Live Animal Use In Medical School Anatomy Labs

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

I saw a post in the MCW thread about how MCW uses live dogs (under anesthesia, and then euthanized) to study the vascular system. I believe that animal testing is a necessary evil, but I don't believe that this is an evil sufficiently necessary to a good medical education. I feel disappointed and sickened by the decision of some medical schools to continue the use of live animals in anatomy lab. It appears that about 14 medical schools continue to use them:

http://www.pcrm.org/resch/meded/ethics_medlab_list.html

I'm not judging anyone who decides to go to these medical schools or participate in these labs, but I was wondering what the general consensus was on this among pre-meds, especially those with applications outstanding. Do you guys feel this is warranted? Does it change your desire to attend any of these schools if you were unaware of this policy until now? Personally, I believe I am going to withdraw my application from MCW, but then again, I don't have an interview there, and I do have other options.

mmmcat said:
MCW sounds like a good school. But they still do live animal physiology labs. Only 14 other medical schools in the country do this. I think its quite cruel and unnecessary. there's a whole website dedicated to stopping MCW from killing animals.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6N_aFXMbo1w

Booyah85 said:
There's also several websites that support the use of live anesthetized dogs in physiology courses.

http://www.mcw.edu/display/router.asp?DocID=20989

http://www.the-aps.org/pa/policy/animals/wisdoglab.htm

http://www.mcw.edu/display/router.asp?docid=21002

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/29/3/144

Personally, I am torn on the issue. I can't help but think of my dog lying there on that table 😱

MWK · Oct 30, 2007

I think you should be thankful for every animal that has provided us with a greater knowledge of science and thus your medical education. Without animal testing (especially mice) we wouldn't know half of what we know today. And medicines on todays market?

Personally, as long as the animal is anesthetized, I really dont think it matters.

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

MWK said:
I think you should be thankful for every animal that has provided us with a greater knowledge of science and thus your medical education. Without animal testing (especially mice) we wouldn't know half of what we know today. And medicines on todays market?

Personally, as long as the animal is anesthetized, I really dont think it matters.

I said above that I believe that animal testing is a necessary evil for the advancement of medicine. I just don't see why using live animals is a necessary part of a general medical school education, which is why I feel very much disinclined to go to a school that still uses it. I have no problem with going to a school that uses animals in the lab for research purposes, but first year anatomy lab? I think that's something else altogether.

Again, I'm not looking for a debate on the ethics of using animals for the advancement of medicine in general, but more specifically, in the use of live animals in first year anatomy labs. AND if that influences in any way your view of a medical school that you've applied to.

BluePhoenix · Oct 30, 2007

umm...I'm pretty sure mayo does this with a pig. It does have a purpose though, there are some functions of the body that are better explained with the help of a live example...seeing the heart pumping and the way the blood flows through the arteries and veins, etc. I suppose they could somehow arrange so everyone could see it live in one of the operating rooms or something, but it's kinda difficult to do with a whole class and to spend time pointing things out in the middle of surgery. Things also looks a little different when it's alive vs. dead. (Granted I haven't gone through this personally, but there are reasons for doing things in a living creature that you just can't show if they're dead).

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

BluePhoenix said:
umm...I'm pretty sure mayo does this with a pig.

Regarding Mayo, they're on the list of schools that don't use live animals in medical school anatomy lab:

http://www.pcrm.org/resch/PDFs/med_medlablist.pdf

Concubine · Oct 30, 2007

I can definitely see the value in it for education. However, I also see your point that it is kind of disturbing. Overall, it brings up some interesting questions that have to be resolved before you condemn it. First, should equal value be placed on all life, animal or human? If not, where do you draw the line? Is say, dissecting an insect for entomology class as "morally wrong" as dissecting the dog in medical school? Everyone may have a different answer depending on their philisophical and/or religous beleifs.

MaybeADoc · Oct 30, 2007

we used pigs for an advanced cardiovascular lab at University of Illinois Champaign, and I know they've done it at Northwestern. The pigs were picked right before they were going to be slaughtered...and completely anesthetized during our lab.

Depakote · Oct 30, 2007

I think it should be noted that the course is optional.

