Ethics of Surgery by Pre-Vet Students During Volunteer Work

[Nexx]

Was just doing some searching and came across these regarding zip ties

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16863053?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1537693?dopt=Abstract


In Horses:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16343156 -- although there appears to be no long-term follow up on these animals for the described late complications in the above articles (they followed the horses for 12 weeks in the above study)

From this article:

Nylon tie-raps have been used in canine and feline ovariohysterectomy to ligate the uterine stump and ovarian vessels. In a study using >10,000 bands, no clinical reactions were observed. In dogs and cats that died for reasons unrelated to the ovariohysterectomy no evidence of reaction, granulomas, or draining tracts were observed at necropsy. Other studies report reactions, in a few ovariohysterectomized bitches, developing from 1 to several years after surgery. The reasons why tissue reactions develop are unknown. Even though monofilament nylon is considered unreactive in tissue, it is still a non-absorbable suture material that remains in the animal as a foreign body and has the potential to elicit an inflammatory reaction. Tie-raps are made from injection-molded nylon and contain additives to make them more rigid and durable. These additives could cause a slow immune reaction. Further, the bulk and number of serrations could make the polyamide tie-rap act more like a multifilament suture, increasing the risk of postsurgical reactions. Although a variety of colors of tie-raps are available only non-colored ones were used to avoid possible problems with the dye.

It looks like the nylon tie procedure was originally described about 30 years ago:

Whitney GD. Use of implanted nylon bands in surgical procedures. Canine Pract 1982;9:24–30.

Zagraniski MJ. Ovariohysterectomy of the estrous queen utilizing nylon cable tie bands. Feline Pract 1978;8:47–50.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[scb44f]

Wow, that's being a bit morally ambiguous about things. To put this in perspective that's akin to me saying I'm going to head to africa and start circumcising women because that is socially acceptable there.

Really your moral compass changes based on your geographic location? Are you planning on practicing in the US when you are done?

No.

I'm going to paste part of my side of a conversation I had earlier.

Just to be clear, morals are a personal code, and ethics are the code of a specific group of people. It is ethically wrong in the US for someone who is not a vet to do surgery. However, morally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for someone to be walked through spays and neuters at the direction of a licensed veterinarian (yes, there are surgeries which I feel are absolutely unacceptable to be performed by anyone who is not trained... not saying that spays and neuters are not complicated surgeries, just that they are most performed by general practitioners so possible complications are more familiar to them, increasing the chances that they can handle the situation should a mistake occur).

The example of vet techs performing these surgeries in the US under the direction of a vet is something I'm morally okay with, but is something that is not ethically acceptable in the States. Where we went, the people bringing animals in knew we were doing the surgeries, and in some cases they saw us doing surgery. Because they were okay with it, we had permission from the owner, it was a legal situation, and I am okay with it morally, I was comfortable with the situation. Those cannot be said for surgeries in the States. The only surgery I would be okay with doing under the supervision of a vet in the States would be a spay or neuter on my own pet, since it is ethically wrong to do it to others' animals.

I'm not changing my morals. They are merely aligning with the ethics when in a different atmosphere, making me comfortable in the situation.

Did I ever say that I went on this trip to "impress adcoms"? No. Don't generalize that all who go on these trips do it for these purposes. I am confident in my application without this trip and feel that I have a lot going for me. As I said before, I was interested in traveling abroad (to a self-limited number of places) and volunteering elsewhere.

 

[BeagleOne]

It's under 'in the trenches' and doent actually mention VIDA at all.

And no, people, I don't have a VIN account. Someone (not on this forum) forwarded me the thread.

If someone on VIN forwarded the actual thread to you, as opposed to just telling you about it in general terms, s/he has violated one of the fundamental requirements of having a VIN account and could have her/his membership terminated.

As you pre-vets will find out if you get into veterinary school and if you join VIN, there is a lot of information posted there that is not for consumption outside the veterinarian/veterinary student community. Most VIN members, myself included, value that restriction, and VIN members who violate that are not highly thought of.

I wish all of you luck in getting admitted to vet school. I did several RAVS trips as a vet student, and I don't think the surgery experience you might get on VIDA-type trips will do you much good when it comes to your actual surgery classes.

I also really don't see why the vets on these trips aren't doing the surgeries themselves, since they could get more animals done themselves than by supervising laypeople, and if the main point of the trip is to reduce overpopulation as much as possible, it makes no sense to do fewer surgeries so that laypeople can do them.

It's great that you're enthusiastic and want to help out, and seeing how things are done or not done in less-affluent countries will give you a greater appreciation for the way things are in the "first world". But learning skills like good PEs, anesthesia monitoring, proper recovery techniques, is just as important as having a vet walk you through a sterilization.

