Dog Lab in Physiology

[Zeffer]

In Phys this semester we had the infamous dog lab. I thought it was a great learning experience for me, however there is great outside opposition to this lab. I think that students who do not experience this lab are really missing out on a great opportunity. A little background on the dogs:
1) They would be euthanized by the human society regardless if the lab were held or not
2) The dogs are anesthetized just as well or more so than any person undergoing surgery.
How do my fellow Med Students feel about this topic?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[med student]

This has been discussed a few times recently so instead of rewriting what I wrote before I am going to quote myself.

"For those of you who do not know around 30 medical schools still use the "dog lab" which is basically where they take a dog and put it under anesthesia (so it feels not pain) and then use the dog (or pig is some schools) to teach medical students the respitory and cardiovascular system. I found it to be a highly valuable experience because there is something about seeing a respiratory response in person versus reading about it in a book. In my school there was a formal debate in the ethics class talking about why people were for and against doing the lab (it was optional). Generally people who were against it said they did not want to kill a dog when they could learn the material out of a book instead. I felt this was a valuable point until the physio professor explained that the dogs were from the pound and they were specifically chosen because they pound was about to kill them because they could not find a home for the dogs. So I figured that by the school using the dogs their lives were actually more valuable to society as a whole than if they were just killed in the pound. Also the dogs are treated well before they are used and I would rather have a doctor kill the dogs while under anesthesia than a tech in some pound who chances are doesn't care about the comfort of the dogs. Also the dogs are killed because important nerves are cut during the procedure."

 

[Jersey Girl]

I am starting med school this fall and I could never participate in this. Technically, I gess it's ethical. But Doctor's are supposed to be notorious for their huge amounts of compassion. I can't see a truly compassionate person take part in this and not be disturbed by it. Yes, the animal is anesthitized ( sorry about spelling.), but how about the stress of bringing it before a huge group of students in a bright room where people it doesn't know are all around it. The extra stress of the transfer and lots of unfamiliar people everywhere. The animal has been through enough sitting in pound. I took my dog for pictures today, (not even to the vet), and he was frightened with me by his side. I disaggree, I imagine that this is stressful for the dog. The other point is that dogs are peoples close pets. The association is horrible to deal with. Why can't the same thing be achieved with a Rat. Not that it is less of an animal, it's just not man's best friend like a dog is.

 

[med student]

•••quote:••• Yes, the animal is anesthitized ( sorry about spelling.), but how about the stress of bringing it before a huge group of students in a bright room where people it doesn't know are all around it. The extra stress of the transfer and lots of unfamiliar people everywhere. ••••The dog is anestitized before we get there so it never sees a big group of people. Also I think the dogs are actually treated better at the school than they are at the pound. The reason for this is if the dogs are very stressed out the experiments we are trying to do will not work very well. The reason you can't use a rat I suspect is because it is not big enough and also a dog is more similar to a human than a rat is. You have to remember we are not taking away someones pet. These are dogs that the pound was going to euthanize because they couldn't find a home for the dogs. The dogs also tend to be the larger and more aggressive breeds (ours was a dobbermin pincher) so it is not like we are using someone cute little poodle.

 

[Shark]

Some of you folks need to get some thicker skin. These dogs are going to be killed anyways probably in much harsher ways than this. I happen to love animals myself but if they are going to die anyways, we might as well learn from them. Just in case you want to argue about animal rights and all that sh#t anyone who has insulin requiring diabetes better keep their mouth shut. Do the research, how do you think they discovered the whole insulin treatment??

 

[Cobragirl]

Okay...

1) it is unnessesary to use dogs if your school would just buck up and buy a (REALLY COOL) anesthesia simulator. UF has several very life-like computer animated "dummies" (like the kind you would see in a good movie or something) that we can "inject" (using real syringes,etc) and get a multitude of responses from. Our "dummies" breathe (chest rises and falls), have heartbeats (with mechanical hearts), have pupils that dilate/constrict, etc, etc, etc. These are NOT your everyday CPR dummies...each one costs $150,000+. There are even "pregnent" & "child" versions. Did I mention these awesome simulators were invented at UF (shameless plug for my less-than-top-10 school).

