Animal labs in medical schools

[NiteOwl]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I will be applying to medical school next year and am already looking into some schools. I have a question. What schools do not do live animal labs where the animals are killed at the end? (ex. cardio lab using dogs)

I am not trying to start anything with this question. There was a similar topic posted once and it just turned into a big argument. I love animals and wouldn't be able to kill a dog. Yes, I am aware that sometime experiments using animals have to be done. But as for learning in medical school, I think there are better alternatives that killing animals. I just would like to know what schools don't do those kinds of labs so that I will know what schools to apply to/not to apply to. Thanks for any info

 

[NMH2001]

I don't think a lot of schools do the live animal labs anymore. If a school that you are interested in does, look into opting out of it.

 

[Mumpu]

Ask the school directly.

 

[idq1i]

Mine has a lab, but you can choose not to attend.

 

[Law2Doc]

I will be applying to medical school next year and am already looking into some schools. I have a question. What schools do not do live animal labs where the animals are killed at the end? (ex. cardio lab using dogs)

I am not trying to start anything with this question. There was a similar topic posted once and it just turned into a big argument. I love animals and wouldn't be able to kill a dog. Yes, I am aware that sometime experiments using animals have to be done. But as for learning in medical school, I think there are better alternatives that killing animals. I just would like to know what schools don't do those kinds of labs so that I will know what schools to apply to/not to apply to. Thanks for any info

Most med schools don't have this kind of lab. But to play devil's advocate - with many thousands of dogs being put to sleep weekly at pounds anyway, it seems somewhat wasteful not to at least better medical education with them.

 

[typeB-md]

I will be applying to medical school next year and am already looking into some schools. I have a question. What schools do not do live animal labs where the animals are killed at the end? (ex. cardio lab using dogs)

I am not trying to start anything with this question. There was a similar topic posted once and it just turned into a big argument. I love animals and wouldn't be able to kill a dog. Yes, I am aware that sometime experiments using animals have to be done. But as for learning in medical school, I think there are better alternatives that killing animals. I just would like to know what schools don't do those kinds of labs so that I will know what schools to apply to/not to apply to. Thanks for any info

save yourself future problems and just don't apply to ANY medical school. this will ensure that you won't have to watch snoopy die.

you should try nursing school. or maybe the local school counselor position is better suited for your personality.

"OMG, like i totally didn't think that stuff like this even really existed... that is like sooooooo totally groooooossss!!"

 

[mendel121]

save yourself future problems and just don't apply to ANY medical school. this will ensure that you won't have to watch snoopy die.

you should try nursing school. or maybe the local school counselor position is better suited for your personality.

"OMG, like i totally didn't think that stuff like this even really existed... that is like sooooooo totally groooooossss!!"

Wow, shocker, more valuable insight from typeB.

Seriously, you'll have really hard time finding such a school, almost any schools will at least be doing this to mice. The research is what keeps schools going.

 

[IAmAUser]

.

 

[Discobolus]

As soon as I read the thread title I just KNEW that typeB-MD had already chimed in, I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm starting to like his style!

Anyway, as you can see from the above links this is pretty much a non-issue.

 

[typeB-md]

As soon as I read the thread title I just KNEW that typeB-MD had already chimed in, I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm starting to like his style!

Anyway, as you can see from the above links this is pretty much a non-issue.

i swear, it's as if i have to nanny the entire pre-allopath community and hold their hands.

what happened to the days when men could respect and endure the tribulations put before them?

 

[NiteOwl]

Wow, shocker, more valuable insight from typeB.

Seriously, you'll have really hard time finding such a school, almost any schools will at least be doing this to mice. The research is what keeps schools going.

Yeah, I was going to reply to what typeB said, but I decided not to waste my time with him.

I know that many school at least do these labs with mice. I had another thought about animal labs in medical schools: Is it mostly research oriented schools that do those kind of lab experiments? Because I probably will be choosing a school that is more primary care oriented. Research isn't a big deal to me.

I know that lots of dogs are put to sleep in animal shelters, but I am against that too. Even though they are going to be put to sleep anyway, I don't think they they should have to go through the pain of being experimented on. Its just cruel to cut a dog open to see its heart beating. There are better ways of observing the functions of the body than doing things like this (observing surgery for example). It isn't that I find the animal labs "gross" as someone mentioned, but I find it cruel and inhumane.