 

[BeagleOne]

No.

Where we went, the people bringing animals in knew we were doing the surgeries, and in some cases they saw us doing surgery. Because they were okay with it, we had permission from the owner, it was a legal situation, and I am okay with it morally, I was comfortable with the situation.

But did those owners KNOW that you were neither a veterinarian nor a veterinary student? Were they told specifically that their animal's operation would be performed by someone who had never done surgery before this trip, and who had no formal education in doing surgery in particular or veterinary medicine in general, and was being walked through it by a veterinarian, which at a minimum meant that their animal was going to spend more time under anesthesia than necessary? How informed was their consent?

There are a lot of people in the States who don't know the difference between a veterinarian, a veterinary technician, and a veterinary assistant. I would think that in countries where veterinary care is not as well-established as it is here, that many people would not know that many of the people on these trips were not actual veterinarians.

 

[BeagleOne]

Question for those of you who have been on these trips as pre-vet students. Several people on this and the original thread have mentioned that the vets supervise every bit of every surgery, including placing hands on hands for guidance. Yet they also have said that if only the vets were doing the surgeries, there is no way they could keep up and get as many surgeries done.

How is that possible? Supervising a student doing a surgery takes a lot longer than doing the surgery myself. BTDT. So if every surgery is supervised start-to-finish by a vet, then the pace must be fairly slow. How would the vets then not be able to keep up the pace if they were doing the surgeries themselves?

Or, are the vets NOT supervising every minute of every surgery, but rather doing things like being sure the ovary is elevated properly and going to check on someone else while the pre-vet student ligates the pedicle, or being sure the suture line is started properly, going to check another surgery, and then coming back to check the knots?

 

[nyanko]

^^I don't know how many times that question can be re-stated in different ways without being actually addressed by any of the people who've been there...surely it's some kind of record.

I think it's a fallacy to look down on another country's standards of practice just because they are different.

I don't really think you can commit a fallacy when merely discussing something as subjective as a person's general ethical framework and how it relates to that of other people or cultures. IMO saying that there is some moral imperative to respect universally a code of ethics with which one does not agree because it is established elsewhere is rather closer to fallacious than a discussion concerning what is ethical...

There are plenty of things that occur regularly in other countries that our own society in general does not consider ethical (such as the aforementioned female circumcision, or cannibalism, necrophilia, population control methods like killing newborns of one sex or the other, etc). So should we just say "well, I guess that's the way they do things there, to each his own..." and write the practices off as okay because they occur somewhere else? Cultural relativism is nice to keep in perspective, but there's no edict that says anyone has to agree with or respect or condone practices they may see as unethical just because they are accepted in a different culture or society.

 

[Minnerbelle]

^^I don't know how many times that question can be re-stated in different ways without being actually addressed by any of the people who've been there...surely it's some kind of record.

Crazy isn't it?

I don't know why no one is answering... but I just want to say at least IMHO, this particular question really isn't about the morality of the volunteers themselves. Even IF everyone finds it perfectly ethical/moral for a pre-vet to partake in surgery under the watchful eye of a veterinarian... isn't it more efficient AND safer for the animal for the vet to actually do it? It's more a question regarding the structure of the organization, and its motives.

Why is it necessary for laypersons to perform the surgeries IF there are enough veterinarians to do the job faster and more safely?

I totally understand that perhaps there's more to the aim of this program than simply sterilizing as many animals in a 3rd world country as possible like experiencing a new culture/place, learning all sorts of things, etc... like some people have mentioned, but that still doesn't answer why the vets couldn't have done surgery...All of that's possible even while performing tech duties.

I just don't get it. WHY does this happen? All I can think is that the money provided by the volunteers (plus the donated goods that reduce the cost of operation) is the only way this can be funded... and volunteers just won't shell out the cash without the shiny ooh ahh "surgery" aspect of it. Maybe none of you feel that way, and would have gone regardless. I totally believe you, but could this not possibly be the case? Please someone enlighten me. Am I missing something?

 

[Chapelle]

One thing I'm REALLY surprised nobody has mentioned yet is the "teach the man to fish" aspect.

Besides the questionable ethics of "pre-vet" students performing major abdominal surgery, I really don't think it's the best use of resources. If you have vets on site that can provide training, shouldn't they be training local people to perform these procedures? That would be a way more efficient use of the vets' time and would generate a sustainable workforce. It could even generate "sterilization technician" jobs (as the local law allows).

That's like the main principle of aid. You always want to engage and empower the local people. What happens if vet students stop coming to the country for whatever reason - the community is back at square one!