Ninety percent of our class members last year chose to participate in this optional, intensive, five-hour lab. It should be noted that in 2006 this animal model course was ranked in student assessments as the single most useful learning experience among all others provided in the Medical College's physiology coursework.

Personally, while I would feel conflicted about using an animal that so closely resembles a pet, there is not much difference between this and any other animal that has been euthanized for dissection purposes. The ultimate result is the same and the animal is anesthetized so it does not feel anything.

This sounds like a valuable learning experience for students that would allow them to experience a fully functional, active cardio-vascular/pulmonary system before ever having to lay hands on a patient. I definitely see that value of a course like this. I would not be so quick to withdraw my application.

LikeClockWork · Oct 30, 2007

My personal feelings are that as long as the animal is treated well and with respect, I have no objections. Since the animals under anesthesia, and then euthanized, I don't feel there's anything wrong with it. Now, I base this on my worldview that human life is much more important and valuable than animal life. The knowledge I gain from live animal labs, and the potential good it will do for my patients, is enough to outweigh the animal's life (as long as it is not undergoing undue pain/stress). I respect that other people's worldviews will vary from mine, so I hold no ill-will to those who may refuse to participate in such labs. It's more than just a difference of opinion, it's a difference in how we each see the world.

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

I can see how it might help with understanding certain functions to see them working, but I don't think students at schools that don't use live animals will be hurting at all in our understanding. And in today's world of simulations (when we are questioning the use of human cadavers), I really don't understand the need to sacrifice animals (though I guess if they are pound animals that will be put down anyways, it doesn't matter...but then again people should fix their pets...).

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

If medical schools believed that the use of live animals in anatomy lab in medical school was so useful, why would all but 14 of them have discontinued such practices? I would think that simple public pressure would not be the sole reason, given that they still use live animals in their research labs at those same medical schools.

But I do see your point. Perhaps I'm just having particular trouble with this because I've done so much canine rescue work and have a dog.

EDIT: I agree with Abilene's observation. If we're reconsidering the wide-spread use of cadavers, the use of live animals is upsetting (to some of us).

limpkitty · Oct 30, 2007

I understand why students (who most likely haven't witnessed surgery during their clinical years yet) would rank it highly, but I really don't think this is a necessary experience and is disturbing on a moral level.

Personally, I would opt out of this

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
I saw a post in the MCW thread about how MCW uses live dogs (under anesthesia, and then euthanized) to study the vascular system.

My question is, why does MCW use dogs? Dogs and cats are far and away the most common household members in the United States outside of humans themselves. Why use something that many people in the classroom may see as a potential family member?

Personally, I value the life of my own dog more than I value the lives of many humans that I have come across in my travels. Some humans are filled with malice, whereas I know my dog and can attest to the fact that he is not. So I think it's a little bizarre when nearly everyone says "I value human life far more than an animal's life". If I had a choice between saving my dog's life and saving Jeffrey Dahmer's life, I would save my dog's because he is far more deserving. It just can't be that cut and dried to say that all human life is more important than all animal life.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Furthermore, I think that paid human volunteers should be used to demonstrate the vascular system instead of dogs or pigs. First of all, dogs and pigs can't make the choice to volunteer. It's unethical to force them to. Humans not only can make the choice (if paid enough money to make it worth the effort) but are a far more accurate demonstration of the human body.

How many medical students are going to operate on dogs during the course of their careers, anyway? Just pay up for the real thing. As expensive as medical school tuition already is, the increase in fees is not going to be noticeable at all when shared by the entire class.

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
My question is, why does MCW use dogs? Dogs and cats are far and away the most common household members in the United States outside of humans themselves. Why use something that many people in the classroom may see as a potential family member?

My guess is that they use dogs because thousands (probably hundreds of thousands...even more?) of dogs are killed each year in shelters. The dog is going to die, so schools might as well use them for education before they are put down.

Personally, I value the life of my own dog more than I value the lives of many humans that I have come across in my travels. Some humans are filled with malice, whereas I know my dog and can attest to the fact that he is not. So I think it's a little bizarre when nearly everyone says "I value human life far more than an animal's life". If I had a choice between saving my dog's life and saving Jeffrey Dahmer's life, I would save my dog's because he is far more deserving. It just can't be that cut and dried to say that all human life is more important than all animal life.