2. Dog pound "techs" do not euthanize animals...a state licensed veterinarian does. And generally speaking, EVERYONE that works at the "dog pound" LOVES animals. When they aren't busy euthanizing other peoples neglected, abused & abandoned pets, they are actively seeking out the owners of the ones that ARE licensed/tagged, and are trying to find homes for the animals that don't show a tendency to maul people. Most techs have zooloads of "rescue" animals at their homes...animals they couldn't bear to watch get put down! As Bob Barker says "control the pet population...spay or neuter your pet!"

3) Although I am an animal lover (could you guess???) I CAN see the value of a dog lab...if there were NO alternatives. Fortunately, technology has come a LONG way in the past 15 years and hopefully, in the near future, ALL medical schools will be blessed with the simulators (many are already). Trust me, intubating a "dummy" with the SAME anatomy as your REAL patients is probably a much better learning experience than trying it on some poor dog...

Trivia for the day: The UF simulators were invented ~15 years ago by some students that couldn't handle putting HCl down sheeps lungs to induce "respiratory arrest"...they thought "there HAS to be a better way to learn this..." They were right...

Oh yeah, the simulators are so realistic that the VETERINARY school puts "gorilla hair" on the legs and practices exotic animal medicine simulation on them. How's that for irony????? :wink:

One more thing, just to start trouble Shark( :wink: ). Since the dogs are just going to die "anyway", maybe we should apply the same reasoning to death row inmates?????

 

[PACmatthew]

As an FYI,

As a PA student, I refused to take part in the dog lab because I feel dogs are too close to humans in an emotional sense. Common pets should not be used for such procedures. However, as an Army PA, I have participated in the same such labs using goats instead. I must admit that the experience was highly rewarding, and was one that was really necessary. As an Army PA, would you rather have me learn how to do a venous cutdown, chest tube, needle cric, on your brother when he comes across the surgical table? Of course not, and I can tell you that these procedures are the see one-do one-teach one tyoe of procedure, and once you do one you will never forget how. There is simply no other way to learn a procedure like this without sacrifice, and this is why we have the most qualified military medicine in the world.

 

[daisygirl]

Thanks Cobragirl
I would most likely not be able to sit through such a procedure.

 

[lilycat]

Okay, as a previous poster mentioned, this topic has been discussed a lot previously -- if you do a search in the "Everyone" forum, you will find a thread titled "Dog Lab" -- should give you a good idea of what people's feelings are about the lab.

Here are my issues with the dog lab:

1) Some schools do not use pound dogs that are already scheduled for euthanasia for this procedure. Instead, they purchase dogs that have been expressly bred for the purpose of the dog lab. This method started (supposedly) because PETA groups scheduled mass-adoption drives just before the dog lab was scheduled to occur, so then the school didn't have enough dogs. Thus, the schools went straight to breeders to make sure this didn't happen in the future. I have major issues with this ethically.

2) Of the "top 50" schools in the country, the majority of the schools DO NOT use a dog lab. The majority of all the medical schools in the country DO NOT use a dog lab. Clearly, these schools have found a good alternative to the lab. It does not seem like grads from Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Stanford, etc. compromised in their education in any way by not having participated in a dog lab. If there is an alternative, (which there obviously is), I think it should be used.

3) From the schools that I interviewed at that used dog labs, and from talking to students at schools with dog labs, it does not sound like all schools use it as a real procedure-based learning experience, such as the one PACmatthew described in the army with the goats. Many dog labs are run with students observing the TA's or professors actually doing the injections, performing the procedures, etc. It is my understanding that the purpose of med school dog labs is not to insert a central line, do a venous cut down, etc., but merely observing various physiological processes.

I just want to make it clear that while I do not support the use of a dog lab, at least not as it currently stands at many medical schools that still use it, I am not against the use of animals for medical research in general. I feel bad that research animals have to be used, but that's what has to happen for advances in medicine to be made, and for more lives to be saved, human and animal. The distinction between medical research and the dog lab, for me, is that there aren't many good alternatives to animal models when testing the efficacy of a new vaccination, new treatment modality, etc. There ARE alternatives to the dog lab that seem to be just as effective in medical education.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Ok...if the dog lab is just euthanizing an animal who is going to die anyways and going in and searching then I am for it.