I feel like the reason VIDA does things the way it does is that they can generate more revenue by bringing in students willing to pay huge fees. Hopefully those fees are being used to sustain the whole effort, buy supplies, etc. But again, I think they could attract nearly as many students by offering tech training AND they should be helping local people set up local vet busineses. We had the president of Vets Without Borders come and speak at our school and his organization's efforts were all about staying as long as needed to train locals and get them started doing community animal health work and then leaving and following up as needed.

Oh and don't even get me started on the human med counterpart of all this. One of my friends did it and it sounds horrible...they had her do a pap smear on a woman she wasn't even able to effctively communicate with and needless to say she pretty much had no clue what she was doing. How awful, humiliating, and dangerous!

 

[168135]

One thing I'm REALLY surprised nobody has mentioned yet is the "teach the man to fish" aspect.

Besides the questionable ethics of "pre-vet" students performing major abdominal surgery, I really don't think it's the best use of resources. If you have vets on site that can provide training, shouldn't they be training local people to perform these procedures? That would be a way more efficient use of the vets' time and would generate a sustainable workforce. It could even generate "sterilization technician" jobs (as the local law allows).

I think that would work if they weren't in poor areas and offering their services for free.

But they are in poor areas offering their services for free because people cannot afford it otherwise.

It's hard to create a sustainable workforce when you're in communities where nobody pays you for your services and where the government isn't willing to step in.

Otherwise...

I don't see how it could be as efficient if you restrict students to tech duties. I just can't see that many people being interested in attending and there are already few vet students and licensed veterinarians who are willing to make the trip. I know I would be excited to go to another country and learn tech duties. Experience is painfully difficult to get where I'm from. I've looked into a couple of internships and since I'm not a tech, the only thing I could do is animal care work. If I could give injections, wrap wounds... things like that... then in some cases, they can bump me up to a tech position, but where in the heck am I going to find a clinic where they will let me wrap wounds? All I ever do is shadow and clean anyway... it's must easier for me to get the requirements for this trip than for others.

Most of the really neat sounding internships take place in the states. One I applied for had a Canadian turned away at the border. The volunteer couldn't convince them that they wouldn't be making any money during this 3-month long internship and was sent away.

I also looked that that program in the states... can't remember what it's called... but you go to a rural area for a week to volunteer. All I would have been was a glorified receptionist. I don't even know if I would have gotten to touch an animal.

Before this, I was looking into going to the St. George's vet camp, but it turned out to be a lot more expensive.

I just think that if you took the surgery aspect out of it, our group of 21+3 vets+1 tech, would have probably been a group of 7+3 vets + 1 tech and I don't see how a group of 7 can be as efficient as a larger group. Also, I really appreciated the fact that we were partnered up. I know I couldn't imagine doing exams/surgery prep/injections/recovery all by myself. It would have definitely went slower if I were in the reins.

Even though there was 21 of us, there were still instances where we had to rush to get a patient into the surgery because a table had opened up.

 

[Trilt]

I think that this conversation has gone much farther than the scope of the original question. I haven't seen anyone who went on the trip claim that going on these trips is the most efficient use of resources to save as many animal lives as possible. Which is why they're not answering that question. Also, I've never seen someone say that their sole intent while going on the trip was to spay and neuter out the wazoo. All forms of service trips fall to the arguments given here - donate the fee and plane ticket to a local agency, and yeah, they can do a hell of a lot more with it.

These are definitely trips - VIDA actually calls them "adventures" - that benefit the individuals attending. As far as I saw, the scope of this topic was not to argue the merits of these types of trips, but instead to ponder the ethical aspects of pre-vets doing surgery.

Also: from what I know, WorldVets mainly relegates pre-vets to assistant/tech positions, and they fill up their programs very quickly. People are not just paying to do surgery - they're paying for an experience in another country that also has a vet med bent. It is nice to be shepherded around if you're not used to international travel or don't speak the country's language, and not that many programs with a veterinary emphasis exist. (Personal Tangent: I harassed my school's service office for two years to offer one before I gave up and just coordinated my own VIDA trip. I go to NC State and we're almost swimming in pre-vets - it would be immensely successful and cheaper than VIDA, but they wouldn't even think of creating it unless I did all the legwork and then I'd get a poorer scholarship than VIDA's.)

 

[BeagleOne]

I don't see how it could be as efficient if you restrict students to tech duties. I just can't see that many people being interested in attending

I think it would be MORE efficient if the laypeople performed tech duties, because many of the pre-vets already know how to do those and could teach them to the local volunteers, and leave the actual surgery to the people who know what they are doing.

There's a progression in learning veterinary medicine, just like there is in progressing from walking to driving. Pre-vet students could be seen as being at the walking stage; first- and second-year vet students are running (in more ways than one!); third- and fourth-years are riding bikes, and the veterinarians are driving.

