Animal Dissection

[One More Rep]

Hi everyone,

I am pre-medical and trying to figure out what exactly will occur in medical school with regard to dissection. I have no problems with human cadaver labs, but the thought of dissecting animals, especially dogs or cats, turns my stomach (yeah, I am an animal lover). Do you do any animal dissections in med school or is it all performed on cadavers? I know med schools used to offer live animal labs, but most have discontinued this practice. Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

My school does not have any required animal dissections. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a list of schools with and without animal dissections, and it seems like most schools are moving away from them.

 

[samenewme]

My school used to have a live dog lab in physiology and switched this year to a live pig lab, I guess because pigs aren't as cute. They do not require you to attend the live animal lab, and there are only three exam questions based on the content of the lab. You can get most of them right by studying the lab handout. But they don't really offer alternative materials to replace the lab.

 

[IAmAUser]

.

 

[Orthodoc40]

Isn't a live anything lab vivisection?
Totally not okay with me.


OP, we don't even dissect - we just walk around identifying stuff on previously dissected humans, who signed forms agreeing to be dissected once they died.

 

[TheLesPaul]

Isn't a live anything lab vivisection?
Totally not okay with me.


OP, we don't even dissect - we just walk around identifying stuff on previously dissected humans, who signed forms agreeing to be dissected once they died.

What's the big deal with vivisection? These animals are destined for euthanasia regardless of whether they are dissected or not. Anyway, once they are anesthetized, they don't ever wake up after the dissection... I guess I just don't see what is so inhumane about it?

 

[Orthonut]

What's the big deal with vivisection? These animals are destined for euthanasia regardless of whether they are dissected or not. Anyway, once they are anesthetized, they don't ever wake up after the dissection... I guess I just don't see what is so inhumane about it?

It's not vivisection if the animal is anaesthetized-vivisection is like what they did to Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart (disembowling him while he was still alive and conscious)

 

[Orthodoc40]

What's the big deal with vivisection? These animals are destined for euthanasia regardless of whether they are dissected or not. Anyway, once they are anesthetized, they don't ever wake up after the dissection... I guess I just don't see what is so inhumane about it?

So causing pain and fear in one of God's Little People, who may have been someone's beloved pet at some time in the recent past, grown trusting and loving and dependent on humans, means nothing to you? I think a person would have to be soul-less to be able to do that to another living being. There is nothing to learn doing this that can't be learned in other, less cruel ways. I don't think we are seeking to work in health professions to ADD TO the pain and long-suffering in the world - it has enough already, don't you think?

And as my mentor says, I won't even consider it until they can sign their own consent form.

 

[175961]

It's not vivisection if the animal is anaesthetized-vivisection is like what they did to Mel Gibson's character in Braveheart (disembowling him while he was still alive and conscious)

I'm not taking a stand either way but....

".....O'Meara and others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering results unreliable....."

From dictionary.com:the action of cutting into or dissecting a living body.

The O'meara dude was a physiologist, so I'm gonna take his word over yours. Vivisection in no way implies doing it while the animal is conscious. According to o'meara the animal feeling pain would affect the outcome of the study (heart rate would go up, respiration would increase, etc....), thus its better that the animals are anesthetized, or not?

 

[Textuality]

I'm thankful for all the informations that we've gathered in the past based on animal vivisection (like Harvey and blood flow etc), but I think with today's visualization technology and the things we have already proven to be fact, animal vivisection really isn't necessary as an educational tool as it might have been back in the day.

 

[45408]

So causing pain and fear in one of God's Little People, who may have been someone's beloved pet at some time in the recent past, grown trusting and loving and dependent on humans, means nothing to you? I think a person would have to be soul-less to be able to do that to another living being. There is nothing to learn doing this that can't be learned in other, less cruel ways. I don't think we are seeking to work in health professions to ADD TO the pain and long-suffering in the world - it has enough already, don't you think?

They're completely anesthetized, and the dogs that my school used to use were NOT pets. They were bought from a licensed vendor.

And as my mentor says, I won't even consider it until they can sign their own consent form.

But you don't have a problem eating them?

 

[spanamit]

They're completely anesthetized, and the dogs that my school used to use were NOT pets. They were bought from a licensed vendor.


But you don't have a problem eating them?

But I am vegetarian (says he)!

 

[45408]

But I am vegetarian (says he)!

Then I also hope s/he doesn't use antibacterial soap, mouse traps, pesticides, insecticides, etc. I agree that humans should never be CRUEL to animals, but I don't understand the notion that eating them or utilizing some aspect of them is wrong.

 

[NoUse4aName1286]

But you don't have a problem eating them?

