Opposing terminal surgery?

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
turnandburn

turnandburn

DVM
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
120
Members do not see this ad.
For those of you who are opposed to terminal surgeries (say in a DVM program), why are you opposed?

Would it make a difference to you if the animals were purpose bred or unadoptable shelter animals?

How about if they were recovered to see if there were any complications, and then euthanized?

Would it make a difference to you if you were the one that had to euthanize it following the surgery or if someone else did?

Are there any other factors that would change your opinion?

Just curious, I hear a lot of people are opposed to terminal surgeries and I'm curious about the reasons behind that opinion.
 
I am not opposed to terminal surgeries and I would be OK with being the one doing the euthanasia at the end, but I guess it bothers me a bit when they are recovered, THEN euthanized. I don't have much experience recovering SA (when I shadowed we moved on to the next patient and let the techs recover the animal) patients, but lot of horses look at least somewhat unhappy (groggy, shaking) for a while after they come down from surgery, so if it were an option I would rather they never woke up. I'd rather their last memories be of the sweet feed and apples and kisses we give them before they go to the OR than of being disoriented and cold and walking out to the necropsy room.

BTW, on a related but not quite the same topic, at my current job a lot of horses are euthanized in a chute in the corner of the necropsy room, which bothers me. It's a strange place with drains and the smells of formaldehyde and death, and they are often quite nervous. The last euthanasia I saw was done outside on the grass, and afterwards it took less than 10 minutes to get the forklift out, move the body into necropsy, and put the forklift back. I'd much rather the horse's last moments be grazing outside and not panicking because of the smell of other dead horses.
 
I am not opposed to terminal surgeries. I would actually prefer euthanizing the animal myself because then I am in control of the process so I know I will do it right.
I have never recovered an animal once we do a terminal surgery. I'm not really ok with that. I agree with eventualeventer that they should not have a sad/painful memory of recovery before they die. There is one surgery that my lab has done on mice and i know its performed all the time in labs over the nation. Im not sure if it fits into this category. We cannulate one jugular vein, let the animals recover for 4 days (by a couple hrs after they are already up and about like nothing happened), and then once we do the actual experiment where we infuse things like glucose into their vein they are sacrified after the 2 hr experiment. Does this count as a terminal surgery/recovery? If so, I guess I think it is ok. The mice are fine after the surgery and during the experiment all we do is draw blood from their tail and measure blood glucose. If this does count, I guess it shows how this whole subject is a grey area because my opinion would change depending on what the experiment was and which animals were used.
 
let me preface this by saying it's an extremely personal position, whether or not you are opposed to terminal surgeries. by posting my opinion here, i in no way suggest it should be other peoples' opinion, too.

in 2005, i went on my first ravs trip. for the uninitiated, vet students prepare for these trips by studying copious amounts of notes re: surgery, anaesthesia, physical exam, parasitology, microbiology, etc. during the clinic, vet students perform all the surgeries. the surgeries are limited to i think an hour, at which point a vet will step in and finish the surgery. students are well-supervised.

these are real students performing, well, important procedures on client-owned animals. the standards of care at a ravs clinic are amazing for a field clinic, and rarely (on three trips) have i seen complications occur. i have never seen an animal die on a ravs trip.

i got more experience in ravs clinics than in all of the 4th year surgery practicals.

i also went to guam and did a similar clinic with guam animals in need. somewhat different protocols, but same concept as ravs.

i see it like this:

firstly, with all the animals put down for overpopulation reasons, there's no reason why we need to breed more animals just to kill them.

secondly, if it works for ravs, in a field clinic, why can't vet schools offer a similar course for their own vet students, in that students participate in meaningful procedures under the watchful eye of a trained veterinarian? if there's a problem, the vet is there to step in. if the quality isn't there, the vet steps in. same as if the vet were doing the procedure, except the vet's not doing the procedure.

thirdly, if they're not comfortable with vet students operating on real animals while they're learning, how can they justify licensing and registering a new grad vet to operate carte blanche without supervision? i've read some students saying they'd be uncomfortable operating on a client's animals - again, under supervision, what's the worry? if you're adequately prepared, you have no reason to be concerned. have confidence in yourself.

fourthly, when my cat died, the first thing i did was offer her body to science. if someone could learn something from her, why not? i would have to think that a well-placed, compassionate, gentle reminder (definitely not a salesman's pitch) that they're in a teaching hospital might spur people to consider doing the same when their pets have to be euthanased. ethically-sourced cadavers provide nearly the same tissue-handling as live patients, without the need to unnecessarily kill more animals.

fifthly, from faculty and staff down to students, operating on an animal destined to die breeds a cavalier attitude of, 'what difference does it make? the animals just going to die, anyway.' don't think it doesn't happen. it most definitely does.

sixthly, there are surgical simulators to practice things like suture technique. rumour has it the dasie from guelph is a suitable model for the abdominal organs (mine is in transit, so i have yet to confirm; andrew knight has spoken highly of it).

seventhly, identifying anatomy is equally as effective in a deceased patient as it is in a live patient. the feel might be slightly different, but if you have a patient that's immediately post-mortem, those differences are minimised.

eighthly, we do terminal gi surgeries here. our own surgery lecturer states that you can get all the surgical skills you require (slight overstatement, but still) from a common ovariohysterectomy. so, why not focus on the ovariohysterectomy?

ninthly, when we were seeking clinics to allow us to scrub in on and assist in gi surgeries, with rare exception they suggested those surgeries are just not common. they thought our time would have been better spent on common procedures like sterilisations and skin operations.

tenthly, many schools are going away from terminal surgeries: sydney, tennessee, oklahoma state. if they can train their surgeons without terminal surgeries, surely the others can.

that's off the top of my head.

in their favour, students speak highly of their terminal surgery experience. they get to do procedures they might not otherwise get to do.

that said, 4th year (of 5) is a long time before graduation, and there's plenty of time to forget. and there's only one. is it really any more valuable than doing your first under a vet's supervision as a new grad?

also, we contacted a local wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility. they happened to have a quenda in their care that was to be euthanased for neurological problems. instead, they allowed us to do the euthanasia and operate immediately post-mortem. a quenda is a lot different to a pig (which, in turn, is a lot different to a dog, cat or horse), but the principles are the same. we studied the same lecture notes, videos, and techniques, and were successful. we gained the same skills as our classmates, without killing more animals.

in the end, our three little pigs live another day.

if you want more on this, visit andrew knight's web page:
http://www.learningwithoutkilling.info/

this is a difficult decision for any student to make. all the best as you make your decision.
 