My dogs are part of my family. That's the way our culture is. I think a lot of people would probably value their pet over many people, but they are afraid to say it.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Abilene85 said:
My guess is that they use dogs because thousands (probably hundreds of thousands...even more?) of dogs are killed each year in shelters. The dog is going to die, so schools might as well use them for education before they are put down.

There are always more pigs and cattle about to be killed at any given time than dogs or cats. Not many households allow pigs to join the family, and I dare say that almost no one allows live cattle into their kitchen.

Abilene85 said:
My dogs are part of my family. That's the way our culture is.

I think the further that mankind progresses away from religion, the further we will get from the idea that we are the Supreme Beings of the Earth, formed in God's image, while the other species on the planet are inherently worthless because they weren't formed in anyone's image... they just randomly appeared.

jochi1543 · Oct 30, 2007

Wow, Case Western is not on the list of medical schools that DON'T use live animals...😱 I'm gonna make sure to ask at my interview next week.

BluePhoenix · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
Furthermore, I think that paid human volunteers should be used to demonstrate the vascular system instead of dogs or pigs. First of all, dogs and pigs can't make the choice to volunteer. It's unethical to force them to. Humans not only can make the choice (if paid enough money to make it worth the effort) but are a far more accurate demonstration of the human body.

Do you honestly believe that med schools would be allowed to open up human volunteers to show the cardivascular system? Getting permission to do anything on people is difficult, getting permission to open someone up just so med students can see something that could be done on a pig, which is internally very similar to a human?...it just won't happen. There's far too much liability and risks for any med school to allow it to be done with a human.

TheLesPaul · Oct 30, 2007

I think the further that mankind progresses away from religion, the further we will get from the idea that we are the Supreme Beings of the Earth, formed in God's image, while the other species on the planet are inherently worthless because they weren't formed in anyone's image... they just randomly appeared.

I think the idea from religion is that all humans are formed in God's image and have a soul that has an eternal destiny, whereas animals do not.

So, by letting Jeffrey Dahmer die, you are sentencing him to hell for eternity. By letting your dog die...you are sad.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat all animals with respect, but it does mean that any human life is inherently more valuable than an animal's.

BluePhoenix · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
Regarding Mayo, they're on the list of schools that don't use live animals in medical school anatomy lab:

http://www.pcrm.org/resch/PDFs/med_medlablist.pdf

That may be an old list. I have a friend in mayo's med school and he says that in their gross anatomy class they're doing cadavers, fresh bodies, and live pigs.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

TheLesPaul said:
I think the idea from religion is that all humans are formed in God's image and have a soul that has an eternal destiny, whereas animals do not.

So, by letting Jeffrey Dahmer die, you are sentencing him to hell for eternity. By letting your dog die...you are sad.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat all animals with respect, but it does mean that any human life is inherently more valuable than an animal's.

This is exactly my point. The further we progress away from religion in the future, the more ethically we will behave when it comes to other species. The odds of us being formed in a Humanlike God's image are no better than the odds that dogs were formed in a Doglike God's image.

Doctor said:
I think the further that mankind progresses away from religion, the further we will get from the idea that we are the Supreme Beings of the Earth, formed in God's image, while the other species on the planet are inherently worthless because they weren't formed in anyone's image... they just randomly appeared.

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

BluePhoenix said:
That may be an old list. I have a friend in mayo's med school and he says that in their gross anatomy class they're doing cadavers, fresh bodies, and live pigs.

Thanks, I will definitely follow up on that. While I would prefer not to use any live animals for anatomy lab (and would decline to participate), I might be able to accept using pigs more readily than dogs. Like the above posters said, some of us view our dogs as part of our families, and it really just doesn't sit well with me. In our society pigs are consumed. Dogs are not. It's not a perfect rationale, but it's mine.

Drogba · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
There are always more pigs and cattle about to be killed at any given time than dogs or cats. Not many households allow pigs to join the family, and I dare say that almost no one allows live cattle into their kitchen.