+1

 

[Orthodoc40]

I'm thankful for all the informations that we've gathered in the past based on animal vivisection (like Harvey and blood flow etc), but I think with today's visualization technology and the things we have already proven to be fact, animal vivisection really isn't necessary as an educational tool as it might have been back in the day.

+1.


Eating something that is already dead is not the same thing as slowing killing it to "learn" something that you can learn about using other methods available today.

 

[Tin Man]

+1.


Eating something that is already dead is not the same thing as slowing killing it to "learn" something that you can learn about using other methods available today.

So what other methods would you suggest using to study a still-beating heart, or to watch organs working while they're actually working?

The body doesn't actually DO anything once it's dead... kind of like trying to learn how to drive when you never actually turn on a car.

 

[Jolie South]

not condoning the dissections, but. . .

i think the anesthetized animal would feel much less pain than those that are slaughtered for food.

i was just reading a story on cnn how sick cows were dragged, sprayed with water in the nostrils, and hit to get them to move to the kill shoots. the manner in which they are killed is far from humane; the animal is stunned by a pellet or shock to the head and then pretty much cut from ear to ear to bleed to death.

 

[45408]

Eating something that is already dead is not the same thing as slowing killing it to "learn" something that you can learn about using other methods available today.

Your logic makes no sense to me. Eating something that is already dead? Do you scavenge? Or do you buy meat that was KILLED? Is there not food that is available from other methods that does not require killing one of God's Little Creatures? Like carrots or lettuce?

Secondly, the dogs were not slowly killed. They were completely anesthetized for maybe two hours using modern anesthetics, and their heart came to a screeching halt after being given a certain compound.

 

[medking]

Hi everyone,

I am pre-medical and trying to figure out what exactly will occur in medical school with regard to dissection. I have no problems with human cadaver labs, but the thought of dissecting animals, especially dogs or cats, turns my stomach (yeah, I am an animal lover). Do you do any animal dissections in med school or is it all performed on cadavers? I know med schools used to offer live animal labs, but most have discontinued this practice. Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Let's set the records straight.

You are not an animal lover, you are a dog/cat lover.

 

[hp540]

One of the schools I interviewed at used anaesthetized pigs at the end of first year in order to teach some specific physiology and surgical skills.

I prefer not using an animal at all, but I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Dienekes]

So causing pain and fear in one of God's Little People, who may have been someone's beloved pet at some time in the recent past, grown trusting and loving and dependent on humans, means nothing to you? I think a person would have to be soul-less to be able to do that to another living being. There is nothing to learn doing this that can't be learned in other, less cruel ways. I don't think we are seeking to work in health professions to ADD TO the pain and long-suffering in the world - it has enough already, don't you think?

And as my mentor says, I won't even consider it until they can sign their own consent form.

You missed the part about anesthesia right?

However, I do believe that we should use convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc before we use animals. Unfortunately, the ****ing Nazis ruined this option for the rest of us by doing to non-criminal prisoners.

 

[Karen12345]

Animals in research/academic settings are killed in the most human way possible because there are strict regulations in place. Not true for animals to be sold as meat. It always surprises me in an irritating kind of way when someone looks at lab rats soon to be euthanized and says. "poor little rats" and shortly after that same person orders chicken for lunch. Unlike research animals, that chicken had a horrible life and a horrible death.
I just don't get such inconsistent attitudes. And before someone starts off with the "we need meat, we need protein" comment, let me just say, "No, we do not need meat." Actually we kill the meat and the meat will slowly kill us in return. Just look at cancer statistics among flesh eaters and vegetarians and see for yourself. As a matter of fact, consider any kind of disease and see that vegetarians do much better.

 

[smq123]

So what other methods would you suggest using to study a still-beating heart, or to watch organs working while they're actually working?

Uhhh...methods that actual doctors use...such as echocardiograms, ECG, laparoscopy/endoscopy.



What possible benefit could vivisection be? If you want to watch an actual heart pumping in a live human being, sign up to shadow a CT surgeon for a few days. If you want to watch an actual bowel working, sign up for colorectal or general surgery.

Lots and lots of physicians went through med school without vivisection, and went on to become successful surgeons. What's the big deal about animal vivisection?

And I'd rather learn how a heart pumps by watching an echocardiogram - watching an echocardiogram is a far more useful skill than dissecting a live animal. A much harder skill too, I might add.

 

[Dienekes]

Rule #1: Never argue with a zealot. They will never admit they are wrong even if their stances are completely beyond support and/or pointless.
Rule #2: When in doubt and dealing with a topic such as this, refer to rule #1.

 

[Dienekes]

A much harder skill too, I might add.

On this, I (as a trained echocardiographer) agree with you.

 

[cgbg]

You missed the part about anesthesia right?