Quakk I enjoyed your post as well. It sounds a lot like Western's reverance for life philosphy. I am SO thankful that I'm not placed in a situation where I feel I have to compromise my ethics in order to learn. We are VERY proud of our cadaver donation program. We have a memorial to honor those animals as well as to thank them and their past guardians. Part of the reason we have this philosophy is not just because its the nice thing to do, but studies have shown that terminal surgies and using animals for learning expense does breed a cavalier attitude. Also, one thing ill disagree with is that the students enjoy their terminal surgeries. Many have nightmares from an experience gone wrong, which could impede them for life. Just go to VIN for more on this topic and see what people have to say.
 
I think terminal surgeries are the best and most realistic way to learn surgery. In my experience, the students really enjoyed them and got a lot out of them. I'm curious what these horror stories (nightmares) are about... Maybe I'm old school, but take two graduates of equal physical capabilities - one who has experience with live surgeries and the other who has been learning on a computer and using a simulator and cadavers. I know which one I would rather have doing surgeries. I should mention some of my viewpoint comes from being in a rural area where there's not the manpower to always have another vet supervising you, especially in emergency situations. In that situation you're going to be a lot more capable and confident coming out of school.

I've also seen a negative pattern developing in cities with schools that don't have a strong surgery training program - some owners aren't confident in new graduates and don't want to take the time to supervise their surgeries. These new graduates are forced to take appointments all day while the owner or a dedicated surgeon does all the surgeries. After a while, the graduate has lost their confidence and surgical skills, and either never performs surgery or has to be completely retrained down the road.
 
For those of you who are against terminal surgeries, are you also against it for research purposes (mice/rat/bird colonies)? Or just veterinary training?

I also enjoyed Quakk's post and I agree with what you said. I guess since i'm geared toward research I'm seeing this topic in a completely different way because I dont think about using cats/dogs in terminal surgery.
 
Pointer, I think you are missing the option of survival surgeries. At Penn they do spays on shelter animals and then return them to the shelter for adoption. It is a great help to us at the shelter since our surgery is already inundated with animals. I do wish they would use dissolvable sutures but that's another story. Students also have the opportunity to do summer externships at the shelter where they can spay to their heart's content. I believe students participate in the feral cat program as well. There are so many animals in great need of survival surgeries that it seems silly to resort to terminal surgeries.
 
I dont' have the time to give a thorough response to every single point you made but I'll try to quickly address what I can. 🙂

quakk said:
l

firstly, with all the animals put down for overpopulation reasons, there's no reason why we need to breed more animals just to kill them.
Click to expand...

I agree, so what if schools are using animals that are unfit for adoption and were scheduled to be euthanized anyway?

secondly, if it works for ravs, in a field clinic, why can't vet schools offer a similar course for their own vet students, in that students participate in meaningful procedures under the watchful eye of a trained veterinarian? if there's a problem, the vet is there to step in. if the quality isn't there, the vet steps in. same as if the vet were doing the procedure, except the vet's not doing the procedure.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is lack of adequate funding and teacher time to individually supervise that amount of veterinary students.

thirdly, if they're not comfortable with vet students operating on real animals while they're learning, how can they justify licensing and registering a new grad vet to operate carte blanche without supervision? i've read some students saying they'd be uncomfortable operating on a client's animals - again, under supervision, what's the worry? if you're adequately prepared, you have no reason to be concerned. have confidence in yourself.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what your main point is here?

fourthly, when my cat died, the first thing i did was offer her body to science. if someone could learn something from her, why not? i would have to think that a well-placed, compassionate, gentle reminder (definitely not a salesman's pitch) that they're in a teaching hospital might spur people to consider doing the same when their pets have to be euthanased. ethically-sourced cadavers provide nearly the same tissue-handling as live patients, without the need to unnecessarily kill more animals.
Click to expand...

Nearly the same for basic skills but practicing on live patients is critical, imo, because you have to take into account many other factors (aka keeping the patient alive!)

fifthly, from faculty and staff down to students, operating on an animal destined to die breeds a cavalier attitude of, 'what difference does it make? the animals just going to die, anyway.' don't think it doesn't happen. it most definitely does.
Click to expand...

I think you need to back that up, I don't know anyone who would think that way, not saying that no one would but I certainly don't believe that is a common attitude to take, our school does terminal surgeries and I dont' know anyone who has that attitude, people take them very seriously.

sixthly, there are surgical simulators to practice things like suture technique. rumour has it the dasie from guelph is a suitable model for the abdominal organs (mine is in transit, so i have yet to confirm; andrew knight has spoken highly of it).
Click to expand...

Models for suture technique is great.

seventhly, identifying anatomy is equally as effective in a deceased patient as it is in a live patient. the feel might be slightly different, but if you have a patient that's immediately post-mortem, those differences are minimised.
Click to expand...

This is about surgery though, not studying anatomy.

eighthly, we do terminal gi surgeries here. our own surgery lecturer states that you can get all the surgical skills you require (slight overstatement, but still) from a common ovariohysterectomy. so, why not focus on the ovariohysterectomy?
Click to expand...

Would you want a veterinarian doing a GI surgery on your pet who has only performed spays before? Are you comfortable with that? I am definitely not.

ninthly, when we were seeking clinics to allow us to scrub in on and assist in gi surgeries, with rare exception they suggested those surgeries are just not common. they thought our time would have been better spent on common procedures like sterilisations and skin operations.
Click to expand...

Exploratory surgeries are fairly common with general small animal practioners.

tenthly, many schools are going away from terminal surgeries: sydney, tennessee, oklahoma state. if they can train their surgeons without terminal surgeries, surely the others can.
Click to expand...

Just because this is becoming a trend doesn't make it a good thing, necessarily.

Obviously you are opposed, but the point of my thread is why. Would you be ok with it if they were animals that are going to be euthanized anyway (for example unadoptable shelter animals?)
 
bunnity said:
Pointer, I think you are missing the option of survival surgeries. At Penn they do spays on shelter animals and then return them to the shelter for adoption. It is a great help to us at the shelter since our surgery is already inundated with animals. I do wish they would use dissolvable sutures but that's another story. Students also have the opportunity to do summer externships at the shelter where they can spay to their heart's content. I believe students participate in the feral cat program as well. There are so many animals in great need of survival surgeries that it seems silly to resort to terminal surgeries.
Click to expand...

No - I totally agree that these are great programs - no doubt about it. This is definitely a great way to learn to do S/N's. I'm referring to other surgical procedures that you can perform when doing terminal surgeries. If someone only plans on doing spays and neuters during their veterinary career, then this is all they need. I'm referring to people who want to be able to do a variety of procedures.

Here's an example. The veterinarian I work with had a terminal surgery lab in school. She was able to do gastrotomies, intestinal resection and anastomosis, an enucleation, a nephrectomy, a splenectomy, a crutiate repair, limb amputations, etc. In the 3 years since she graduated she has done every one of these procedures in practice besides the resection and anastomosis. Also, she has felt confident enough to perform 2 GDV surguries (both successful), full limb amputations, has done IM pins for fracture repairs, etc. She said about 80% of these surguries were performed without another veterinarian. This is why I think a terminal surgery lab is so important - the things she was able to do and learned during that time allowed her to hit the ground running after graduation. There is no way you can argue that someone can get this same experience doing S/N's and using virtual animals. Also, I believe you can opt out of it if you don't feel comfortable. If it's at least offered but you don't have to participate, I don't see how it's not a win-win situation.
 