 

[Discobolus]

You would absolutely love the talk our dean gives the incoming M1's every year at orientation. He gets up and starts with this nice speech, and then out of no where breaks into yelling "It's not about you anymore, up till now you've thought everything is about you, about you getting into medical school, and mommy and daddy being so proud of you, but now it's about the patients, not you. I don't care what sort of grades you make, all I care is that you learn the material in order to take care of patients, because that is who it is about now, not you. If you are not prepared to do that, you can leave now!" After a period of ackward silence he goes back to his normal jovial self, but his tirade has a point, one that many of the pre-meds don't realize yet.

i swear, it's as if i have to nanny the entire pre-allopath community and hold their hands.

what happened to the days when men could respect and endure the tribulations put before them?

 

[NiteOwl]

Schools with live animal labs and schools without them.

Thank you for the links about this.

 

[NiteOwl]

You would absolutely love the talk our dean gives the incoming M1's every year at orientation. He gets up and starts with this nice speech, and then out of no where breaks into yelling "It's not about you anymore, up till now you've thought everything is about you, about you getting into medical school, and mommy and daddy being so proud of you, but now it's about the patients, not you. I don't care what sort of grades you make, all I care is that you learn the material in order to take care of patients, because that is who it is about now, not you. If you are not prepared to do that, you can leave now!" After a period of ackward silence he goes back to his normal jovial self, but his tirade has a point, one that many of the pre-meds don't realize yet.

Hardly anything is ever about me now anyway. And as a pre-med I already know that being a doctor isn't about me.

 

[NMH2001]

i swear, it's as if i have to nanny the entire pre-allopath community and hold their hands.

what happened to the days when men could respect and endure the tribulations put before them?

Mods-Can we ditch this guy? His antics are getting old...

 

[typeB-md]

Mods-Can we ditch this guy? His antics are getting old...

mom!!! he's touching me!!!

 

[typeB-md]

Mods-Can we ditch this guy? His antics are getting old...

B.A Biology 1999
B.S. Medical Technology 2001
Cum GPA 3.44/Sci 3.37
MCAT 5V(ouch!!) 8P,9B Q

why are you even posting in this forum?

 

[zion]

B.A Biology 1999
B.S. Medical Technology 2001
Cum GPA 3.44/Sci 3.37
MCAT 5V(ouch!!) 8P,9B Q

why are you even posting in this forum?

Hey type-B.

 

[typeB-md]

Hey type-B. I really enjoy your posts. Just out of curiosity, how big are your testicles?

i believe they are the average, run-of-the-mill testicle size.

i just have a problem with people calling me out when they have not proven themselves to be of worthy caliber.

 

[NMH2001]

Gotta hand it to you-the more you post, the more you show off your "brillance".


Not that I care, but why do you spend your time on here trolling and starting flame wars? Are you really that pathetic?

 

[beanbean]

Cynthia -back to your original question.

I didn't check out the link posted above, but I can tell you that at UCONN we has one cardiac lab where a couple of frogs were sacraficed.

 

[stoic]

i believe they are the average, run-of-the-mill testicle size.

i just have a problem with people calling me out when they have not proven themselves to be of worthy caliber.

b/c to you the measure of a man is his ability to get into medical school?

 

[typeB-md]

b/c to you the measure of a man is his ability to get into medical school?

or by spelling brilliance like "brillance"

 

[NiteOwl]

Cynthia -back to your original question.

I didn't check out the link posted above, but I can tell you that at UCONN we has one cardiac lab where a couple of frogs were sacraficed.

I don't 100% like the idea of killing frogs, but that is lots better than killing a dog. I guess a lab where they use frogs or mice are okay, as long as I do not have to be the one to actually kill it.

 

[zion]

i believe they are the average, run-of-the-mill testicle size.

i just have a problem with people calling me out when they have not proven themselves to be of worthy caliber.

So how must one prove that they are "of worthy caliber?"

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't 100% like the idea of killing frogs, but that is lots better than killing a dog.

I seriously doubt the frogs would agree. 🙄

 

[pillowhead]

I don't 100% like the idea of killing frogs, but that is lots better than killing a dog. I guess a lab where they use frogs or mice are okay, as long as I do not have to be the one to actually kill it.

I have to say that as someone who married into a family of several vegans (unless you're vegan avoid this if you can! not that you really can if you fall in love with someone, but I digress)---a lot of people might call you out on that. An animal's worth isn't based on how furry and cute it is. Rats are extremely intelligent creatures and yet killed routinely in lab research.