All perfectly valid stages and all necessary to learning how to be a vet. But doing surgery as a pre-vet student is really doing it in a vacuum--sure, you might learn a few things, but you're learning them out of context and before you've learned other essential things like anatomy, physiology, tissue handling, and suturing. A one-day on-site introduction and a few hours of observation are not enough.

It's especially a vacuum if the incisions are tiny...there's no prize for having the smallest incision, and since incisions heal side-to-side and not end-to-end, having a tiny incision is not necessarily more beneficial to the animal. You need to be able to see what you are doing, and if you don't even know what's in there, you're not doing the animal any favors.

I think it's very commendable that pre-vets are interested in helping out and willing/able to pay to do so. But there are so many aspects to these operations besides the actual surgery, that pre-vet students could do well, and it really isn't appropriate for laypeople, which is what pre-vet students are, to do surgery of any sort, let alone major abdominal surgery.

Maybe the reason more veterinarians aren't interested in going on VIDA trips is that they don't agree with having laypeople perform major surgery.

 

[Chapelle]

I think that this conversation has gone much farther than the scope of the original question. I haven't seen anyone who went on the trip claim that going on these trips is the most efficient use of resources to save as many animal lives as possible. Which is why they're not answering that question. Also, I've never seen someone say that their sole intent while going on the trip was to spay and neuter out the wazoo. All forms of service trips fall to the arguments given here - donate the fee and plane ticket to a local agency, and yeah, they can do a hell of a lot more with it.

These are definitely trips - VIDA actually calls them "adventures" - that benefit the individuals attending.

I'm curious to see if everyone actually agrees with this premise...because a lot of people were saying earlier that they were justified in going over there and doing surgery because that is what would help the comunity/animals the most.

There are other vet-related voluntering organizations that will charge as much money as VIDA but only allow you to do tech things as a pre-vet...and plenty of people still go. There are other orgs (RAVS) that don't charge, let you go do international work, and are doing very well because of private donations. RAVS trips also fill up super fast even though they only allow you to work within reasonable limits of your skills (even 1-2 year vet students don't do spays).

 

[Nexx]

No.

Just to be clear, morals are a personal code, and ethics are the code of a specific group of people. It is ethically wrong in the US for someone who is not a vet to do surgery. However, morally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for someone to be walked through spays and neuters at the direction of a licensed veterinarian (yes, there are surgeries which I feel are absolutely unacceptable to be performed by anyone who is not trained... not saying that spays and neuters are not complicated surgeries, just that they are most performed by general practitioners so possible complications are more familiar to them, increasing the chances that they can handle the situation should a mistake occur).

The example of vet techs performing these surgeries in the US under the direction of a vet is something I'm morally okay with, but is something that is not ethically acceptable in the States. Where we went, the people bringing animals in knew we were doing the surgeries, and in some cases they saw us doing surgery. Because they were okay with it, we had permission from the owner, it was a legal situation, and I am okay with it morally, I was comfortable with the situation. Those cannot be said for surgeries in the States. The only surgery I would be okay with doing under the supervision of a vet in the States would be a spay or neuter on my own pet, since it is ethically wrong to do it to others' animals.

I'm not changing my morals. They are merely aligning with the ethics when in a different atmosphere, making me comfortable in the situation.

Did I ever say that I went on this trip to "impress adcoms"? No. Don't generalize that all who go on these trips do it for these purposes. I am confident in my application without this trip and feel that I have a lot going for me. As I said before, I was interested in traveling abroad (to a self-limited number of places) and volunteering elsewhere.

You can post the definitions of morals and ethics as you wish, but I think you just wish to play a game of semantics mainly. Your whole argument comes down to 'going on these trips is ethical because the government of the country allows it, and VIDA allows it' and that we shouldn't judge the trips because we have a different perspective. Again, just because it's allowed and socially acceptable does not mean it's ethically correct as defined by the veterinary profession.

It just doesn't cut it. As future vets, prevets and veterinary para-professionals we have a higher duty to the health, well-being, and safety of the animals should come first -- as a future vet and you cannot deny that fact. Furthermore you cannot deny that the risk of having a partially trained 'student' presents a higher risk to the animals than having a fully trained professional perform these procedures regardless of supervision. Especially in less than ideal surroundings, with less than ideal sterilisation and less than ideal pretty much everything! So is it okay to potentially cause harm to even one animal so that students can get training? That's even the debate at vet schools across the country performing elective and terminal surgeries but that at least has students who are educated, semi-skilled labor, analgesia,ongoing care provided, and exponential benefit to more animals in the future.