I almost forgot to mention this. A number of the surgical emergencies she has taken on would have been euthanized if she wasn't competent enough to perform the surguries. When the dog/cat can't survive a 2 hour car ride to the nearest referral clinic, or the owners aren't willing to make a 2-4 hour drive to a surgeon and/or pay double what her clinic charges, the pet would have been euthanized in these circumstances. A number of animals have gotten a second chance on life because of the skills learned in terminal surgery lab. If doing terminal surgery on a dog that is going to be euthanized anyway helps save a number of pets in the future - I'm all for it. Just another perspective to look at.
 
We have a didactic surgery lab where we do terminal surgeries at my school. After going through the lab I TOTALLY disagree with the use of purpose bred animals for practicing surgery. If animals were from the shelter and going to be euthanized anyway than that's a whole different story. IMO the only thing you can get from those labs that you can't get with a cadaver (there really isn't a shortage of animal carcasses between the shelter and all of the research labs on campus) is tissue handling and hemostasis. Yes, dead tissue does not feel like live tissue and there really is no good alternative to suturing live tissue that I've tried. Obviously if you're dead your vessels don't bleed. That being said how hard would it be for students to learn tissue handling and hemostasis on survival procedures in real practice during externships and at teaching hospital??? Go practice some spays at a shelter - this is one of the most difficult surgeries we did! The GI stuff – really not that hard, orthopedics – you’re not going to have to go to an orthopedics practice to get proficient in it anyway. The purpose bred animals we used cost 700-800$ EACH, we did 3 nonsurvival procedures with 3 students per dog, that's $50,000 it cost to do this lab - seriously not worth it. Did I learn anything from the lab - of course - but I really don't see how the cost and ethical arguments justify the learning experience. I'll be just as good at surgery when I graduate with that lab than someone at another school who practiced on cadavers and survival procedures on externships etc. As vet students we just need to take some initiative and learn it in a real life situation. Oh and if you’ve never actually done surgery before I really don’t think you can vouch for how helpful it is/will be to have a terminal surgery lab. Also - doing a procedure ONE TIME will NOT MAKE YOU PROFICIENT, so really what's the point.
 
Pointer1330 said:
I almost forgot to mention this. A number of the surgical emergencies she has taken on would have been euthanized if she wasn't competent enough to perform the surguries. When the dog/cat can't survive a 2 hour car ride to the nearest referral clinic, or the owners aren't willing to make a 2-4 hour drive to a surgeon and/or pay double what her clinic charges, the pet would have been euthanized in these circumstances. A number of animals have gotten a second chance on life because of the skills learned in terminal surgery lab. If doing terminal surgery on a dog that is going to be euthanized anyway helps save a number of pets in the future - I'm all for it. Just another perspective to look at.
Click to expand...

What kind of emergency surgeries are you talking about, ridiculous fractures, diaphragmatic hernias, GDV's?? I don't really know how didactic surgery is going to truly prepare you for these as the dogs we operated on were normal (we did diaphragmatic hernia repairs in our didactic lab but still nothing like a real trauma case) Also, most of the vets I've worked with would try a surgery they weren't uber comfortable with if the alternative was euthanasia and the owner's were informed.
 
Last edited:
^ So the issue then isn't really the terminal surgery, but rather the use of purpose bred animals in terminal surgeries? I agree I'm against that, but not against terminal surgeries on animals scheduled for euthanasia anyway.
 
Wow, purpose-bred animals? For hundreds a piece? Purpose-bred? Not OK in my book. I was thinking more along the lines of shelter animals or even donated animals who were going to be euthanized anyway.
 
As I understand it, we have one required terminal and it is in emergency techniques. There is no recovery, and because the challenge is to deal with trauma, part of it is keeping the patient stable and alive. Oddly enough, we don't use canine/felines for this.

I disagree that fresh cadavers are always suitable replacements for living animals for surgery. We do use cadavers, and I think those are very valuable. However, the lack of perfusion makes many experiences different, and if one has a cavalier attitude about a live animal, they are likely to have one about a cadaver (and part of doing a surgery correctly is getting and keeping an animal stabilized.) I do support the use of unadoptable animals; we have a huge surplus in this country, and to me the use of animals for science and education is better than the disposal of their corpses as waste. I would be completly fine with being responsible for the end euthanasia, but would not be ok with recovering animals...even with the best painkillers, recovering from anesthesia can be a scary feeling. I speak from personal experience on that.

I believe we may also have terminal procedures in some electives. We do live surgeries, including OVH's for clinics.

One thing that wasn't mentioned about students performing surgeries on client's animals is the liability. When it is an unowned shelter/rescue animal, the liability is less, but when someone is paying several thousands of dollars, or even hundreds (especially in this economy) the consequences even for unavoidable issues (predispossing factors) can result in lawsuits, because some people will see the school as having money and as the absolute experts who should have been able to save the animal. Throw in a student performing the procedure for the first time..and a jury may agree that the school failed to do everything they could. I get that seems extreme, but I have seen breeders lose lawsuits for animals getting parvo....months after leaving the breeder with information about seeking veterinary care for appropriate vaccinations. I am not saying that is the primary concern....perhaps for some procedures the liklihood of getting enough patients in to teach a class of ~80 students isn't likely, but these may be surgeries they will encounter if they are the only practice in a residential or rural practice.

I might have very different ideas if there weren't great quantities of animals being destroyed in shelters in this country.
 
The reason many places use purpose bred animals instead of animals slated for euthanasia for these surgeries is that they've been blocked from using them through legislation, peta, and bad publicity for the shelter and the school, among other things. Purpose bred animals are often used in research as well due to their consistency of size, temperament, and the traceability of their genes.

I don't really have a problem with terminal surgeries, even when done with purpose bred animals. As long as the animal is treated with respect and kept in a humane manner, then dying while under anesthesia is for sure not the worst way to go out. If their death helps save many future lives or furthers science in some way, then it was not in vain.
 
eventualeventer said:
Wow, purpose-bred animals? For hundreds a piece? Purpose-bred? Not OK in my book. I was thinking more along the lines of shelter animals or even donated animals who were going to be euthanized anyway.
Click to expand...

This is the problem the animal rights community has created. (Are you out there, animalrights?) They have pressured legislatures to outlaw the use of shelter animals for surgery practicals in some states--whether or terminal or recovery surgeries. I think part of the argument is that they might be someone's pet...how is a potentially-someone's-pet being used in a terminal-or-not surgery lab any different/worse than euthanizing the potentially-someone's-pet in the shelter?! No idea. Such is their logic. They're against "animal experimentation" of any sort...which is why some states legally HAVE to use purpose-bred animals for these.