However, I do believe that we should use convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc before we use animals. Unfortunately, the ****ing Nazis ruined this option for the rest of us by doing to non-criminal prisoners.

as a jew i find that quote.....

HYSTERICAL!!!

 

[Doctor Bagel]

But you don't have a problem eating them?

I do. PCRM, the people who made the link, also advocate an animal-free diet.

 

[pakbabydoll]

High school 12th grade anatomy class we dissected cats. Each student got his/her own cat too since besides me only 3 other students in the whole class agreed to do it, rest of the students just did not show up.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Uhhh...methods that actual doctors use...such as echocardiograms, ECG, laparoscopy/endoscopy.



What possible benefit could vivisection be? If you want to watch an actual heart pumping in a live human being, sign up to shadow a CT surgeon for a few days. If you want to watch an actual bowel working, sign up for colorectal or general surgery.

Lots and lots of physicians went through med school without vivisection, and went on to become successful surgeons. What's the big deal about animal vivisection?

And I'd rather learn how a heart pumps by watching an echocardiogram - watching an echocardiogram is a far more useful skill than dissecting a live animal. A much harder skill too, I might add.

From what I've seen, these labs provide no value that's actually worth the cost to the animals involved. The vast majority of medical schools don't have live animal labs -- I think that's pretty good support for the notion that they're unnecessary to train good physicians.

I know that there's disagreement about animal research in general, but I think most of us are in agreement that if an animal is going to be hurt or killed, it probably should be for something valuable to science. A demonstration where we already know what's going to happen doesn't fit, imo.

 

[medking]

From what I've seen, these labs provide no value that's actually worth the cost to the animals involved. The vast majority of medical schools don't have live animal labs -- I think that's pretty good support for the notion that they're unnecessary to train good physicians.

I know that there's disagreement about animal research in general, but I think most of us are in agreement that if an animal is going to be hurt or killed, it probably should be for something valuable to science. A demonstration where we already know what's going to happen doesn't fit, imo.

In neurobio lab, we killed frogs, took out their sciatic nerves, and used various pharmacological agents to see their effects. Nobody complained. Everyone thought it was pretty cool.

I don't think it's about ANIMAL research. People are just too attached to cats and dogs. Oh yea, can't forget the dolphins and whales.

Whether live animal dissections are necessary in medical education, I do not know (probably don't really need it), but it's just BS when people say they are animal lovers and only really care about the animals mentioned above.

 

[TheLesPaul]

I was under the impression that these animals are strays that are destined for death anyway - what difference does it make to them if they get vivisected or not, if they're unconscious and they never wake up? It's not causing them any pain and suffering.

I'm not sure whether it is necessary or not, I have no expertise in that area - I just don't see what the huge fuss is.

 

[medking]

I was under the impression that these animals are strays that are destined for death anyway - what difference does it make to them if they get vivisected or not, if they're unconscious and they never wake up? It's not causing them any pain and suffering.

I'm not sure whether it is necessary or not, I have no expertise in that area - I just don't see what the huge fuss is.

Bold 1: Just because they are destined for death (don't fully understand what you meant by "destined") doesn't mean that they should be killed, right?

BUT,

Bold 2: I can't agree with you more.

 

[searun]

I fly fish and most of the trout I catch, I simply remove the fly from lip of the fish and carefully ease the fish back into the water. Catch and release. But occasionally, I want to eat a trout, so I quickly break the neck of the trout with a quick snap , then I slit the trout open with my knife, gut it, and take it home, throw some butter and sliced green onions in the pan, cook the trout, and eat it.

 

[One More Rep]

In neurobio lab, we killed frogs, took out their sciatic nerves, and used various pharmacological agents to see their effects. Nobody complained. Everyone thought it was pretty cool.

I don't think it's about ANIMAL research. People are just too attached to cats and dogs. Oh yea, can't forget the dolphins and whales.

Whether live animal dissections are necessary in medical education, I do not know (probably don't really need it), but it's just BS when people say they are animal lovers and only really care about the animals mentioned above.

I think it is b.s. when people make assumptions about what animals other people love. Let's set the record straight. I asked this question because I do not want to dissect ANY animals, living or dead. Everyone has taken it in the direction of live animal labs/animals for food/medical research, but that was not my question. Here is my question again, rephrased. What animal dissections, if any, have you had to perform in medical school?

 

[TheLesPaul]

Bold 1: Just because they are destined for death (don't fully understand what you meant by "destined") doesn't mean that they should be killed, right?

BUT,

Bold 2: I can't agree with you more.

lol, I guess everything is destined for death, in a way. What I meant was that these animals were going to be euthanized shortly anyway.

And what was the point of the trout story...?