HOWEVER, the ORIGINAL DOG LAB consisted of going in and removing an organ from the dog. Then stitching it up for a week. Then examining what happened. If dog was still alive at week 1: go back in and remove another organ and stitch him up again! If dog alive at week 2: do same thing. And on and on and on...until you remove part of a VITAL organ. I think this $hit is ridiculous! That's so much suffering the dog has to go through.

I am a total animal lover and had a hard struggle deciding between MD versus DVM. However, if the animals are going to be put to sleep anyways, and you are not "reviving" the dog after the operation, then it's all good.

 

[med student]

•••quote:••• Of the "top 50" schools in the country, the majority of the schools DO NOT use a dog lab. The majority of all the medical schools in the country DO NOT use a dog lab. Clearly, these schools have found a good alternative to the lab. ••••One of the reasons that many schools have stopped doing it is that the lab takes an enormous amount of work behind the scenes and is very expensive. At our school we have a large physio dept but all of the profs we not available the week of the dog lab because it took so much time to set up and do in small groups.

 

[AJM]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by med student:
• •••quote:••• Of the "top 50" schools in the country, the majority of the schools DO NOT use a dog lab. The majority of all the medical schools in the country DO NOT use a dog lab. Clearly, these schools have found a good alternative to the lab. ••••One of the reasons that many schools have stopped doing it is that the lab takes an enormous amount of work behind the scenes and is very expensive. At our school we have a large physio dept but all of the profs we not available the week of the dog lab because it took so much time to set up and do in small groups.•••••While I'm sure it's difficult and time-consuming to set up a dog lab, that is not the primary reason most schools have done away with the lab. Most schools have done away with it because it is not necessary for medical education, and there are good alternatives to having the actual dog lab.

Some examples of alternatives that are actually used at medical schools:

1. At many schools, they have video taped past dog lab sessions that students watch for their physiology courses. Since most dog labs are typically students watching the professor giving drugs or cutting nerves anyway, watching a video of that being done 5 or 10 years ago is really not all that different.

2. At my school and at others, we have very advanced computerized patient simulators, which I think are better than dogs, because the vital signs of these patients are human vital signs, and the medication doses you give are human-sized doses, and thus it is more realistic for what physicians will actually see. Plus, you can simulate what would happen if you cut the vagus, for example. Or you can give acual drugs, and see what happens physiologically. You can also simulate codes and have students run the codes by themselves with no supervision, since there are no consequences if your "patient" dies. That actually feels quite real, and is a wonderful learning experience -- you can't even do that during dog lab, because students need supervision for that.

3. To learn procedures like central lines, intubations, arterial lines, vessel cut-downs, etc, our school has an optional cadaver lab which is different than the anatomy cadavers. These are human cadavers that are not preserved in the way the anatomy cadavers are, so other than not having a heart beat, they feel very similar to live patients, and the tissues and vessels respond very similarly. You can do central lines on them, and many other procedures, and it feels quite real. What's better is that there is no time-pressure to do the procedure, and you are not hurting anyone by doing it. In addition, because they have human anatomy, it is more realistic than trying to intubate or put a central line in a dog.

So those are some examples of alternatives to the dog lab. In my mind, these alternatives are superior because they are not causing the death of anything, AND they are more realistic, AND they allow for more direct student participation (well, other than example #1).

 

[Zeffer]

Many of you have said that simulators are better than dog labs. Just out of curiosity have you done both? I have not done the simulator therfore I refrain from saying it is better or worse than the dog lab. AJM, just to let you know the professors don't do anything but answer questions students might have and "pimp" us on the various how's and why's of the lab. For you people who use the simulators, do you honestly feel the importance of performing the procedures properly the first time? While I have not used the high tech simulators many of you have described, I have used some dummies for various other things and know that the intesity and level and respect of the procedures and learning are not even close. The dog lab really has an aura that I have never felt before. As for students disrespecting the animals I saw none. Before the lab I had many of the same reservations many of you have (I have owned several dogs myself), but after experiencing the lab I will never forget the lessons I learned and would highley recomend it for anyone. Also if I were a patient in the E.R. and had my choice between someone who learned on a simulator vs someone who learned on a living system that resembles the human system the choice is no contest (maybe because I have only experience the living system). Also to those of you who keep posting that this topic has been done before, I know, but maybe there are new members who wish to share their opinions and old members that have had experiences regarding this topic since the last time it was covered in Nov. Thanks to all those who have shared their thoughts and opinions with me.