Very sad. Even if they're recovery surgeries, it's still bringing more potentially unadoptable animals into the world. Thanks, animal rights groups!

No sense whatsoever.
 
Did anyone read the committee recommendations to the AVMA earlier this year? DVM 360 published them...I was startled by their take on shelter animal use in vet schools. I don't have a link to the article at hand....I know I posted it before. I won't have a chance to look it up before the holidays.
 
alliecat44 said:
This is the problem the animal rights community has created. (Are you out there, animalrights?)
Click to expand...

👍👍👍

I had to chuckle about that one for a sec...:laugh:

but on a more serious note, you're absolutely right. The shelter I worked at was one where the animals were not allowed to be used for ANY research/training purposes even after they were dead.

This means that I wasn't allowed to practice any procedures that would have been very useful to practice on a dead animal first.

It's not so much that the shelter itself is so crazy, but more that animal rights activists have painted such a bad picture of how shelters will "sell" their animals to research labs. Because of that, they didn't even want to take chances with a dead animal. And a lot of it has to do with the money. Bad press = dwindling donations... very very sad...
 
sumstorm said:
Did anyone read the committee recommendations to the AVMA earlier this year? DVM 360 published them...I was startled by their take on shelter animal use in vet schools. I don't have a link to the article at hand....I know I posted it before. I won't have a chance to look it up before the holidays.
Click to expand...

Here's the DVM360 article (I found it by searching on your name and "terminal surgery"):
DVM360 article
 
I blogged about this issue here and here back when the OK State story broke... I opted out of our terminal surgery lab, partly for rational reasons and partly for emotional reasons, and I don't feel like any worse of a surgeon for having missed out. I've now taken the spay/neuter rotation as a fourth year, and my evaluation from the clinicians stated that I was a very proficient surgeon with good tissue handling skills, and that I improved a lot during the rotation. We will all graduate vet school in need of further surgical training, whether you had the opportunity to do a single gastrotomy/resection and anastamosis/cystotomy or not. I certainly don't fault others who feel comfortable participating in terminal labs, but I'm happy that I was given the option to do an alternative track.
 
ratbandit said:
The purpose bred animals we used cost 700-800$ EACH, we did 3 nonsurvival procedures with 3 students per dog, that's $50,000 it cost to do this lab - seriously not worth it.
Click to expand...

One thing I did appreciate was that at least we could use the cadavers for the clinical procedures stuff we did (female catheters, LPs for epidurals, etc) plus the orthopaedic labs and the residents seemed to make use of the legs that we didn't. So even if it was pretty expensive, at least it wasn't wasteful.
 
you raise some good questions here. we may have to agree to disagree, but here's my take on your thoughts.

1) funding and time. 5 vets to 30 students isn't a lot to ask. if you can't support that, have top students from previous years come in and help out. that's how ravs works - i worked with a senior student with a fair bit of experience. and the vets were there - one per table. that's reasonable, and it works quite well.

2) students do terminal surgeries because nobody wants them working on real live patients in case they screw up. if there's adequate supervision and, especially, training, that potential can be minimised. put students in real-life situations and empower them to succeed, and they will.

3) i never said students shouldn't practice on live animals. i specifically meant to say that i think students should learn on live patients in meaningful procedures. but, there's a lot to be said for using simulators and doing post-mortems prior to going live. and just because you read it in a book doesn't mean you know what you're doing when you're staring into your first abdomen - you need to learn the anatomy somewhere. introductory veterinary anatomy is great for what it is, but it doesn't teach anatomy within the context of a spey/neuter procedure. in my first procedure, maybe i could focus on finding the relevant structures, learning how to handle tissues, etc, rather than worrying about a bleeder, or nicking the spleen, or accidentally tying off a ureter. as my skills develop, most certainly i should be dealing with those issues.

4) i actually resent your assertion that i'm making this one up. i spoke to one of the lecturers about the cavalier attitude and she said what you said. that students know it's their only opportunity and wouldn't take it lightly. but they do - not two days later i was talking to one of the 5th year students who said exactly this: "the pig is going to die anyway, so who cares." without going into a lot of inflammatory detail, i have other stories. feel free to pm me if you want to hear them. but it comes from the top down.

5) surgeons don't do many gi surgeries, that's part of the point. the other point is, you generally don't do lump removals, cruciate repairs, hip replacements, fracture repairs, etc, in vet school. there aren't enough resources and time. if you don't do them in vet school, necessarily your first is going to come on a client's animal. you study it, learn the techniques and approaches, and ask for help. in vet school, you learn good surgical practice, and common procedures. so, because a student's done one, that makes you comfortable? have you done surgery? i don't know about you, but my first one was just about getting a feel for being in there. it took me 5-10+ to begin to feel comfortable. so if i do one in 4th year and forget it, does that make me more qualified than someone who's done zero, but is competent with a spey? i still think you study the techniques and approaches and ask for help. until you're comfortable.

6) exploratory laparotomies may be common, but gastrotomies, enterotomies and enterectomies may not be. and for an ex-lap, a spey is equally as adequate a learning model as a gastrotomy. with the added bonus that you develop competency at something you will see nearly every day in practice.

re: unadoptable animals scheduled for destruction... this is a toughie. the problem is actually bigger than a terminal surgery in that case - look at the incessant breeding and overpopulation problem; but i digress. you can question the ethics of keeping an animal alive through an operation just to terminate it, vs. euthanasing and then operating. early in the training, i think the latter is fine. of course, i would much rather see the need for destruction obviated first so this isn't an issue. ideally, students work on animals that will be rehomed.

many of the procedures mentioned can be learned post-mortem. first time. as you get more comfortable and skilled, by all means do it under the supervision of a vet.

i'm opposed to the attitude that animals can be destroyed for our learning. there are so many other options that this isn't necessary in this day and age. rather than looking to poke holes in my argument (which i can plug if asked), look at those holes and ask yourself how you would plug them. look at the solutions, not the problems.

thanks for your response. i appreciate the dialogue...

turnandburn said:
I dont' have the time to give a thorough response to every single point you made but I'll try to quickly address what I can. 🙂



I agree, so what if schools are using animals that are unfit for adoption and were scheduled to be euthanized anyway?



I think the problem is lack of adequate funding and teacher time to individually supervise that amount of veterinary students.



Not quite sure what your main point is here?



Nearly the same for basic skills but practicing on live patients is critical, imo, because you have to take into account many other factors (aka keeping the patient alive!)



I think you need to back that up, I don't know anyone who would think that way, not saying that no one would but I certainly don't believe that is a common attitude to take, our school does terminal surgeries and I dont' know anyone who has that attitude, people take them very seriously.