Going back to risk/benefits there is the question of whether or not the benefit of having spayed/neutered animals is worth the risk to said animals via population control and overall aiding the health of the animal and human population. A debatable issue in itself as I recall reading several papers (admittedly nothing recently) which questioned the benefit of TNR-type and spay/neuter programs since other animals step in and fill the reproductive gap.

 

[Trilt]

I'm curious to see if everyone actually agrees with this premise...because a lot of people were saying earlier that they were justified in going over there and doing surgery because that is what would help the comunity/animals the most.

There are other vet-related voluntering organizations that will charge as much money as VIDA but only allow you to do tech things as a pre-vet...and plenty of people still go. There are other orgs (RAVS) that don't charge, let you go do international work, and are doing very well because of private donations. RAVS trips also fill up super fast even though they only allow you to work within reasonable limits of your skills (even 1-2 year vet students don't do spays).

Can you find an instance where someone said that? I just went back and re-read through both of these threads and didn't find a single instance of someone saying they were justified in going over there and doing surgery because that is what would help the community the most. There were a couple people who said they thought they were doing good for the community, but that is most definitely not the same thing. I may have missed it, though.

And I don't know why you skipped the rest of my post, but in regard to your second paragraph, I actually stated that point:

Also: from what I know, WorldVets mainly relegates pre-vets to assistant/tech positions, and they fill up their programs very quickly. People are not just paying to do surgery - they're paying for an experience in another country that also has a vet med bent. It is nice to be shepherded around if you're not used to international travel or don't speak the country's language, and not that many programs with a veterinary emphasis exist.​

Also, I really don't feel like its fair to compare RAVS/HSVMA (such a better name than AVAR) to almost any other organization. They have the backing of HSUS' 80+ million dollar budget, and while RAVS trips are probably one of the best things they do with some of that money, it should not be compared to most standard non-profits who run trips. They're also not free - from what I see, you have to pay your housing, transportation and everything like that while you're on their international trips, which is generally bundled into the program fee for others.

Again, just because it's allowed and socially acceptable does not mean it's ethically correct as defined by the veterinary profession.

It isn't "ethically correct" in many countries to do quite a few of the surgeries veterinarians in the United States do, as shown by the "Questionable Procedures" thread. The veterinary profession is not homogeneous across the world. Whose definition is the one you think is right?

 

[canis13]

Also, I really don't feel like its fair to compare RAVS/HSVMA (such a better name than AVAR) to almost any other organization. They have the backing of HSUS' 80+ million dollar budget, and while RAVS trips are probably one of the best things they do with some of that money, it should not be compared to most standard non-profits who run trips. They're also not free - from what I see, you have to pay your housing, transportation and everything like that while you're on their international trips, which is generally bundled into the program fee for others.

I haven't read all of the previous comments, so apologies if I'm missing something, but I did want to clarify/comment on this.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to compare HSVMA-FS and VIDA trips; they are working with different budgets, and I'm guessing that might translate into differences in the structure of the trips, what the minimum standards of care are for the animals. But it is worthwhile to note that the Field Services division (formerly known as RAVS) is just one very small part of the larger HSUS organization, and that HSVMA-FS trips did not feel anything like the well-stocked small animal clinic and suburban spay/neuter clinic I worked at/volunteered at. So if you're looking for the bare-necessities-only experience at a spay and neuter clinic trip, you'll most definitely get that on a HSVMA-FS trip.

Also, the international trips are generally limited to vet students only; there are generally no spots for pre-vet folk on their international trips. This is largely because the focus of most of HSVMA-FS's international trips are to help teach veterinarians and vet students in Central American countries (and American vet students generally don't even perform surgery on international trips, but rather act as vet assistants), rather than teaching the US vet students. So in terms of the international trips, I do think it's fair to say that HSVMA-FS and VIDA are fundamentally different in their goals.

As for the costs of HSVMA-FS trips, the only costs are transportation to and from the meet up city, and occasionally staying in a hotel the night before/after the trip. So for domestic trips to reservations, I've never paid more than $300, and most of that cost was for the flights.

Anyway, I'm not saying that VIDA trips are invaluable because they are not part of a bigger, more well funded organization. But from what I can tell, HSVMA-FS is generally able to provide a bigger impact in the locations that they operate in. Maybe that's ok, if all VIDA is attempting to do is give pre-vet students a good experience. I think it's valuable for largely untrained folk to volunteer in developing countries, for the reason that it gives people exposure and experience that may influence what they do with their careers later on and the type of clinicians they become. But I do think it's important to be upfront about your purpose; I haven't looked at the VIDA website extensively, so maybe this is all well and good if VIDA is clear about the fact that the primary purpose is to help American pre-vet students rather than curb the overpopulation of dogs and cats in Central America.