 

[Jersey Girl]

The main point is that dogs are peoples pets. Goats, sheep, are not. We eat them in our country. It would be mentally easier to do this lab on a goat or a sheep. If the same thing can be acheived on a goat or a sheep, why use a dog? The association is horrible to deal with when in to comes to a dog. Don't say it's money, because med schools get lots of it. My tuition is insane. I doubt Harvard and Hopkins are on a tight budget, they choose not to do the lab. So it can't be an issue of saving money for them.

 

[djipopo]

how can i find out which med schools participate in dog lab? i tried running a search on google, with no luck. Help!

 

[lilycat]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by serendipity475:
•how can i find out which med schools participate in dog lab? i tried running a search on google, with no luck. Help!•••••First, here is the thread from 2000-2001:
<a href="http://www.studentdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001621" target="_blank">Dog Lab?</a>

I just did a google search typing "dog labs, medical school," and came up with a bunch of links, including: <a href="http://www.doctorsagainstdoglabs.com/" target="_blank">Doctors Against Dog Lab</a>
<a href="http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_medical.html" target="_blank">Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine</a>

Here is an actual list of schools that DO NOT use the dog lab: <a href="http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_med_list.html" target="_blank">Schools Without the Dog Lab</a>

Zeffer, you made the point that in an ER, you would choose the person who had trained on a living model (ie, a dog), over a person who trained on a very high-priced (ie, 6-figure) simulator. First off, if you look at the list of schools that currently do not use a dog lab, you will see that many highly-regarded schools (ie, highly-regarded by residency directors) do not use dog labs. These are all schools with extremely impressive match lists and who have some of the most outstanding hospitals in the world. If the dog lab were really that integral to medical education, I seriously doubt that students from these schools would do as well as they do in the match, would be as well-regarded by residency programs, etc. Not to pick on one school, but just by looking at the list really quickly I saw that University of Arkansas still uses the dog lab -- in the ER, would you really prefer a student or resident from Arkansas who had done the dog lab, over a student from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Wash U, Duke, Michigan, Penn, U. of Washington, Yale, Stanford, Baylor, UCLA, UCSF, etc? I'm not saying that the student from Arkansas is bad or poorly trained -- just that I don't think you can make a blanket statement that a student who has gone through the dog lab is somehow more qualified than a student who hasn't. The information just isn't there to support that assertion.

As for using simulators over an animal model (ie, a dog), I can't really comment because I haven't used both. However, I think AJM made many valid points over why a simulator would be preferable -- it is an actual simulation of the human system you are training to work on. Dog physiology is helpful, but only to a certain point.

med student -- I think AJM already answered your point pretty well, but money and time isn't the only reason, nor the main reason why many schools have stopped doing the dog lab. First off, many of the high-tech simulators are incredibly expensive -- I think Cobragirl mentioned that they are $150K+, so it's not exactly a cheap investment for the schools that use them. Secondly, many of these schools have absurdly large endowments available to them -- if Harvard or Hopkins needed to, they could definitely find the money to finance a dog lab.

I think one of the reasons that dog labs have disappeared more and more is because schools are buckling to pressure from animal activist groups, diesnfranchised students and physicians, etc. However, the schools that have eliminated the dog labs still maintain animal testing laboratories. As I mentioned previoulsy, I think schools acknowledge that there are other ways to learn the material from a dog lab, that are just as good if not better. The same cannot be said for animal testing at this point.