Models for suture technique is great.



This is about surgery though, not studying anatomy.



Would you want a veterinarian doing a GI surgery on your pet who has only performed spays before? Are you comfortable with that? I am definitely not.



Exploratory surgeries are fairly common with general small animal practioners.



Just because this is becoming a trend doesn't make it a good thing, necessarily.

Obviously you are opposed, but the point of my thread is why. Would you be ok with it if they were animals that are going to be euthanized anyway (for example unadoptable shelter animals?)
Click to expand...
 
[/QUOTE]Obviously you are opposed, but the point of my thread is why. Would you be ok with it if they were animals that are going to be euthanized anyway (for example unadoptable shelter animals?)[/QUOTE]


With regards to operating on animals that were 'going to be euthanised anyway', I would have to say that I don't agree with that premise at all.

First of all, from an animal welfare perspective, it is not a matter of 'would be euthanized anyway' as the contexts for euthanasia are not equivocal. Rather than being euthanised promptly without stress of delay, this unwanted animal would instead be made to wait several more days for the inevitable, transported to another holding facility where it will once again be made to wait in a cage, and be further submitted to the stresses of handling etc before being anaesthetised and euthanised. It is not as simple and clean a solution as it may appear on paper.

Second, although these animals would arguably (and I would submit in many cases likely) be euthanised anyway, the *guarantee* of a provision of such a service by a veterinary school would preclude any chances of another outcome. Just as x number of greyhouds are 'allotted' to vet teaching facilities each year for euthanasia, those x animals do not have the chance at being rehomed as many of their fellow former-racers do, and ultimately are. It creates a back-door funnel in shelter facilities that validates or excuses euthanasias which, if given a chance, might possibly be avoided. In other words, it presupposes the inevitability of these deaths; many of these animals would most likely be euthanised, no doubt, but not necessarily all. Not necessarily the full quota for the veterinary surgery labs.

Finally, it further contributes to an educational philosophy that animals (that is, our future patients) are expendable for the purposes of teaching. I too can testify to the fact that terminal surgeries undermine, however subtly, the respect of the student for the animal, and the future doctor's respect for their "patient". And I am a strong believer in learning from live animals, I am. However, it can and should be done in a manner which benefits both the patient and the student.
 
Westerns reverence for life philosophy - donation of cadavers and no terminal surgeries isn't based on NICE. Its founded in STUDIES which SUBSTANTIATE that otherwise breeds a cavalier attitude about life.

ALMOST Every single Dr/DVM/Phd/board certified professor at Western has graduated from a different vet school, (and I say almost because there are a few who have recently graduated and returned to teach or work at the hospital they loved it so much) coming from backgrounds with terminal surgeries. They have all migrated to Western because they HAVE been through it and they believe in the program. Our head anatomist has said he came from UC Davis mainly because he is so proud of our reverance for life philosphy. One professor came out of retirement to teach, one said when she came to the interview she never really thought shed take the jon because of the commute and her kids, well she believes in it so much she commutes a crazy amount of hours per day to be a part of this.

I am not expressing an opinion on the right or wrong of terminal surgeries. I am simply stating there are people who KNOW it can be done and those are the ones who will succeed.

For those who said the fact that schools can't use shelter animals FORCES the schools to use purpose bred animals - well of course it DOESN'T! Where is the choice? Where is the progressive thinking outside the box? And is it really that outside the box to just say - hey, maybe we need to do this in a different way - like every other human med school in the world? That life is not to be exploited. Why should it be destroyed in order for us to learn? Just having the attitude, "well they would be euthanized anyway," IS cavalier in my opinon.According to our world renowned behavorist, the number ONE reason for euthanasia is that people deem certain behaviors unacceptable. Are these "unadoptable" animals that justifies their use in our practice? And for those who say they wouldn't have a problem euthanizing - have you done it? I know vets who have a problem with it on truly sick animals that are arguably in the most need. Because who are we to decide life and death really? We have no training in death, why do we get to decide? Because we are doctors? I don t know what that means. If not to do everything we can to better life.
 
LLIPPY said:
For those who said the fact that schools can't use shelter animals FORCES the schools to use purpose bred animals - well of course it DOESN'T! Where is the choice? Where is the progressive thinking outside the box? And is it really that outside the box to just say - hey, maybe we need to do this in a different way - like every other human med school in the world?
Click to expand...

By the way, the use of purpose-bred animals in these states (including VA, if I"m not mistaken--maybe someone from VMRCVM can shed some light) are NOT necessarily for terminal surgeries. Purpose-bred animals are also used for recovery surgeries.

Which, again, is a step backwards for the pet overpopulation problem.

Also, talk to someone at a human medical school--most of them still do terminal surgeries ON ANIMALS. So the "just like human med schools" argument doesn't hold much water.

Not arguing for terminal surgeries, just want to clear some things up.
 
LLIPPY said:
I know vets who have a problem with it on truly sick animals that are arguably in the most need. Because who are we to decide life and death really? We have no training in death, why do we get to decide? Because we are doctors? I don t know what that means. If not to do everything we can to better life.
Click to expand...

I guess we're at a point where this argument will go around and around. I will simply answer this question for you though. WE decide because we have reasoning skills and WE are the reason there are pets in this world. As a veterinarian you 'should' be the most qualified to make a decision on quality of life, although with some of these opinions I get the feeling some people would rather drag a terminally ill and painful patient through the last part of their life instead of humanely euthanizing.

Have you known anyone that is sick and dying? I know that at that point the last thing I want is to be kept alive with a horrible quality of life. You have to think for that animal - you have no other choice.
Also, your views of life and death are much different if you've grown up on or around the farm vs. if you haven't. We've already talked about this in other threads, but this is why we're never all going to agree on this subject, and changing someone's mind will be very difficult.

Either way, WE make the decisions because WE domesticated animals. They don't have choices because they don't possess the ability to make them and talk to us. If you don't feel like you can make that decision I have a hard time understanding how you will deal with these situations in practice.

Sorry for temporarily hijacking. Either way, I guess I'm stubborn because there's absolutely no way you will convince me that utilizing an animal that is going to be euthanized anyway to further a student's surgery skills is a bad thing. Call me cold, but I don't feel like transporting that animal to a vet school is abusing or disrespecting that animal, especially if it means you're improving a future vet's ability to work on animals.
 
LLIPPY said:
hey, maybe we need to do this in a different way - like every other human med school in the world? That life is not to be exploited. Why should it be destroyed in order for us to learn?
Click to expand...

I graduated from Western and am proud of it, but you touch on one of my huge pet peeves here. Many human medical school students learn on lab animals. They are taught in terminal procedures on animals. So the correct statement is that Human life is not to be exploited, if you are correctly referring to our human med school counterparts.