Now, I'm not against animal research personally but that statement struck me as being very inconsistent.

 

[beanbean]

Everyone has a different level of what they are comfortable with. Most people would agree, people tend to bond more emotionally with dogs than frogs. Although they are both living things, in society's eyes there is a big difference between squashing a bug or killing a frog vs. harming a cat or dog. Some people are uncomfortable with any type of animal research/experimentation due to their ethical beliefs. For others, it is not as black and white.

Bottom line: There are things you will have to do in med school that you are not always comfortable with, but there are some things that you can control. If participating in an animal lab is bothersome to you, it makes sense to know where those are required labs.

 

[NiteOwl]

I have to say that as someone who married into a family of several vegans (unless you're vegan avoid this if you can! not that you really can if you fall in love with someone, but I digress)---a lot of people might call you out on that. An animal's worth isn't based on how furry and cute it is. Rats are extremely intelligent creatures and yet killed routinely in lab research.

Now, I'm not against animal research personally but that statement struck me as being very inconsistent.

I wasn't saying that it was absolutly fine to kill a frog or mouse or rat. Its just that if I had to participate in any way in a lab that kills an animal, I would rather it be a frog or something. I still would not like to do that though, and would find it upsetting. I am going to try to go to a school that uses no live animals at all. I would go to one that uses frogs if I have no choice (like if I don't get into a school that doesn't use animals or something) but I won't go to one that uses dogs. Yeah, I know that might sound a little strange. But if I do go to one that uses frogs or mice I am going to see if I can opt out of it.

 

[Law2Doc]

I wasn't saying that it was absolutly fine to kill a frog or mouse or rat. Its just that if I had to participate in any way in a lab that kills an animal, I would rather it be a frog or something. I still would not like to do that though, and would find it upsetting. I am going to try to go to a school that uses no live animals at all. I would go to one that uses frogs if I have no choice (like if I don't get into a school that doesn't use animals or something) but I won't go to one that uses dogs. Yeah, I know that might sound a little strange. But if I do go to one that uses frogs or mice I am going to see if I can opt out of it.

Down with anti-frog bigotry and hipocrisy! While I can understand (although strongly disagree with) someone who takes the PETA/vegan attitude and refuses to kill other animals in the name of science, I think it's pretty unfair of you to just prefer those animals which are cute and cuddly to those which aren't. Frankly, in some places in the world, dogs run wild and are considered pests, not pets; In other places, they are on the menu at restaurants. You are really drawing a strange line. But seriously, all of modern medicine -- virtually every drug used, and nearly every medical device, was developed and approved for use after extensive animal testing (and very frequently on "higher animals" - not just rodents and amphibians). Nothing gets through the FDA these days without years of animal trials. If you plan to do any research in or after medical school, there is a good chance some of it will include animal research. If you go into surgery, you will find that animal parts are sometimes used, and that xenotransplant (swapping animal (likely pig) organs for human organs) may be part of the future landscape. So you are going into a field which is built on the corpses of many potential pets, who unknowingly gave their lives for the benefit of medical science. Sounds like you may have to reconcile some things.

 

[chameleonknight]

I have personally killed three dogs with my bare hands in the name of medicine.

Probably about a half dozen llamas and cockroaches too.

 

[Paws]

As soon as I read the thread title I just KNEW that typeB-MD had already chimed in, I may not agree with everything he says, but I'm starting to like his style!

Add me to this list. 🙂

I wonder if people take his comments too seriously. Sometimes I think he's really funny and maybe a little tongue in cheek, and that people are missing the joke. It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

As for lab animals, add me to the list of many rat/mice 'sacrifices'. Where would we be if we didn't have animal models. I don't like killing the little guys, but what are our choices? Medicine is a tough master sometimes. If you don't approve, which is ok, then just stay out of the research labs that use animals.

 

[gerido]

Add me to this list. 🙂

I wonder if people take his comments too seriously. Sometimes I think he's really funny and maybe a little tongue in cheek, and that people are missing the joke. It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

As for lab animals, add me to the list of many rat/mice 'sacrifices'. Where would we be if we didn't have animal models. I don't like killing the little guys, but what are our choices? Medicine is a tough master sometimes. If you don't approve, which is ok, then just stay out of the research labs that use animals.

I don't think anyone takes him seriously. Otherwise, there would be a lot more responses to his comments... He's just starving for attention. I think he's one of those kid that can't command any respect in real life from people around him, so he makes up for it behind a computer screen. So we all should try to be a little understanding and let the poor guy enjoy the little self-esteem that he's trying to build.

