone's learning tool, how is that any different than volenteering a shelter animal, neither animal gets to choose. If the animal is slated for euthanisa, a whole nother arguement, what is the difference between going to sleep and never waking up and going to sleep and never waking up? Also to say that vet students should be pratcing on people's pets who can't afford the surgery, you are forceing the poor to absorbe the emotional heartache you (I) am unwilling to. And again from the animals point of view, how is it any different? Even when schools move away from live animal surgery compleatly the student will have to opperate on their first live animal and chances are they are going to make more mistakes that the tenth or 100th surgery they do. If you don't want that first animal to be yours, then they have to use a shelter animal. And marjorie this might have been addressed to you, but it was not aimed AT you. Please don't take offence at anything I said no offence was intended.

Jacob L'Etoile April 15th, 2009 08:28:13 AM

Jacob, I think what many have suggested (and I tend to agree) is the concept of moving towards more of the kind of training medical doctors go through. No one is asked to volunteer his/her child to teach a medical student...nor are homeless people/prisoners/the mentally-challenged operated-on without consent for teaching purposes (to better compare how people view the disposability of animals). (I suppose I should say "no longer operated-on", since the eugenics movement did very much see some humans as being rather disposable.)

There are ethical issues involved, whether people want to discuss them openly or not. For someone like me, whose circle of compassion extends (nearly identically) to all living things, not just the two-legged variety, then it's pretty blatant. I'm not naive enough to disregard the good intent of fatal teaching surgeries. But like others, I know they're ethically abhorrent in the exact same way it would be for most people, if we were talking about these surgeries being performed on humans, without their consent. Killing any healthy animal for reasons of convenience, is (probably) unethical. (I say "probably" because I can't theorize every possible scenario someone might invent or encounter.)

Just because something is unethical, that doesn't automatically make it unproductive or illegal. Some people are more in tune with the ethical questions of their lives (and, thus, try to avoid being involved in unethical practices), than others.

(I, for example, live at the beach and have extensive lawns and gardens I like to keep near-perfect, if I can. So while I certainly could use all kinds of chemicals to keep them looking lovely, I don't...because those chemicals will likely wash right into the lake with every storm. So, instead...as much as I'd rather not have to...I spend hours, daily, weeding by hand. ...Literally hours. ...Many times 6-8 hours per day, if necessary, and I can spare the time. I swear it's going to kill me. But if I want a nice garden, I have to either use chemicals, or do the backbreaking, knee-crushing work. That said, those precise home-use chemicals were banned as of this year. You see, even though they're effective and people want them, an ethical choice has been made, because of the concerns over the long-term effect on the environment and human/animal health.)