I think the further that mankind progresses away from religion, the further we will get from the idea that we are the Supreme Beings of the Earth, formed in God's image, while the other species on the planet are inherently worthless because they weren't formed in anyone's image... they just randomly appeared.

That really depends on what religion you are talking about doesn't it? This statement is in complete contradiction with the beliefs of some of the worlds major religions.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Drogba said:
That really depends on what religion you are talking about doesn't it? This statement is in complete contradiction with the beliefs of some of the worlds major religions.

I should specify Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Christianity and Islam in particular are the two dominant world religions and they both indoctrinate their children to believe this and consequently base their actions on this wildly speculative belief that mankind was formed in God's image while other creatures just appeared out of the blue.

jochi1543 · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
Thanks, I will definitely follow up on that. While I would prefer not to use any live animals for anatomy lab (and would decline to participate), I might be able to accept using pigs more readily than dogs. Like the above posters said, some of us view our dogs as part of our families, and it really just doesn't sit well with me. In our society pigs are consumed. Dogs are not. It's not a perfect rationale, but it's mine.

I personally have a problem with pigs, too, given how they apparently have the same level of intellectual development as a human 3-year old child.

HanginInThere · Oct 30, 2007

Abilene85 said:
My guess is that they use dogs because thousands (probably hundreds of thousands...even more?) of dogs are killed each year in shelters. The dog is going to die, so schools might as well use them for education before they are put down.

Millions. [link]

I understand the rationale that these dogs would have been killed anyway and at least this way their deaths will serve a purpose. But understanding the logic of that reasoning doesn't mean I would be able to emotionally justify it for myself.

If I end up at a school that does optional dog labs, I really don't know whether I would choose to participate.

WinterLights · Oct 30, 2007

jochi1543 said:
I personally have a problem with pigs, too, given how they apparently have the same level of intellectual development as a human 3-year old child.

That is an assumption that cannot be proven unless you are Dr. Doolittle.

Kthanksbye · Oct 30, 2007

I think it's terrible how fruit flies are treated in genetics labs! They are exposed to dangerous mutagens, then they are inbreed! Forced to mate with siblings! Then they are drowned in ethanol! It's disgusting! I'm getting PETA to organize naked protests! Just as soon as we find some young, attractive, dumb girls to hold the signs. Something must be done!

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Kthanksbye said:
I think it's terrible how fruit flies are treated in genetics labs! They are exposed to dangerous mutagens, then they are inbreed! Forced to mate with siblings! Then they are drowned in ethanol! It's disgusting! I'm getting PETA to organize naked protests! Just as soon as we find some young, attractive, dumb girls to hold the signs. Something must be done!

Is your opinion then that dogs are more similar to fruit flies than humans? Perhaps either your intellectual development has been stunted, or you have been indoctrinated from an early age and convinced that you were formed in God's image and have an eternal soul while no other species does. For most people, I would guess the latter.

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

Kthanksbye said:
I think it's terrible how fruit flies are treated in genetics labs! They are exposed to dangerous mutagens, then they are inbreed! Forced to mate with siblings! Then they are drowned in ethanol! It's disgusting! I'm getting PETA to organize naked protests! Just as soon as we find some young, attractive, dumb girls to hold the signs. Something must be done!

I felt really bad about killing fruit flies in high school. We also were supposed to kill, mount, and identify 20 bugs - I found ones that were already dead. And I try to let spiders go outside instead of killing them. Considering these facts, maybe I shouldn't have even looked at this thread...

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
you were formed in God's image and have an eternal soul while no other species does

If my dogs can't go to heaven, I'll pass.

WinterLights · Oct 30, 2007

Abilene85 said:
I felt really bad about killing fruit flies in high school. We also were supposed to kill, mount, and identify 20 bugs - I found ones that were already dead. And I try to let spiders go outside instead of killing them. Considering these facts, maybe I shouldn't have even looked at this thread...

I kill any insect that dares wander into my abode.

Concubine · Oct 30, 2007

Kthanksbye said:
I think it's terrible how fruit flies are treated in genetics labs! They are exposed to dangerous mutagens, then they are inbreed! Forced to mate with siblings! Then they are drowned in ethanol! It's disgusting! I'm getting PETA to organize naked protests! Just as soon as we find some young, attractive, dumb girls to hold the signs. Something must be done!