Okay now I am off my rant. Carry on.
 
out of curiosity, you don't happen to have links to some of these studies, do you? would go a long way in supporting our stance here in support of eradicating terminal surgeries.

LLIPPY said:
Westerns reverence for life philosophy - donation of cadavers and no terminal surgeries isn't based on NICE. Its founded in STUDIES which SUBSTANTIATE that otherwise breeds a cavalier attitude about life.
Click to expand...
 
LLIPPY said:
For those who said the fact that schools can't use shelter animals FORCES the schools to use purpose bred animals - well of course it DOESN'T! Where is the choice? Where is the progressive thinking outside the box? And is it really that outside the box to just say - hey, maybe we need to do this in a different way - like every other human med school in the world? That life is not to be exploited. Why should it be destroyed in order for us to learn? Just having the attitude, "well they would be euthanized anyway," IS cavalier in my opinon.According to our world renowned behavorist, the number ONE reason for euthanasia is that people deem certain behaviors unacceptable. Are these "unadoptable" animals that justifies their use in our practice? And for those who say they wouldn't have a problem euthanizing - have you done it? I know vets who have a problem with it on truly sick animals that are arguably in the most need. Because who are we to decide life and death really? We have no training in death, why do we get to decide? Because we are doctors? I don t know what that means. If not to do everything we can to better life.
Click to expand...

It's not a cavalier attitude; it's just a fact. Whether you like it or not dozens of animals are euthanized every single day at one single large shelter in my area... just ONE shelter. How many are euthanized daily across the country? Yearly? If those animals instead can be used for educating future veterinarians to help those animals that can be saved, isn't that better than a death with no benefit at all to other animals?
 
Pointer1330 said:
Sorry for temporarily hijacking. Either way, I guess I'm stubborn because there's absolutely no way you will convince me that utilizing an animal that is going to be euthanized anyway to further a student's surgery skills is a bad thing. Call me cold, but I don't feel like transporting that animal to a vet school is abusing or disrespecting that animal, especially if it means you're improving a future vet's ability to work on animals.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. 👍
 
Pointer I think you've put some words in my mouth. I FULLY believe in and support euthanasia for the suffering. However, I still don't see the merit in arguing "because we are the ones most qualified." Yes and no is all I am saying. I accept the responsibility that I will be given as a Dr. And I'm even glad I have that option, but I don't truly think anyone should be considered qualified to end a life. Its an internal struggle for most is all I'm saying.

As far as the human med school thing, my point is that they don't practice on HUMANS which is their true aim. People were arguing that they wouldn't want a vet who hadn't practiced on a live animal patient - is a human Dr practicing on an animal the same?? I'm gonna argue no here. so. When they operate for the first time on a human, they've never operated on a human. then how do they get the training they need to practice on HUMANS? With careful supervision and training, just like can be done anywhere else.

Quakk, I don't have the studies off hand. Have you tryed searching for them? I know they exist. Again, its been told to us time and again,but take comfort that Western would need something more than "because its nice," to base this philosophy on. If I have time to look I will post.
 
LLIPPY said:
As far as the human med school thing, my point is that they don't practice on HUMANS which is their true aim. People were arguing that they wouldn't want a vet who hadn't practiced on a live animal patient - is a human Dr practicing on an animal the same?? I'm gonna argue no here. so. When they operate for the first time on a human, they've never operated on a human. then how do they get the training they need to practice on HUMANS? With careful supervision and training, just like can be done anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Okay, quick thing about human medical schools and physician training.

1. In order to become a surgeon, there is 4 years of medical school + internship (1 year) + residency (3-6 years) +/- fellowship (1-3 years).
2. During those years, they scrub in on hundreds and hundreds of surgeries. At some point they are allowed to place a couple of sutures. Many of these surgeries they don't even hold instruments. They are observing and listening.
3. A "huge day" in the life of a surgeon-in-training is getting to make the first incision/begin the approach...and then the senior surgeon takes over.
4. Point: Human surgeons--UNLIKE VETERINARIANS--undergo years and years of very gradual, focused training before they are allowed to do something truly surgical on an actual human patient.
5. Veterinarians--UNLIKE HUMAN DOCTORS--are EXPECTED to perform surgery ON THEIR OWN as soon as they graduate. After they have performed 1-5 surgeries on real live animals.

There is a HUGE difference. Comparing the surgical training needs of physicians to that of veterinarians is comparing apples to oranges. The number of years and level of supervision human surgeons have is astronomicaly more than ANY veterinarian has upon graduation--and the demands on us are very different.
 
Pointer1330 said:
I don't feel like transporting that animal to a vet school is abusing or disrespecting that animal, especially if it means you're improving a future vet's ability to work on animals.
Click to expand...


"You have to think for that animal..." Indeed. For that animal, it is stressful to be made to spend extra days/weeks in a cage before being transported to a different facility and left in a cage to wait again.

The question is not, does the student surgeon benefit from performing the terminal surgery - the answer is yes. The REAL question is could not this same surgeon gain those same benefits another way? And the REAL answer, of course, is YES.

If there's another way to do it, we should do it another way. And there IS another way to do it, so we should do it that other way.

That's all I'm sayin'. Never settle. Strive.
 
LLIPPY said:
As far as the human med school thing, my point is that they don't practice on HUMANS which is their true aim. People were arguing that they wouldn't want a vet who hadn't practiced on a live animal patient - is a human Dr practicing on an animal the same?? I'm gonna argue no here. so. When they operate for the first time on a human, they've never operated on a human. then how do they get the training they need to practice on HUMANS? With careful supervision and training, just like can be done anywhere else.
Click to expand...

This logic seems a little off... so, human med students can practice on animals because people are their real patients and are a step up... so vet med students should practice on... plants...?

+1 to alliecats answer. The two aren't comparable. And human med residents have an attending standing across the table from them, scrubbed in, observing every little thing they do, willing to intervene before anything goes wrong. The same cannot be said for any standard surgical teaching method in vet school anywhere ( I believe - and I would be extremely hesitant to believe this was the case).

And I honestly think whether or not complacency develops is more person-specific; I am pro-terminal surgeries, but my eyes still well with tears when I think of the sacrifice of cadaver for my learning, and I try and use every little bit of her/him to learn, so nothing is wasted. I think you'll find those students who become complacent due to terminal surgery would become complacent in general practice anyway.
 