 

[coop]

lilycat,
not to quibble over you're random example, but U of Arkansas was on the list of schools that don't use the dog lab. In fact 94 schools were on that list, maybe 5 were carribean schools, but about 90 of the 125 US med schools dont use it. This discussion was the first I'd heard of the dog lab, but it seems like it not very prelevant. I didn't spend a lot of time, but I noticed almost all the top schools on the list, (I was relieved that Pritzker does not use the lab). I would guess that the top places are the main trendsetters, so I wouldn't be surprised if the dog lab is out of the remaining 35 schools in not too long. Just my hypothesis.

 

[schmaphdy]

Just to reiterate, U of Arkansas has no dog lab. Check your link again lilycat ( <a href="http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_med_list.html" target="_blank">http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_med_list.html</a> ).

 

[Scooby Doo]

The dogs to be killed in the labs are purpose-bred and kennel-raised for the occasion, and not dogs from the "pound" destined to be killed anyway. Thus a decision to participate in the labs reinforces a positive feedback loop resulting in 60 more dogs being bred, kennel raised, and sold to UCSD for vivisection again next year.

<a href="http://www.doctorsagainstdoglabs.com/luncheon.htm" target="_blank">From this website...interesting</a>

 

[djipopo]

Originally posted by lilycat:

I just did a google search typing "dog labs, medical school," and came up with a bunch of links, including: <a href="http://www.doctorsagainstdoglabs.com/" target="_blank">Doctors Against Dog Lab</a>
<a href="http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_medical.html" target="_blank">Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine</a>

Here is an actual list of schools that DO NOT use the dog lab: <a href="http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Ethics_in_Medical_Research/ethics_med_list.html" target="_blank">Schools Without the Dog Lab</a>

thanks for your posting lilycat. my search turned up schools that either did or did not use live ANIMAL labs - i wanted to know about whether or not dogs, specifically, were used, particularly at howard. are med schools substituting dogs with other animals - like sheep or goats, for instance, which aren't usually kept as household pets?

 

[vixen]

just wondering about the people who are against this, are you against using other animals? If you are, how do you "rank" your animals? Are you against animal testing overall, and if you are, do you take medicines? Do you eat meat? Do you have pets? I don't see the need for technology replacing this...they're going to die anyways.

ps I have a dog I love

 

[Kirk]

If I was about to be treated in the ER, and I had a choice between two Doctors- One who participated in a Dog lab and one who did not, I would choose the one who did not participate in the Dog lab- He is the most human.

 

[lilycat]

It figures all these posts would come while I was on a semi-forced internet sabattical. :exasperated:

coop, schmadphdy & others -- I apologize for using U. of Arkansas erroneously. However, I did state that I came up with that school after a QUICK glance at the list -- I'm sorry, but I don't have time to peruse it that thoroughly. However, this isn't about the U. of Arkansas and whether or not that particular school uses dog labs. For those of you that apparently have the time to thoroughly examine the list, please insert any medical school that DOES USE THE DOG LAB in place of Arkansas -- my point is still the same -- a lot of extremely high-quality medical schools do not use dog lab, and it does not seem to hinder their students' performance in the least (in the match, in board scores, etc.).

Serendipity -- the links I posted were the ones from the previous dog lab thread. Although the lists are titled "Live Animal Labs," I beleve it mainly refers to the use of "dog lab" or such similar labs in medical education. If a school is on the "No Live Animal Lab" list, my guess is that it does not use any type of live animal labs in it's medical teaching -- no dogs, no goats, no sheep, etc. However, please note that this list is separate from schools that maintain animal research facilities for basic science testing -- I would venture to say that nearly all the schools maintain some sort of animal research facility for lab purposes. If you're genuinely curious about this issue and finding out if other animals are being used in place of dogs, I suggest that you contact the schools directly, or contact one of the sites that maintains this kind of information and ask them. I would guess that they would be more than happy to help you.

Scooby -- I wrote similar information in my posts of why I am against dog labs. When I toured UCSD, we were told during the tour that UCSD gets dogs specifically from breeders, not from the SPCA as many people wrongly believe. I would not be surprised if UCSD is not the only school that does this.