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Concubine said:

If that is you in your avatar, who did that to you? Older brother?

Doctor said:
Is your opinion then that dogs are more similar to fruit flies than humans? Perhaps either your intellectual development has been stunted, or you have been indoctrinated from an early age and convinced that you were formed in God's image and have an eternal soul while no other species does. For most people, I would guess the latter.

LikeClockWork · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
If I had a choice between saving my dog's life and saving Jeffrey Dahmer's life, I would save my dog's because he is far more deserving. It just can't be that cut and dried to say that all human life is more important than all animal life.

My problem with this is where do you draw the line? Sure some people are evil and hateful, but I don't think that negates any worth they have. In a medical career, you may be called upon to help someone who engages in very morally questionable activities. I would never want to insinuate that you would refuse to treat them, but do you consider there to be ethical considerations in treating the "evil" patients? If you'd rather save your dog's life than Jeffery Dahmer's, would you save your dog instead of any murderer? attempted murderer? shoplifter? I'm sure the line falls somewhere much earlier than "shoplifter" but where is it?

I do hold that it is as cut and dry as all human life is most important, but again that's just a result of my worldview.

MWK · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
My question is, why does MCW use dogs? Dogs and cats are far and away the most common household members in the United States outside of humans themselves. Why use something that many people in the classroom may see as a potential family member?

Need you be reminded that we're dissecting old people, which could also be viewed as "potential family members"?

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

MWK said:
Need you be reminded that we're dissecting old people, which could also be viewed as "potential family members"?

Old people, or dead bodies?

Concubine · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
If that is you in your avatar, who did that to you? Older brother?

No, just thought the picture was as funny as hell. For some reason the kid draws my deepest sympathy.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

LikeClockWork said:
My problem with this is where do you draw the line? Sure some people are evil and hateful, but I don't think that negates any worth they have. In a medical career, you may be called upon to help someone who engages in very morally questionable activities. I would never want to insinuate that you would refuse to treat them, but do you consider there to be ethical considerations in treating the "evil" patients? If you'd rather save your dog's life than Jeffery Dahmer's, would you save your dog instead of any murderer? attempted murderer? shoplifter? I'm sure the line falls somewhere much earlier than "shoplifter" but where is it?

I do hold that it is as cut and dry as all human life is most important, but again that's just a result of my worldview.

I'd just make the decision as it came to me. It's not often that you can only save one life and not the other. No cut-and-dried rules are necessary to make these choices.

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

LikeClockWork said:
If you'd rather save your dog's life than Jeffery Dahmer's, would you save your dog instead of any murderer? attempted murderer? shoplifter? I'm sure the line falls somewhere much earlier than "shoplifter" but where is it?

I do hold that it is as cut and dry as all human life is most important, but again that's just a result of my worldview.

Just curious if you have any pets??

Outside of medical practice...say a building is on fire and your dog is stuck inside with a person you don't know. High stress and instinct takes over. Chances are probably high that people would first save the dog. I've known my dogs for over 10 years - they keep me company, cuddle, play, sit by me when they know I am sad. Dogs become family members. The human in the building is a human life (and as far as the world goes, that life may be more important to society), but to the person doing the saving, the dog means more than a stranger.

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
I'd just make the decision as it came to me. It's not often that you can only save one life and not the other. However, there are plenty of humans I've met who haven't broken the law (not even shoplifting) but who have been very malicious to other humans and disrupted their lives for no good reason. If it wasn't against the law, or if I was sure I wouldn't get caught, I would probably cull them from the ranks of mankind for the benefit of everyone else if it would make a positive difference in many other lives.

I find your comment (in bold) very disturbing.

Omyss · Oct 30, 2007

you do realize that most biomedical research is done using live mice right? How can they test drug effectiveness on dead animals?
how do you feel about that?

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

Omyss said:
you do realize that most biomedical research is done using live mice right? How can they test drug effectiveness on dead animals?
how do you feel about that?

Read post #1 and post #3 again. That is not the issue in this thread.

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
I find your comment (in bold) very disturbing.