I'm with Quakk. As far as SA goes, we are in no danger of running out of shelter animals, feral cats, and animals belonging to those who cannot afford market price veterinary services. Why do a terminal surgery when you could do a spay and prophylactic gastropexy on a dog whose family could not afford the surgery otherwise? Survival sx has the potential to provide a great service to the animal, his family, *and* the student.
 
sunshinevet said:
and i honestly think whether or not complacency develops is more person-specific; i am pro-terminal surgeries, but my eyes still well with tears when i think of the sacrifice of cadaver for my learning, and i try and use every little bit of her/him to learn, so nothing is wasted. I think you'll find those students who become complacent due to terminal surgery would become complacent in general practice anyway.
Click to expand...

qft
 
VeganSoprano said:
I'm with Quakk. As far as SA goes, we are in no danger of running out of shelter animals, feral cats, and animals belonging to those who cannot afford market price veterinary services. Why do a terminal surgery when you could do a spay and prophylactic gastropexy on a dog whose family could not afford the surgery otherwise? Survival sx has the potential to provide a great service to the animal, his family, *and* the student.
Click to expand...

There is also no shortage of animals being euthanized daily due to overcrowding of shelters and animals considered unfit for adoption, so why not try to at least use them for training future veterinarians?
 
quakk said:
i'm opposed to the attitude that animals can be destroyed for our learning. there are so many other options that this isn't necessary in this day and age. rather than looking to poke holes in my argument (which i can plug if asked), look at those holes and ask yourself how you would plug them. look at the solutions, not the problems.
Click to expand...

Do you also object to animals being destroyed so you can live in a shelter, buy groceries at a store, drive a vehicle, wear clothing, take pharms, use consumables, consume food, etc?

Even if you don't do anything directly with animals (ie don't eat animal products) animals are still destroyed when a field is plowed up. Why is the life of an animal at the vet school or animal shelter more valuable than the life of an animal in the field? Or the animal whose home was destoryed to build the vet school? I am fully aware that these are taking animal preservation and care to the extreme....but the point is fully the same; we use animals as resources and put our needs and desires above and beyond theirs. For me personally, using animals as a resource in education is acceptable; so is using animals as food, for clothing, and for the environments they occupy. I think there needs to be judicious use, and we should do so with sensitivity and consideration, but I do think it can be valuable to learn techniques on living animals, even if those animals will be destroyed... maybe I would feel different if my field was pathology. I feel just as bad for our palpation animals, whose contact with humans isn't 'typical/normal/natural' either.
 
LLIPPY said:
Westerns reverence for life philosophy - donation of cadavers and no terminal surgeries isn't based on NICE. Its founded in STUDIES which SUBSTANTIATE that otherwise breeds a cavalier attitude about life.
Click to expand...

please provide the reference, and preferably the full article; I don't understand why anyone with a science background would back themselves up with studies without providing the necessary information for review.

LLIPPY said:
Westerns our reverance for life philosphy. That life is not to be exploited. Why should it be destroyed in order for us to learn?
Click to expand...

my question is the same I asked above; were the homes and lives of animals destroyed to put up the building you learn in? How about the research to create the products that will be sold to clients? Why is a dog or cat more valuable than a wild animal? It is the extreme view, but why not embrace it? If there is so much reverance for life, how could anyone justfiy doing things that destory the natural life (fauna and flora) of an area to support human life, let alone education? There are individuals who live their life to that extreme, and I have a LOT of respect for it....but I don't understand the acceptance of some animals as resources but not others.

LLIPPY said:
Just having the attitude, "well they would be euthanized anyway," IS cavalier in my opinon.According to our world renowned behavorist, the number ONE reason for euthanasia is that people deem certain behaviors unacceptable. Are these "unadoptable" animals that justifies their use in our practice? And for those who say they wouldn't have a problem euthanizing - have you done it? I know vets who have a problem with it on truly sick animals that are arguably in the most need. Because who are we to decide life and death really? We have no training in death, why do we get to decide? Because we are doctors? I don t know what that means. If not to do everything we can to better life.
Click to expand...

I don't say 'they would be euthanized anyways' I say 'if we are going to destroy animals and discard their body, why not use them for a better purpose?' whether than is cadaver or terminal surgery. When I die....or if I am ever in the point of chosing euthanasia, I would much prefer my organs be used for other people...use the resources I can offer. To that end I am a donor while alive and in death. I believe animals are resources; we demonstrate this every time we use insect repellent, drive a vehicle, etc. I believe in conservation of resources, but that isn't happening with the overpopulation of pets. I would LOVE the day to exist when there weren't adoptable animals or any need for shelters, but I fear it won't happen in my lifetime.

I have assisted in euthanasia. I have drawn up solution, I have even ran the catheter and prepared for the injection. I have also held the animal for the euthanasia. I have done this for clients, for strays, for my last boss's dog (a vet who euth'd her own), and I have done it for my own pets. I have not pushed the plunger, only due to legal issues. Humans decide between life and death every day; we just don't think about it as we put on perfume, or get in our car, or pour milk on our cereal. We don't have to have a special licence to put out a mouse trap or use wasp spray. We don't have to get special permission to spray the pesticide on our plants that will damage the amphibians in the area. So what makes dogs/cats/domestic animals so different? If I treat a barn cat so that it is healthy again, and it kills 2 birds a week its entire life, have I really done 'everything' to better life? Would the birds agree?

This is where the disconnect occurs for me; I believe that we treat animals well and with respect and compassion, but that we accept they are resources. Whether that is the fire ant in my herb garden, the neighbors dog, the injured hawk, or the hatched chick with a warped foot. I am involved in breed perservation in domesticated animals and wildlife conservation. I foster dogs for rescue.

As for why animals are surrendered, I don't disagree...but it doesn't change the fact that they are. And I also know people who don't surrender dogs who bite repeatedly, destroy entire homes, etc. By the time some of these animals reach the shelter, it isn't salvagable...and sometimes just living in a shelter will make a dog unsalvagable (and that isn't talking about breed bans and legal issues that make some animals unadoptable in some places.)

I agree the entire topic is complicated, and that a solution would be ideal...but until then, I prefer to use animals, even for education, rather than discard them.
 
My school is interesting in that it does terminal surgeries, but not on companion animal species; instead, we use sheep. These animals were otherwise destined to be part of the food chain.

While I wish that no animal had to die in order for me to learn, I do think that terminal surgeries have a place in vet school. The small animal department here gave a lot of thought as to how best to use the animals. The sheep one quarter of the class used for terminal surgeries were immediately re-used for cadaver surgeries by another quarter. We got to do a lot more surgeries than simple spays/neuters: lateral fabellar suture cruciate surgeries, for instance.

We do not do surgeries where the animal is recovered, then subjected to a terminal procedure the next week. I see that type of use as inexcusable.

The first time we perform surgery on dogs/cats is spaying owned animals, and you gotta believe that every surgery group has a scrubbed in vet watching their every move and an anesthesia tech overseeing the student anesthetist! We were responsible for finding our own dogs and cats for that spay -- there is a lot of self-inflicted pressure not to make a mistake on your friend's dog!
 
laurafinn said:
The first time we perform surgery on dogs/cats is spaying owned animals, and you gotta believe that every surgery group has a scrubbed in vet watching their every move and an anesthesia tech overseeing the student anesthetist! We were responsible for finding our own dogs and cats for that spay -- there is a lot of self-inflicted pressure not to make a mistake on your friend's dog!
Click to expand...