Vixen -- If you would thoroughly read through some of the posts on this thread (such as my previous posts and Scooby's most recent post), you would see that SOME OF THESE DOGS AREN'T "GOING TO DIE ANYWAYS"!!!! SOME DOGS ARE SPECIFICALLY BRED AND RAISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DOG LAB. LIFE IS SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO BE KILLED IN A PHYSIOLOGY DEMONSTRATION FOR MEDICAL STUDENTS, a demonstration that many schools have found an effective alternative to.

To answer your other questions, I am not against medical testing involving animals in the least, assuming of course that it is done as humanely as possible. I don't like it, but I believe it has to take place for scientific and medical advances to take place. I've said as much in my previous posts. There is no effective alternative to this. However, there are lots of effective alternatives to the dog lab, as it is used at many schools currently. I'm not really sure how relevant some of your other questions are to this discussion, but I hope I've clarified my perspective.

 

[vixen]

if the dogs are raised specifically to be euthanized, then i don't see the problem...they were raised in a lab setting, and never really became "domesticated"...just like when the make rats etc to be used in a lab. The other questions I asked because most people aren't consistent with their arguments when trying to fight for animals' rights. I'm not surprised though you didn't see the relevance. Why do people not have a problem with rats being created in lab, specifically being used for laboratory exp's? How do you rank these animals? If chimps were being used in a lab, it would be cruel to put them back into the wild because they've becomed socialized already...do you still not know what I'm getting at?

 

[Kirk]

Vixen, I think you are missing the point of what angers a lot of us about Dog labs. The dogs are raised to provide a DEMONSTRATION to the lab students. They are not used to further research, they are not used to test new medications, their death will not in any way add to the body of medical knowledge. We know what happens when we add epinephrin to the blood supply, etc, and we can watch movies or realistic dummies to see the same effects.

Rats are raised for experimentation. Many of them are killed in experimentation, but their death adds to the body of medical knowledge. The scientists working on them may find a new medication to fight cancer, or a way to heal spinal cord injuries. They are actually serving a purpose. The death of an animal for a vivisection (whether it be dog, chimp, cat, or rat) ads nothing, and can be reproduced without the death of an animal.

 

[lilycat]

Vixen -- Kirk said it better than I could hope to. My complaint with a lot of the arguments over dog lab is that people resort to arguments similar to the ones that you are using. They argue it from a medical research perspective rather than from what the actual use of the dog lab is. These are two distinctly different issues, and you cannot try and rationalize them the same way. I see a purpose and a benefit to animals killed for medical research. I do not see that same benefit and purpose in the dog lab, regardless of the animal being used.

Since I support the use of animals WHEN NECESSARY, that is why I considered the rest of your quesxtions to be irrelevant. I don't find that vegetarianism or veganism or a reluctance to wear leather to be necessary to support an argument against dog lab. I know that is the point you were trying to make -- I found it irrelevant because I think you are missing the crux of the issue.

 

[dragonfly9]

Hmmmm. . .this topic caught my eye because I am one of those horrible people that does not like dogs. If it isn't helpful, I'd say find a more effective alternative, but if it works, I don't see it as a problem. I love cats. When I was 16 I had no problem dissecting a cat that had come from perhaps not a pound, but at least a place that didn't go and steal Fluffy from old Mrs. Smith down the street. Granted it was preserved, but it still was a kitty (with 6 little orange babies inside. . .) I just don't think that emotional attatchment to animals should be call to change curriculum

I don't understand why goats and sheep would be a suitable replacement. Yes, some may think of livestock less personally, but I feel that a goat or sheep has a purpose. A dog without an owner, not so much. . .

 

[vixen]

ok, how about in high school, frogs, sharks, rats and cats (at least thats what I dissected) were used for learning purposes only. In psych lab we used rats to condition and then they were euthanized...how come people don't have such a big problem with that?

 

[Zeffer]

Lilycat, please do not infer what I would or would not do. If a physician graduated from a U.S. Med school and was board certified I wouldn't really care which school it was. I don't put much trust in other peoples ranking systems (ie US News) as they do not take many aspects I think are important into consideration. So If I had to choose between two physicians and all I knew was which school they graduated from, whether or not they participated in a dog lab, and the board certification status of each; I would still pick the one with the most experience in dealing with living systems.