 

[Isis24]

I was under the impression that these animals are strays that are destined for death anyway - what difference does it make to them if they get vivisected or not, if they're unconscious and they never wake up? It's not causing them any pain and suffering.

I'm not sure whether it is necessary or not, I have no expertise in that area - I just don't see what the huge fuss is.

I don't think they're strays. I think they're bred just for that. I worked in an animal research lab for two days....and the dogs there were bought as puppies and grew up in their cramped indoor cages. Never even got to walk on grass :-(

I'm only against animal research when there's another way to go about things. And with vivisection...there is. Use dead people, watch surgeries.

 

[medking]

I think it is b.s. when people make assumptions about what animals other people love. Let's set the record straight. I asked this question because I do not want to dissect ANY animals, living or dead. Everyone has taken it in the direction of live animal labs/animals for food/medical research, but that was not my question. Here is my question again, rephrased. What animal dissections, if any, have you had to perform in medical school?

Good luck with anatomy lab, lol!

I guess you can find a program that uses a computerized anatomy curriculum.

 

[kevster2001]

Nope, no animals. Although i attended a suture work shop that used pigs feet

 

[kami333]

What about on mice?

I do vivisections and necropsies on mice.

If they were in my house, I'd be actively trying to step on them or calling the exterminator

 

[URHere]

Not all schools use live animals just to observe a heart beating, etc. In some schools, animals are used as a chance for students to practice actual medical techniques that would be dangerous for a student to practice on a human for the first time. I don't know about you, but I would be much more likely to let a medical student/intern insert a central line on one of my family members if they had done it before, even if it was on a dog or a pig.

If using the animal can serve as practice and therefore save a student from royally messing up on a patient, I think that animal's life was well spent

 

[Auron]

agree with notdeadyet, it's uneccessary.

 

[notdeadyet]

So what other methods would you suggest using to study a still-beating heart, or to watch organs working while they're actually working?

Anyone who can't understand a human organ like the heart without sitting and watching one beat probably shouldn't be in med school.

Many more med schools are abandoning the use of vivisections than are moving to it. It's passe and unnecessary.

Personally, I don't plan on cutting up any living thing that hasn't given me consent. Just basic ethics.

 

[medking]

Anyone who can't understand a human organ like the heart without sitting and watching one beat probably shouldn't be in med school.

Many more med schools are abandoning the use of vivisections than are moving to it. It's passe and unnecessary.

Personally, I don't plan on cutting up any living thing that hasn't given me consent. Just basic ethics.

.................oh please

 

[Orthodoc40]

"vivisection - the act of cutting into or dissecting a living body"
Doesn't mention anesthesia in the definitions I've seen.

Food to live is different than experiments to learn something we already know. It's the reason that makes it 'right' or 'wrong'. Some would argue that if you don't eat meat, you're still killing the animal because you are now eating IT'S food. BTW, I never claimed to be (or not to be) a meat eater. This isn't about eating. It's about unnecessary practices being passed off as educational.

Whether you think I am a "jealot" or not, consider that it's also very easy for some people to intellectualize life. Neither side will sway the other.

I think Doctor Bagel and others have stated it clearly. We already know what's going to happen - it doesn't fit.

 

[notdeadyet]

.................oh please

Well, 90% of medical schools out there disagree with you. Vivisections are on their way out.

 

[45408]

I do. PCRM, the people who made the link, also advocate an animal-free diet.

I know. They bought a billboard on the freeway for the dog lab. Lots of people protested. The news covered it - TV and newspaper. They bought another one for the pig lab. A few people protested. Nothing on the news.

And nobody ever protested a single word about the frogs or rabbits, and I've never heard any complaints at my undergrad about the boxes of fetal pigs for dissection.

 

[45408]

Well, 90% of medical schools out there disagree with you. Vivisections are on their way out.

And none of the ones I've read about cited ethics as their concern.

 

[notdeadyet]

And none of the ones I've read about cited ethics as their concern.

Definitely not. Changing your policy on animal labs on the basis of ethics is an admission that you were practicing an unethical behavior. It's easier to say nothing or cite any number of any other reasons. Those against the practice are just happy you got rid of them; those for it are just happy you haven't told them the practice they support is unethical. Everyone wins.

That said, I'm sure at a lot of schools, cost is a big issue. Animal labs just don't cut it from a cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Moshe Rabbenu]

I'm actually going to admit that I don't care about live animal labs on non-cute animals. I'm working in a lab where we're doing operations on rats to get them ready for an experiment, and while they're somewhat cute, they're just rats. They were bred for this. If it was a dog, it would be the same situation, but I couldn't do it because I love dogs. Cats...not so much.

 

[Dienekes]

as a jew i find that quote.....

HYSTERICAL!!!

I'm glad you weren't offended, as I did not mean it to be offensive.