 

[MSHell]

I wasn't saying that it was absolutly fine to kill a frog or mouse or rat. Its just that if I had to participate in any way in a lab that kills an animal, I would rather it be a frog or something. I still would not like to do that though, and would find it upsetting. I am going to try to go to a school that uses no live animals at all. I would go to one that uses frogs if I have no choice (like if I don't get into a school that doesn't use animals or something) but I won't go to one that uses dogs. Yeah, I know that might sound a little strange. But if I do go to one that uses frogs or mice I am going to see if I can opt out of it.

This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever read on SDN. What are you going to do in anatomy lab? These are people corpses - someone's mother or father, grandmother or grandfather.... And histo? People have been sliced for the collective benefit of viewing the human body from yet another perspective. And what about prescribing medication that YOU know has been tested on animals of many kinds. Are you not going to prescribe it because it has been tested on cuddly animals?

You are on a very slippery slope, I could extrapolate this kind of reasoning to many medical situations, but I think I gave you enough food for thought.

 

[deuist]

you should try nursing school. or maybe the local school counselor position is better suited for your personality.

I was thinking of women's studies.

 

[deuist]

So you are going into a field which is built on the corpses of many potential pets, who unknowingly gave their lives for the benefit of medical science. Sounds like you may have to reconcile some things.

You will also have to cut into dead people in medical school. The rats and dogs are just the beginning. Plus, as a physician, you will have to consider various modes of treatment including, but not limited to, euthanasia. A biomaterials professor once handed out an animal rights card for the vegans in the class to put in their wallets. If they should ever be hurt and taken to a hospital, doctors will find a card that reads, "Dear medical staff: As a firm believer in animal rights, I request that you do not use any devices that were ever tested on animals, including organ transplants, blood transfusions, I.V.'s, EKG's, catheters, and any surgeries or medications of any kind."

By the way, how did you get through biology lab without cutting into a fetal pig at one point?

 

[deuist]

I don't think anyone takes him seriously. Otherwise, there would be a lot more responses to his comments...

There were a lot of responses to his comment, including yours. In fact, I think that there might have been more responses to his comment than to the O.P.'s original question.

 

[C. LaRue]

I just want to chime in here. Being morally uncomfortable with animal research does not mean you won't be able to hack it in the cadaver lab. These people died of natural causes, not because of your need to study them.

That said, I think people who are against euthanasia for stray dogs and/or against animal research should get real. Dogs at no-kill shelters who are unadoptable because of breed, looks, age, health, or whatever just end up languishing for years in their kennels until they finally kick it of natural causes. There's hardly any time for people who work at the shelters to play with them, b/c the shelters get so overcrowded. They live lonely, solitary lives. Then they die alone. It sucks, but the most humane thing to do sometimes is euthanize.

I'm an animal lover. It makes me sad that there are too many doggies out there who will never be able to find a good home. But that's reality.

Animal research? This topic has been done to death. There is no way around it if we want to find the answers and the cures.

 

[NiteOwl]

Down with anti-frog bigotry and hipocrisy! While I can understand (although strongly disagree with) someone who takes the PETA/vegan attitude and refuses to kill other animals in the name of science, I think it's pretty unfair of you to just prefer those animals which are cute and cuddly to those which aren't. Frankly, in some places in the world, dogs run wild and are considered pests, not pets; In other places, they are on the menu at restaurants. You are really drawing a strange line. But seriously, all of modern medicine -- virtually every drug used, and nearly every medical device, was developed and approved for use after extensive animal testing (and very frequently on "higher animals" - not just rodents and amphibians). Nothing gets through the FDA these days without years of animal trials. If you plan to do any research in or after medical school, there is a good chance some of it will include animal research. If you go into surgery, you will find that animal parts are sometimes used, and that xenotransplant (swapping animal (likely pig) organs for human organs) may be part of the future landscape. So you are going into a field which is built on the corpses of many potential pets, who unknowingly gave their lives for the benefit of medical science. Sounds like you may have to reconcile some things.