Many others have said that the dogs deaths are meaningless. I would disagree. My group along with all the others learned a great deal and will remember many of the lessons taught that day. We took what would have been truely meaningless deaths and made them meaningful.

 

[tomthebomb]

They don't use dogs from the pound that will be euthanized anyway. Can you imagine some dog owner finds out their dog was used in a lab experiment and sues the medical school and the state and gets a dog lover jury. These animals are raised in poor conditions "small cages" so that they may be used in experiments. They are bred as mongrels because people would suspect dog kidnapping for purebreds. I have performed research on dogs and can tell you I did NOT enjoy it. The cages were small and smelled like feces. Why can't they just use pigs? We eat them anyway and they are much happier under dirty conditions.

 

[Zeffer]

Raptor, thats a very broad statement that all schools use bred dogs. Mine does not. Please don't perpetuate already prevalent misconceptions.

 

[lilycat]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Zeffer:
•Lilycat, please do not infer what I would or would not do. If a physician graduated from a U.S. Med school and was board certified I wouldn't really care which school it was. I don't put much trust in other peoples ranking systems (ie US News) as they do not take many aspects I think are important into consideration. So If I had to choose between two physicians and all I knew was which school they graduated from, whether or not they participated in a dog lab, and the board certification status of each; I would still pick the one with the most experience in dealing with living systems.

Many others have said that the dogs deaths are meaningless. I would disagree. My group along with all the others learned a great deal and will remember many of the lessons taught that day. We took what would have been truely meaningless deaths and made them meaningful.•••••Zeffer, please re-read my post. I don't think I was making any sort of inference. You said, and I quote:
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Zeffer:
• Also if I were a patient in the E.R. and had my choice between someone who learned on a simulator vs someone who learned on a living system that resembles the human system the choice is no contest (maybe because I have only experience the living system).•••••In reply, I pointed out some of the many schools that use the dog lab, and asked if you seriously would make that choice in the ER. I think it's a decent question to consider, in light of your statement. I didn't say that you wouldn't stick to your original logic, but tried to question a little more probingly if that is really the case. I'm sorry if you feel that my questioning of your original statement was somehow putting words in your mouth.

Second, I am glad to hear that your school does not use dogs purposely bred for the purpose of dog lab, at least as far as you know. While Raptor was making a broad generalization, I think it is somewhat erroneous to fault him/her for perpetuating "prevalent misconceptions." The fact is that there ARE schools that use dogs that are specifically bred solely for the purpose of dog lab. To ignore that that does exist would be a disservice to this discussion, and would be a gross misrepresentation of facts as well as prevalent misconceptions. To quote your first post:
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Zeffer:
• A little background on the dogs:
1) They would be euthanized by the human society regardless if the lab were held or not
•••••To be clear, and so as not to unwillfully perpetuate any gross misconceptions, perhaps you should have clarified that you were only talking about your school at the time, and not at all schools. Of course, this is the inference I made from the post. Perhaps you were intending to acknowledge all schools that carry out the dog lab. If so, I apologize for the inference, but must still point out that that would be factually incorrect.

 

[lilycat]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by vixen:
•ok, how about in high school, frogs, sharks, rats and cats (at least thats what I dissected) were used for learning purposes only. In psych lab we used rats to condition and then they were euthanized...how come people don't have such a big problem with that?•••••Vixen -- again, these are separate issues. Regarding dissection -- there are no good substitutions/models that I'm aware of that take the actual place of dissecting cadavers (cats, dogs, humans, whatever). There are excellent picture atlases and computer models that are good aids to studying, but they do not seem to be at the level where they can replace the actual experience of locating nerves, arteries, etc. in relation to other anatomical landmarks. This is especially true when there are lab practical components to exams.

Dog lab in medical school is generally used as a dog VIVIsection -- the prof or TA is operating on a live dog that is anesthetized to DEMONSTRATE physiologic concepts. The reason this practice is criticized is because:
1) Many students can get the same experience by observing a video of a previous dog vivisection.
2) While there are similarities between dog physiology and human physiology, many people believe that it is more helpful to demonstrate these physiologic manipulations on simulators that model the human system -- the actual system we will be manipulating in the clinics, in the OR, etc. Thus the trend towards computerized models in many schools.