 

[Trilt]

I'm now contributing to the thread derail, haha, but...

As for the costs of HSVMA-FS trips, the only costs are transportation to and from the meet up city, and occasionally staying in a hotel the night before/after the trip. So for domestic trips to reservations, I've never paid more than $300, and most of that cost was for the flights.

I did specifically say that I was talking about their international trips - I haven't been on either an international or domestic RAVS/FS trip, but I know that the international ones all have a disclaimer about how you will be responsible for covering all of the expenses, while the domestic don't. I'm aware that the domestic ones are a pretty awesome deal, although unfortunately they're all on the wrong side of the country for me.

And VIDA's mission statement is:

VIDA is a non profit humanitarian Association based in Costa Rica, that helps to empower individuals and provides free medical, dental, and veterinary assistance to needy communities [and] to improve quality of life by offering volunteers from around the world hands-on, eye-opening, mind-enriching experiences.​

It's kind of awkwardly translated from Spanish, but I think VIDA represents themselves well - their mission statement is roughly divided between the two goals of providing medical/vet services and offering an experience to volunteers.

 

[alliecat44]

To simplify things a bit........if:

--the purpose of such trips is at least in part to allow pre-vets to perform surgery (centered around the "experience" of the participants)

--more surgeries could be performed (i.e., more efficient production line) if only experienced veterinarians were cranking out the spays/neuters and laypeople were performing technical/support duties

--it is questionable/yet to be proven whether the number of surgeries performed during these trips is enough to create a meaningful dent in the community pet overpopulation problem

--there are alternative international trips which offer the same multicultural experience/exposure to different levels of veterinary medical practice in third world countries which do NOT allow pre-vets to perform surgery (and it is yet to be proven how the costs to go on these trips compare to those trips which DO allow pre-vets to perform surgery, but possible that the costs for such programs are cheaper)

--there is necessarily a higher complication rate/inflammatory response when surgery is done by inexperienced surgeons

--therefore, with a great deal of money paid by pre-vets for this opportunity, in which sterilization surgeries are performed at a decreased number than would otherwise be possible due to the inefficiencies inherent in having inexperienced hands perform surgery...and a negligible impact on the native animal population density...and perhaps MORE complications/pain caused

then.....

perhaps the title of the thread should be, "Ethics of Pre-Vets Paying to Perform Surgery in Third-World Countries"?

(Please know that I do NOT mean anything personal against anyone who has gone on these trips! I can see why it's seen as an amazing opportunity. I'm questioning the purpose of the organization itself. I mean, OF COURSE incredibly eager, motivated, dedicated pre-vet students are going to jump at the opportunity--it's only natural! And you already know that I think SDNers are awesome and inspiring and the future of our profession. My big issue is why this is allowed in the first place--by the company, or by anyone.)

 

[168135]

Just wondering if anyone had read the goals, objectives and values of this particular organization:

Goals:
Create a humanitarian, not-for-profit, nonpolitical, secular, grassroots, organization that empowers individuals and benefits communities.
Offer volunteers hands-on, eye-opening, mind-enriching experiences in a constructive and intercultural environment.

Objectives:
Bring volunteers together with community members in neighborhoods of limited resources to carry out:
Humanitarian services that help local people in need
Learning experiences that benefit the volunteers
Fund sustainable development projects by providing service trips to international volunteer groups
Support micro, small, and medium sized businesses by utilizing their services and products whenever possible.

Values:

• Empowerment of communities and individuals in place of creating dependency toward charitable organizations, government aid, etc.
• Solidarity between organizations that share common goals and interests.
• Importance of intercultural experiences for creating understanding and promoting peace between individuals and nations.
• Hands-on learning experiences as key to forming well-rounded, sensitive professionals.
• The right of all people to a high quality of life that includes accessible healthcare, adequate nutrition, safe homes, and a good education.
• Power of grass-roots organizations to improve the quality of life of people around the world through sustainable agriculture, organic farming practices, alternative energy sources, etc
• Fair employment for both men and women of all ages, and in every position

 

[Chapelle]

Unite for Sight details common pitfalls of volunteering abroad (VIDA is guilty of them all): www. uniteforsight. org/pitfalls-in-development/pitfalls-in-volunteering-abroad

 

[Nexx]

It isn't "ethically correct" in many countries to do quite a few of the surgeries veterinarians in the United States do, as shown by the "Questionable Procedures" thread. The veterinary profession is not homogeneous across the world. Whose definition is the one you think is right?