I never said that frogs were not cute. I like frogs and hate to kill one! I like mice too. I just have to draw a line for what I will and will not do. You act like I should be against all animal killing. So what about killing cows or chickens for meat, do I have to be against that too? I'm not agaist that. I dislike that they have to be killed, but there is no way I would ever become a vegeterian. So since I eat meat I should be fine with killing a poor dog? No. And as for the research stuff, I don't plan on doing research, I don't really care all that much about it. I plan on doing primary care, I want to do that and not research. I am fine with using pig organs to save a human life. If the death of an animal is absolutly neccessary, then okay. I might not always like the thought of it but it has to be done. Killing dogs for lab just to observe body functions isn't something that needs to be done, seeing as there are far better alternatives.

 

[NiteOwl]

This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever read on SDN. What are you going to do in anatomy lab? These are people corpses - someone's mother or father, grandmother or grandfather.... And histo? People have been sliced for the collective benefit of viewing the human body from yet another perspective. And what about prescribing medication that YOU know has been tested on animals of many kinds. Are you not going to prescribe it because it has been tested on cuddly animals?

You are on a very slippery slope, I could extrapolate this kind of reasoning to many medical situations, but I think I gave you enough food for thought.

I know that in anatomy I will have to dissect human cadavers! At least they are already dead and they wanted to donate their body to be used is such ways. I am 100% fine with it, it won't be a problem for me. Theses people were not inhumanely tourtured to a point that they had to be killed! I know medications are tested on animals, and yes I will still prescribe them!

 

[NiteOwl]

You will also have to cut into dead people in medical school. The rats and dogs are just the beginning. Plus, as a physician, you will have to consider various modes of treatment including, but not limited to, euthanasia. A biomaterials professor once handed out an animal rights card for the vegans in the class to put in their wallets. If they should ever be hurt and taken to a hospital, doctors will find a card that reads, "Dear medical staff: As a firm believer in animal rights, I request that you do not use any devices that were ever tested on animals, including organ transplants, blood transfusions, I.V.'s, EKG's, catheters, and any surgeries or medications of any kind."

By the way, how did you get through biology lab without cutting into a fetal pig at one point?

Again, yes I know I will have to cut up dead people in medical school. To me that is millions of times better that cutting up a live dog! Those people donated their bodies, the dogs never have a choice. Yes, I dissected a fetal pig before in bio. But the pigs came from slaughter houses where a pregnate pig was accidently killed. I eat pork, so why would I have a huge problem with that? I found it a little sad but I still did the lab. Yes, dog labs would be different, I don't eat dog. Even if the labs were to use live pigs, I still wouldn't do it.

 

[NiteOwl]

So if anyone else wants to comment on why its stupid that I won't cut up a poor defenseless dog, or that I won't be able to handle cadaver lab, or just about any other comment like that; please go back and read my previous posts. I don't mean to sound like an a$$hole but I am so sick of hearing crap on the boards. I don't really have many other places to get advice from since my college doesn't have a pre-med advisor. I don't care if some people think that I shouldn't be a doctor because I refuse to cut up a living animal. I guess I am also going to be a horrible doctor because I'm not at all interested in doing research. And to top it off I really am a piece of crap for being against abortion! Stuff like that may not have been said exactly like that on this thread, but it has happened elsewhere. To those who were trying to be helpful, this isn't aimed at you. But for others who act this way, you are the one who are going to be crappy doctors for not having any feelings or heart toward other peoples emotions.

Thats all. Goodbye.

 

[zion]

i think the majority of schools do not use animals as teaching methods, so you should be ok there. secondly, although gross anatomy is a requirement, you don't have to cut, you can just stand back and watch. lastly, although medicine and research are deeply rooted in animal experimentation, that does not mean you have partake in this. many med students do not do research or they can do research like chart reviews or clinical stuff which does not harm anyone.

i disagree with your stance on animals in research, but thats your opinion and not relevant here. do not let the fact that you do not want to experiment on animals hold you back from med school. also, don't listen to the ppl who attack your opinions, again, although i think you are naive and wrong, you are entitled to them. these won't make you any less of a competent doctor.

best of luk.

 

[Law2Doc]

I never said that frogs were not cute. I like frogs and hate to kill one! I like mice too. I just have to draw a line for what I will and will not do. You act like I should be against all animal killing.

You have to admit there is a level of hypocrisy here. I don't think you "should be against animal killing". I think if you are going into a field where virtually all advances are made with the help of animal testing (often on dogs) though, you really need to be comfortable with that. You are basically saying you are willing to benefit from the death of dogs but don't want to have to observe it personally - which doesn't do much for the dog, and probably cheats you out of some first hand observation which could aid your learning. That being said, most med schools don't have live dog labs, as was indicated at the beginning of the thread.
I don't recall anyone in the thread saying you were going to be a "horrible doctor", but I do think you have perhaps chosen a profession which has underpinnings in animal research that go against some of your ideologies.