Note that I emphasized the use of the word "generally" in my previous paragraph. There may be schools where students actually perform the manipulations in the dog lab or actually practicing placing lines and other techniques. In this case, I believe the dog lab has more value than a simple demonstration. However, it is my understanding that this is not usually the case with dog labs, past or present.

 

[tomthebomb]

You show me a humane society that gives dogs up for research rather than euthanizing them and I'll give you a million dollars. Just because some out of the loop proffessor whatever told you those dogs weren't raised for research wether he consciously was lying or just giving you a speal doesn't change the fact that humane societies don't give up dogs for research. Thats not their business they are govermental. DOg research is a business.

 

[tomthebomb]

I can't imagine some professor telling a med school class of 100 the truth about where those dogs came from. I did research for four years on rabbits, dogs, pigs, rats, mice ect. Your just some guy that did some stupid lab one day. Your the type that believes everthing you hear even when its second or fourth hand info. We did spinal cord compressions on dogs that lived in cages that were 6 x 6 feet. Those dogs reaked and were very docile from living in cages the whole time.

 

[tomthebomb]

and the spinal cord compressions were survival surgeries. All I ask is why dogs, why not pigs, goats, cows?

 

[tomthebomb]

By the way what a pretensious little quote you put at the bottom of your stupid post.

 

[Zeffer]

Raptor, I meant exactly as I posted. Please don't perpetuate any common misconceptions.

They don't use dogs from the pound that will be euthanized anyway.-Raptor

We use dogs that are unwanted by society (not that it would matter to me if they were bred for this specific purpose anyway), and euthanasia deemed the best solution to this problem. Whether the dogs come from the Humane Society or the State Animal Services is just a technicality. The dogs end result is the same. Also did you mean pretentious ?

Lilycat thank you for your apology. I was just responding to the line

would you really prefer a student or resident from Arkansas who had done the dog lab, over a student from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Wash U, Duke, Michigan, Penn, U. of Washington, Yale, Stanford, Baylor, UCLA, UCSF, etc?-Lilycat

The point I was trying to make was that to me a school's name really doesn't mean much as long as it is a U.S. Allopathic, and LCME accredited school. Sorry if I came off too strong.

I also don't see how using dogs is much different than using other animals for lab research. The whole purpose of the sacrifice of these animals is to further the field of Medicine. Teaching future doctors with this lab is advancing the field of medicine.

There are other teaching methods, BUT each one comes with it's strength and weakness. This particular method is just better at demonstrating different aspects more integratively. I'm sure that if I had experienced another method it would have other strengths. However, the overwhelming majority of my class (myself included) thought this experience was priceless and would not want to do it any other way.

 

[Zeffer]

Raptor, just curious as why you feel the need to attack me personally? What have I done to you?

you put at the bottom of your stupid post. -Raptor

Have we reverted to Elementary School?

 

[Zeffer]

I suppose I substitute Tomthebomb for Raptor now?

 

[med student]

•••quote:••• They don't use dogs from the pound that will be euthanized anyway. Can you imagine some dog owner finds out their dog was used in a lab experiment and sues the medical school and the state and gets a dog lover jury. These animals are raised in poor conditions "small cages" so that they may be used in experiments. They are bred as mongrels because people would suspect dog kidnapping for purebreds. I have performed research on dogs and can tell you I did NOT enjoy it. The cages were small and smelled like feces. Why can't they just use pigs? We eat them anyway and they are much happier under dirty conditions. ••••I love it when people start speaking out of their ass because they really have no idea what they are talking about. At our school we get the dogs from a licensed dealer who transports the dogs from the pound. The only dogs that come from the pound are dogs that the pound was unable to find a new home for and therefor would have been killed by the pound. I know this is true because the school senate did an investigation over this issue and then told the class the findings. Now this may not be the case at all schools it does happen. So instead of coming around here making up lies go join PETA I am sure they will not call you on your BS.