Fair enough point, but it is pretty standard within the veterinary profession that only veterinarians, veterinarians in training (under direct supervision), or licensed veterinary professionals (under direct supervision) are able to perform surgery and/or 'acts of veterinary medicine'

 

[168135]

Seriously...

Is there anyone out there who has gone on a volunteer trip that involves surgery and agrees with everything the people who haven't gone are saying?

There is a huge flaw in some of your arguments... I still don't see how you can make some of these assumptions WHEN YOU HAVE NOT GONE... most of you don't even have a close friend that went on one of these trips.

 

[sunshinevet]

Seriously...

Is there anyone out there who has gone on a volunteer trip that involves surgery and agrees with everything the people who haven't gone are saying?

There is a huge flaw in some of your arguments... I still don't see how you can make some of these assumptions WHEN YOU HAVE NOT GONE... most of you don't even have a close friend that went on one of these trips.

Ok... I also feel that you have been avoiding a lot of the arguments that people have been putting forward!!!

So, people on this forum have said that when you do the surgery, a vet is scrubbed in with you, and guides you through it. So why is the layperson there?!?!? Why isnt the vet, who is, according to this description from someone who was there, there the whole time, not performing this procedure faster, safer, and better, than the layperson? There is no REQUIREMENT for the layperson to be there. It would be BETTER FOR THE ANIMAL, FASTER AND THEREFORE CHEAPER, for the vet to perform the surgery. So how can anyone possibly say that it is OK for this to happen???

 

[168135]

What exactly do you mean by cheaper?

 

[squeegee]

What exactly do you mean by cheaper?

faster surgery equals less time under anesthesia, so less anesthetic needed = cheaper (and more efficient because more anesthetic left for other animals). possibly encompassing other factors as well, like more experienced hands with closing incisions and things = more efficient use of suture and materials

 

[breenie]

Seriously...

Is there anyone out there who has gone on a volunteer trip that involves surgery and agrees with everything the people who haven't gone are saying?

There is a huge flaw in some of your arguments... I still don't see how you can make some of these assumptions WHEN YOU HAVE NOT GONE... most of you don't even have a close friend that went on one of these trips.

I don't think any of the people questioning these trips are faulting you for going on one. Clearly it was a great experience for you, and you found it to be very valuable. I don't think anyone thinks there is anything wrong with you taking that opportunity if it is available to you, but I think they are asking the larger question if it really should be available at all.

Don't take it personally.

 

[Trilt]

then.....

perhaps the title of the thread should be, "Ethics of Pre-Vets Paying to Perform Surgery in Third-World Countries"?

(Please know that I do NOT mean anything personal against anyone who has gone on these trips! I can see why it's seen as an amazing opportunity. I'm questioning the purpose of the organization itself. I mean, OF COURSE incredibly eager, motivated, dedicated pre-vet students are going to jump at the opportunity--it's only natural! And you already know that I think SDNers are awesome and inspiring and the future of our profession. My big issue is why this is allowed in the first place--by the company, or by anyone.)

To ask that question, you would have to prove that individuals are going on these trips and paying these fees ONLY because they have the opportunity to perform surgery. Not because they're interested in traveling, the culture, veterinary medicine in another country, or anything like that. Simply because there are other organizations that fill up very quickly and do not allow individuals to perform surgery, I think that is a rather difficult point to argue. It's not like they add on a surgical surcharge or something.

Also, your points are not particularly coherent to form that question. TNR programs everywhere are faced with little literature to support them - that doesn't stop many, many veterinarians from supporting them. (And I'd personally be interested to see literature showing how the US' massive spay/neuter your pets' campaigns have impacted overpopulation - I'm sure its on the AVMA website somewhere).

The purpose of VIDA's organization was posted a couple people down:

Create a humanitarian, not-for-profit, nonpolitical, secular, grassroots, organization that empowers individuals and benefits communities.
Offer volunteers hands-on, eye-opening, mind-enriching experiences in a constructive and intercultural environment.​

I know WorldVets sometimes allows people to do a couple neuters at the end of their trips, too, but don't know about other programs.

Why we allow it: because different countries have different veterinary standards! Considering VIDA is actually run out of Costa Rica, I find it interesting that everyone questions them working within their own veterinary laws.

 

[bunnity]

Seriously...

Is there anyone out there who has gone on a volunteer trip that involves surgery and agrees with everything the people who haven't gone are saying?

There is a huge flaw in some of your arguments... I still don't see how you can make some of these assumptions WHEN YOU HAVE NOT GONE... most of you don't even have a close friend that went on one of these trips.

What is the huge flaw?
I actually do know someone who has gone and they are a vet student. And the experience has been described by multiple people on here.

Will someone please answer the question:
Why don't the vets do the surgery when it would be both better for the individual animal and allow more total animals to get surgery?