Check my edit. I removed it because it confuses the issue of using live dogs as demonstrations... but perhaps you'd find it less disturbing if you think of the case of a suicide bomber who walks into your hospital and blows his own leg off, as well as the heads of 5 of your colleagues. Would you save his life?

If I could get away with it, I'd rather he be removed from society.

Abilene85 · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
but perhaps you'd find it less disturbing if you think of the case of a suicide bomber who walks into your hospital and blows his own leg off, as well as the heads of 5 of your colleagues. Would you save his life?

Perhaps a more everyday case: the drunk driver who killed a young family in the other car.

This is why, no matter how we feel, we must treat everyone equally.

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
Check my edit. I removed it because it confuses the issue of using live dogs as demonstrations... but perhaps you'd find it less disturbing if you think of the case of a suicide bomber who walks into your hospital and blows his own leg off, as well as the heads of 5 of your colleagues. Would you save his life?

If I could get away with it, I'd rather he be removed from society.

I just think that it's against the law for a doctor to decide who should be left to die rather than receive emergency medical treatment (no matter how heinous the crime) because it's a very slippery and very dangerous slope. There are checks and balances for a reason.

I agree this is going off on a tangent....

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Abilene85 said:
Perhaps a more everyday case: the drunk driver who killed a young family in the other car.

This is why, no matter how we feel, we must treat everyone equally.

I don't know why you have to consider a different case before you say that you must treat everyone equally if that is how you feel. Why not just say flat out that the suicide bomber who just killed your colleagues should be treated equally to any other patient? A suicide bomber that you physically witnessed killing your friends and a drunk driver are not the same thing... which is why it is hard to make cut-and-dried rules.

Kthanksbye · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
I just think that it's against the law for a doctor to decide who should be left to die rather than receive emergency medical treatment (no matter how heinous the crime) because it's a very slippery and very dangerous slope. There are checks and balances for a reason.

If you would like, I could delete my post quoting your subsequently edited post in order not to have this thread go off on a tangent.... Just let me know. [Edit - too late, sorry]

Could you correct all the typos and misspelled werds in all of my previousary posts? Pleese?

Doctor · Oct 30, 2007

Phoenix. said:
I just think that it's against the law for a doctor to decide who should be left to die rather than receive emergency medical treatment (no matter how heinous the crime) because it's a very slippery and very dangerous slope. There are checks and balances for a reason.

If you would like, I could delete my post quoting your subsequently edited post in order not to have this thread go off on a tangent.... Just let me know. [Edit - too late, sorry]

It is against the law. Which is why I had to specify "it wasn't against the law or I could otherwise get away with it" I'd let the suicide bomber die who just killed my colleagues in front of me.

Phoenix. · Oct 30, 2007

Doctor said:
I don't know why you have to consider a different case before you say that you must treat everyone equally if that is how you feel. Why not just say flat out that the suicide bomber who just killed your colleagues should be treated equally to any other patient? A suicide bomber that you physically witnessed killing your friends and a drunk driver are not the same thing... which is why it is hard to make cut-and-dried rules.

As a doctor, and under my oath, I would provide medical treatment to him. I don't think that abilene was saying they wouldn't. Just trying to give a more "everyday" example.

Live Animal Use In Medical School Anatomy Labs

Emdee Jaydee

Over-represented majority

Emdee Jaydee

Full Member

Emdee Jaydee

PDE5 inhibited

Full Member

Pediatric Anesthesiologist

LikeClockWork

Full Member

Emdee Jaydee

Membership Revoked

of Doctors

of Doctors

Full Member

of Doctors

President, Gunner Central

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

of Doctors

Emdee Jaydee

Full Member

of Doctors

President, Gunner Central

Full Member

WinterLights

Goosecoid...the orginizer

of Doctors

Full Member

Full Member

WinterLights

PDE5 inhibited

of Doctors

LikeClockWork

Over-represented majority

of Doctors

PDE5 inhibited

of Doctors

Full Member

Emdee Jaydee

Member

Emdee Jaydee

of Doctors

Full Member

Emdee Jaydee

of Doctors

Goosecoid...the orginizer

of Doctors

Emdee Jaydee

Similar threads