Wow, ummm...I don't think I'd agree with that. There's enough pressure as it is (our didactic surgery lab class has more or less turned me off from it) on a purpose bred animal because of pressure from the attending clinicians and the residents that are supervising, let alone doing a friend's dog. No thanks... 🙁 I neutered two rats owned by my classmate this summer and that was a ton of pressure when we had complications (had a bleeder) even though I had done it before.
 
Electrophile said:
Wow, ummm...I don't think I'd agree with that. There's enough pressure as it is (our didactic surgery lab class has more or less turned me off from it) on a purpose bred animal because of pressure from the attending clinicians and the residents that are supervising, let alone doing a friend's dog. No thanks... 🙁 I neutered two rats owned by my classmate this summer and that was a ton of pressure when we had complications (had a bleeder) even though I had done it before.
Click to expand...

Oh, it wasn't too bad, we'd already spayed a couple of sheep by then. There's not much difference in the anatomy, and sheep are hard to intubate and like to die under anesthesia, so in many respects it was an easier time.

🙂
 
are you putting words in my mouth? the question was re: terminal surgeries. nobody ever asked me if i thought the value on the life of the animal in vet training was worth more than any other animal. for the record, i don't. i think all animals are valuable - in fact, i have a lot of issue with a lot of things we do with animals. you can't begin to imagine.

so, yes, you're exactly right. subsistence farming is one thing. animal exploitation for entertainment, excessive and wasteful production of food, pharmacological and cosmetic experimentation, clothing, etc, all bug me just as much as killing an animal as a training exercise.

go back and read my two posts again. twice, once in each, i extolled the value in doing procedures on live animals. nothing compares to working with live tissue, once you're experienced. i think there's an awful lot of pre-work and pre-learning that can be done on models and cadavers before you ever make your first incision on a live animal.

and i just don't think you need to kill them afterward to derive learning value from their lives. i think if you start looking at shelter animals as expendable resources, there's an inherent conflict of interest. you run the risk of trivialising all their lives, and as others have pointed out, potentially killing rather than rehoming. seems like a slippery slope to me.

i don't care if you want to eat meat, eggs, fish, dairy, wear leather, whatever. that's your business. all i'm saying is, there are alternatives. as human beings, we have the intellect to seek out and employ those alternatives. some would say we also have the responsibility to do so.

palpation and examination can, in fact, should be performed on every animal you anaeshtetise anyway. two uses in one.

sumstorm said:
Do you also object to animals being destroyed so you can live in a shelter, buy groceries at a store, drive a vehicle, wear clothing, take pharms, use consumables, consume food, etc?

Even if you don't do anything directly with animals (ie don't eat animal products) animals are still destroyed when a field is plowed up. Why is the life of an animal at the vet school or animal shelter more valuable than the life of an animal in the field? Or the animal whose home was destoryed to build the vet school? I am fully aware that these are taking animal preservation and care to the extreme....but the point is fully the same; we use animals as resources and put our needs and desires above and beyond theirs. For me personally, using animals as a resource in education is acceptable; so is using animals as food, for clothing, and for the environments they occupy. I think there needs to be judicious use, and we should do so with sensitivity and consideration, but I do think it can be valuable to learn techniques on living animals, even if those animals will be destroyed... maybe I would feel different if my field was pathology. I feel just as bad for our palpation animals, whose contact with humans isn't 'typical/normal/natural' either.
Click to expand...
 
Just chiming in here after having a terminal surgery lab yesterday. NOBODY in the lab had a cavalier attitude about it. There were students that were close to tears when they euthanized their animals. Other groups thanked their chicken for the service they were receiving. I know my group did.

Although it would have been good if there had been an alternative to using the terminal surgery, we were learning how to perform procedures normally done under anesthesia in birds. They were slated for euthanasia before we got them. We used them to learn valuable, but painful techniques such as putting in an interosseous catheter. When we were done, we did necropsies on them to gain experience we would otherwise not have gotten (no bird in anatomy lab).

I guess I don't see much difference in using shelter dog cadavers in anatomy lab and using slated for euthanasia shelter dogs for terminal surgeries. You're just making more use of the animal before they have to give up their lives.

And even though the most common reason for surrender and euthanasia are behavior problems, not all are. Some have incurable diseases.
 
laurafinn said:
Oh, it wasn't too bad, we'd already spayed a couple of sheep by then. There's not much difference in the anatomy, and sheep are hard to intubate and like to die under anesthesia, so in many respects it was an easier time.

🙂
Click to expand...

Oh, okay, I got ya! I thought you meant the first living thing you cut was a friend's animal that was volunteered. That would be kinda yipes! That's not so bad then.

dyachei said:
Just chiming in here after having a terminal surgery lab yesterday. NOBODY in the lab had a cavalier attitude about it. There were students that were close to tears when they euthanized their animals. Other groups thanked their chicken for the service they were receiving. I know my group did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ours was the same. We were all pretty serious and tried to treat the dogs as kindly as possible (even though they were undersocialized and scared). I silently thanked the dog for her valuable service to us when I euthanized the dog we did in surgery lab this summer.
 
dyachei, I asked for, and received, alternate training for the skills in that lab because I did not feel comfortable participating. This is just for the information of anyone who is wondering if Tennessee will require you to participate in a terminal surgery/procedures lab--they won't.

It does my heart good to know my classmates took the act of euthanizing those birds very seriously and with gratitude. 🙂 It also does my heart good to know that my own discomfort with the ending of an animal's life for my learning was taken seriously by the course coordinator and the associate dean, and they were quick to provide me with an alternate method of gaining the same skills. It does make me wonder if they can't always do it the alternate way, and perhaps they've never really had to consider it before. I was told that I was the first student to ask to be excused from this particular lab.

As to the issue presented by the OP, I agree alternative methods ARE available, and that we need to start thinking outside the box and making a greater effort to find them. I would like to see veterinary medical education evolve beyond the need for terminal surgeries. That said, I have the utmost respect for my classmates who participated in the lab, knowing they took it seriously and compassionately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

battie
Terminal Surgeries in Veterinary Schools
Replies
26
Views
5K
Nannarnaluk
N
E
Equine Surgery Insights
Replies
2
Views
1K
JaxysWindow
JaxysWindow
B
Does watching a surgery on an animal by human surgeons count as vet experience?
Replies
14
Views
2K
WhtsThFrequency
WhtsThFrequency
dragonmydriasis
Insight on how much "experimental surgery" is involved in Lab Animal specialty?
Replies
6
Views
1K
that redhead
that redhead
V
Cadavers, terminal surgeries, etc.
Replies
19
Views
3K
DVMDream
DVMDream
Top