 

[Pyroclast]

I don't think DrCynthia is being hypocritical at all. Just because she can't bring herself to kill a dog for research doesn't mean she's against it being done as a necessary evil *in a research lab*. In fact, it sounds like I agree with her views. Let me see if I can break this down:

Animal research = necessary evil
Xenotransplantation = necessary evil
Killing dogs as a med student to study anatomy = unnecessary, and really sick
Cutting up cadavers = who gives a crap, they died of natural causes, and no one was harmed

Makes sense to me.

 

[pillowhead]

I don't think DrCynthia is being hypocritical at all. Just because she can't bring herself to kill a dog for research doesn't mean she's against it being done as a necessary evil *in a research lab*. In fact, it sounds like I agree with her views. Let me see if I can break this down:

Animal research = necessary evil
Xenotransplantation = necessary evil
Killing dogs as a med student to study anatomy = unnecessary, and really sick
Cutting up cadavers = who gives a crap, they died of natural causes, and no one was harmed

Makes sense to me.

I think that many would also add

Killing animals because they are tasty = unnecessary, and really sick

FYI: I'm not a vegetarian, but I do feel like someone is being hypocritical if they're so opposed to killing furry creatures that they are willing not to go to a certian medical school because of it, yet other activities that will result in pain and death for many intelligent animals are OK? I'm fine with drawing a line somewhere when it comes to animal rights, but this seems like a very jagged, crooked line that is being drawn.

 

[bluepanda]

Suffering and death are woven into the very fabric of life. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals survive through the slaughter and consumption of other animals.

As humans we have the choice to kill or not to kill. We have more power and therefore more responsibility than other animals. While killing animals may once have been a necessary evil to ensure our own survival, today the killing of animals by humans is no longer necessary for our survival, and therefore some would argue, simply evil.

One of my favorite doctor-philosopher-vegetarians, Albert Schweitzer said that the purpose of life is “to serve and to show compassion and the willingness to help others.” I believe in striving to promote the most compassionate life-affirming society we can.

I can tolerate experimentation on animals in so far as the ends justify the means of promoting the long-term health and well being of other sentient beings. If we choose to view animals not as commodities for human use, but rather potential partners in healing, they can teach us not only how better to care for ourselves, but also how better to care for animals. When experimentation on animals involves unnecessary suffering and/or duplication of suffering, or occurs without a well defined goal in the context of improving health, I cannot support it.

In her book on human cadavers, Mary Roach details some grotesque experiments conducted on animals, such as transplanting the head of one monkey to another. In my view this type of experimentation, doing something not with the goal of improving health but simply to see if it can be done, constitutes abuse of dominion. Just because humans have the power to destroy animals at will, that does not mean we should do it.

I see no inherent contradiction in objecting to unnecessarily cruel experimentation on animals while supporting the dissection of cadavers. The dissection of cadavers does not involve the suffering of a non-consenting victim.

In terms of moral consistency, I do think that someone who objects to experimentation on live dogs should also object to the horrifying practices of modern slaughterhouses that, to cite one example, sometimes include the skinning and dismemberment of live cows.

If we keep the goal of a compassionate life-affirming society in mind, maybe one day we will develop the technologies to free ourselves from experimentation on animals and render this another unnecessary evil.

Peace.

 

[Law2Doc]

In my view this type of experimentation, doing something not with the goal of improving health but simply to see if it can be done, constitutes abuse of dominion.

While I get your point, I am not sure I agree with it. A good chunk of science has occurred out of people trying to "prove that something could be done". Certainly every scientific benefit derived from the nation's space program (some of it medical) fits into this category. A lot of medical research fits this description as well -- Xenotransplantation is firmly in this area. Part of the fun of research is that you never know the result before you start out -- you may have a hypothesis, but some of the greatest developments have occurred accidentally while trying something else. Who's to say that the macabre monkey head experiment you described (while fairly extreme) wouldn't, as a byproduct, provide some unforseen insight into spinal cord surgery that might help humans? (Or, a more sci-fi possibility - ultimately allow us to transplant human heads onto healtier cloned or donor bodies? There was a old movie starring Rosie Greer, I believe, involving this.) As for live animal labs, it seems to me that there are certainly advantages to human patients if their doctor has a better understanding of the live workings of internal mamalian anatomy, even if it is via a dog, before working on them. I'm not certain that a video or computer VR simulation does the same justice.

