Dog labs?! What??!!!!

[Spinach Dip]

[devils advocate]

These are animals which were going to be euthanized anyway. What extra harm is being done by letting medical students take a peek inside first?

[/devils advocate]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted407021]

[devils advocate]

These are animals which were going to be euthanized anyway. What extra harm is being done by letting medical students take a peek inside first?

[/devils advocate]

Lol. Gotta love a devil's advocate. The idea is that they shouldn't have been put in that situation to begin with. Since they can't give consent to be used for dissection, even if they must be euthanized anyway due to severe injury, we should probably just abstain from doing so, I suppose. However, I've never been one for protecting the so called sanctity of the dead. It's just a social practice with no real moral value as it doesn't make sense to apply morality to something that's dead. The morality would come into play with reducing the suffering and discomfort of the survivors of the dead thing.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Do dogs need to give their consent to be bred? To have their reproductive organs removed? To be trained, groomed, and domesticated?

 

[PlasticBag]

Do dogs need to give their consent to be bred? To have their reproductive organs removed? To be trained, groomed, and domesticated?

I don't think it's as much about consent as it is about not inflicting suffering upon other beings. For consent, you would need self-awareness and if I'm correct, only certain primates, dolphins and elephants have it. Not sure how we would communicate consent on an interspecies level anyway.
Dogs are a special case because of the special evoluntionary bond we mentioned before. Sure, they don't consent to being castrated or groomed. But do newborns consent to being circumcised? For a society to exist, we all have to go through things we don't give consent to (school, not running around naked, etc). And dogs, well, we can see them as part of our society

 

[Spinach Dip]

The idea is that they shouldn't have been put in that situation to begin with. Since they can't give consent to be used for dissection, even if they must be euthanized anyway due to severe injury, we should probably just abstain from doing so, I suppose.

The majority of euthenasias in this country are due to over-population and over-crowding of animal shelters. They are not due to incurable injury, as you imply.

Let me be clear by saying I do not sit on either side of this issue. I merely wonder why an animal due to be euthanized cannot be used for some other purpose (which it will neither feel nor remember) first?

 

[deleted407021]

The majority of euthenasias in this country are due to over-population and over-crowding of animal shelters. They are not due to incurable injury, as you imply.

Let me be clear by saying I do not sit on either side of this issue. I merely wonder why an animal due to be euthanized cannot be used for some other purpose (which it will neither feel nor remember) first?

I know there are various reasons for euthanasia.

You have to question whether or not the use of these animals, regardless of their fate, is truly necessary for our survival. At that point, whether or not they are anesthetized, it's a matter of possible exploitation.

 

[PlasticBag]

The majority of euthenasias in this country are due to over-population and over-crowding of animal shelters. They are not due to incurable injury, as you imply.

Let me be clear by saying I do not sit on either side of this issue. I merely wonder why an animal due to be euthanized cannot be used for some other purpose (which it will neither feel nor remember) first?

Sure, you can argue that no additional harm is done if you use an animal who is going to be euthanized anyway. But it's a slippery slope, morally. It may not make a huge difference to the animal but by actively killing the animal yourself, you can compromise your own moral sensitivity to suffering and "first, doing no harm". If you think it's okay to kill a dog because you might learn some anatomy as a result, what else will you think is okay to do in the name of training? Doing pelvic exams on anesthetized patients can also be seen as not doing additional harm, if the patient never finds out. That doesn't make it okay.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Sure, you can argue that no additional harm is done if you use an animal who is going to be euthanized anyway. But it's a slippery slope, morally. It may not make a huge difference to the animal but by actively killing the animal yourself, you can compromise your own moral sensitivity to suffering and "first, doing no harm". If you think it's okay to kill a dog because you might learn some anatomy as a result, what else will you think is okay to do in the name of training? Doing pelvic exams on anesthetized patients can also be seen as not doing additional harm, if the patient never finds out. That doesn't make it okay.

And that's a slippery slope argument

The animal isn't suffering--it's anesthetized. The Hippocratic Oath is in regard to humans. Do no harm to your patients.