 

[typeB-md]

Suffering and death are woven into the very fabric of life. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals survive through the slaughter and consumption of other animals.

As humans we have the choice to kill or not to kill. We have more power and therefore more responsibility than other animals. While killing animals may once have been a necessary evil to ensure our own survival, today the killing of animals by humans is no longer necessary for our survival, and therefore some would argue, simply evil.

One of my favorite doctor-philosopher-vegetarians, Albert Schweitzer said that the purpose of life is “to serve and to show compassion and the willingness to help others.” I believe in striving to promote the most compassionate life-affirming society we can.

I can tolerate experimentation on animals in so far as the ends justify the means of promoting the long-term health and well being of other sentient beings. If we choose to view animals not as commodities for human use, but rather potential partners in healing, they can teach us not only how better to care for ourselves, but also how better to care for animals. When experimentation on animals involves unnecessary suffering and/or duplication of suffering, or occurs without a well defined goal in the context of improving health, I cannot support it.

In her book on human cadavers, Mary Roach details some grotesque experiments conducted on animals, such as transplanting the head of one monkey to another. In my view this type of experimentation, doing something not with the goal of improving health but simply to see if it can be done, constitutes abuse of dominion. Just because humans have the power to destroy animals at will, that does not mean we should do it.

I see no inherent contradiction in objecting to unnecessarily cruel experimentation on animals while supporting the dissection of cadavers. The dissection of cadavers does not involve the suffering of a non-consenting victim.

In terms of moral consistency, I do think that someone who objects to experimentation on live dogs should also object to the horrifying practices of modern slaughterhouses that, to cite one example, sometimes include the skinning and dismemberment of live cows.

If we keep the goal of a compassionate life-affirming society in mind, maybe one day we will develop the technologies to free ourselves from experimentation on animals and render this another unnecessary evil.

Peace.

most narrow-minded post ever.

you are not "better" because you choose to eat a different type of natural meal than i. is heavy vitamin supplementation more "natural" than using the natural food chain?

there is evidence that a balanced diet is best. both vegans and non-vegans can attain all nutrients and a healthy lifestyle if a structured diet is followed. i should also point out, though, that it has in fact been shown in studies that vegans tend to be on the smaller (not necessarily less healthy) side of the growth chart.

i don't know why there is such intolerance from people about this. just as i don't regulate your life, please do not regulate mine or anyone else's. if i catch a fish from the sea and eat it, i am not a mean person. if you only eat non-animal products, you are not a mean person either.

the food chain is ubiquitous and an undeniable fact of life. death is as much a part of life as living is. i don't understand how such a science minded group can be so ignorant to the infrastructure of our environment.

and to point out an atrocity on the other side, how about these vegan folks who refused to properly feed their baby and almost starved him to death?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html
the verdict:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/swinton/040403_ctv.html
http://www.shortnews.com/web/id/29563/u_id/56602/start.cfm

they got 3.5 years (husband) and 6 years (wife)

my point is that both sides have pluses and minuses. we are not "above" nature and seeing you as a seemingly liberal-minded individual, i would think that tolerance should trump egotism. whatever happened to the mantra that diversity is beautiful?

 

[Stanford_Playah]

Suffering and death are woven into the very fabric of life. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals survive through the slaughter and consumption of other animals.

As humans we have the choice to kill or not to kill. We have more power and therefore more responsibility than other animals. While killing animals may once have been a necessary evil to ensure our own survival, today the killing of animals by humans is no longer necessary for our survival, and therefore some would argue, simply evil.

That being said, out situation is unique in that we put the animals we consume as food through much more suffering than any other predator species subject their prey to. Just go to a slaughterhouse and look at the chickens that are forced into cages in which they don't even have room to turn around for the length of their lifetimes or look at how veal calves are raised by being shackled in tiny crates without being able to move a limb for months at a time until they are slaughtered. There is absolutely nothing natural about the way in which we go about killing animals for food.

The conditions in which these animals are raised are deeply disturbing on so many levels, and when you consider the sheer magnitude of the injustice (it happens a billion times every day, day in and day out) our combined greed and indifference is truly shocking in my opinion. If we sincerely had regard for the principle of life, we would be directing as much attention to what happens to these animals everyday as we do to the worst genocides in human history.