 

[CohenMeow]

An answer to the question: " why don't the vets just do the surgery?, What is the point of pre-vet students going down there?"


I went on a VIDA trip this past summer so I am very clear about what goes on down there. There are many reasons the vets do not do the surgery.

1. Where would the funding and donations come from? As volunteers we are responsible for bringing donations and paying for our trip. Without money there is NO way any work could be done.

2. Without volunteers (pre-vet and vet students) the vet would not get nearly as much done. I would see on a average of 8 animals a day myself. if there were no volunteers, who would see all those animals? Not all animals need surgery.

3. The trip is not about just the veterinary work. It is an adventure, a way to get out of your bubble, and a life changing trip that will be with me the rest of my life.

4. The people who use VIDA's services do not care that we are not veterinarians. It is so hard to explain to people that have not seen the conditions how bad it really is. They are extremely grateful for any help they can get, no matter who is doing it.

5. Something that is also very important that I learned in central america is to work with very little. Before the trip I was used to working in a very well equipped clinic. In central america you are lucky to have a table to do surgery on. It taught me that you can get a lot done with less. In my career I may not always have the top equipment to work with.

VIDAs goal is to provide veterinary work to people that could never afford to get it otherwise, AND to provide a life changing experience to volunteers.

 

[that redhead]

Just wondering if anyone had read the goals, objectives and values of this particular organization:

[/LIST]

I have no doubt that the organization is meetings its own goals. The question in this discussion is whether or not the way these goals are achieved is ethical.

 

[Bigcatlover]

I'm just curious, for those of you who are against the practices of VIDA, are there other organizations that you would recommend to pre-vet students trying to get valuable experience?

 

[nyanko]

I went on a VIDA trip this past summer so I am very clear about what goes on down there. There are many reasons the vets do not do the surgery.

1. Where would the funding and donations come from? As volunteers we are responsible for bringing donations and paying for our trip. Without money there is NO way any work could be done.

There would still be jobs for volunteers if the veterinarians did the surgery. There are still plenty of parasurgical and other technical things that volunteers can and did do, right? So how would it change anything regarding the funding?

Or are you saying, as is one of the main points of contention in this argument, that a lot less pre-vets would go if they did not get to perform surgery, and that's where the loss in funding would originate?

2. Without volunteers (pre-vet and vet students) the vet would not get nearly as much done. I would see on a average of 8 animals a day myself. if there were no volunteers, who would see all those animals? Not all animals need surgery.

This has nothing to do with veterinarians doing surgery.

Unless you are again saying that less pre-vets would go if they didn't get to do surgery, decreasing the available volunteer base.

3. The trip is not about just the veterinary work. It is an adventure, a way to get out of your bubble, and a life changing trip that will be with me the rest of my life.

Absolutely nothing to do with veterinarians performing surgery.

4. The people who use VIDA's services do not care that we are not veterinarians. It is so hard to explain to people that have not seen the conditions how bad it really is. They are extremely grateful for any help they can get, no matter who is doing it.

This is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. The people would still be just as grateful if veterinarians did the surgeries, so it isn't really a reason why vets don't do them.

Essentially it's saying that providing a lower standard of care when a higher one is easily accessible and attainable (the veterinarian is, according to all accounts, standing right there with the non-veterinarian who is doing the surgery and could easily just take the reigns themselves) is ideal. While there may be situations where this is justifiable (teaching of veterinary students is one), no justification has been provided other than personal enrichment for the layperson performing the surgery.

5. Something that is also very important that I learned in central america is to work with very little. Before the trip I was used to working in a very well equipped clinic. In central america you are lucky to have a table to do surgery on. It taught me that you can get a lot done with less. In my career I may not always have the top equipment to work with.

Also irrelevant to the question of why pre-vets should do the surgery over veterinarians. You can still learn these things through assisting in the fashion of a normal veterinary assistant or technician.

VIDAs goal is to provide veterinary work to people that could never afford to get it otherwise, AND to provide a life changing experience to volunteers.

Right, and this is precisely what is being called into question.

Is the latter an ethically sound justification for the organization's practices? How would taking out the surgical aspects of the trip change the ability to achieve the latter part of the goal? Would having veterinarians do the surgery enhance the first part of the goal enough to compensate for it?

 

[CohenMeow]

You do not have to think it is ethical. After going there I believe it is 100% ok. If VIDA is not for you that is totally ok, it is definitely not for everyone. The only way us as students can learn is by doing. I learned the anatomy, suture techniques, and watched many hours of spay and neuters before going. I did not in any way feel unprepared for the surgeries. There was a vet by my side the entire time guiding me. Those of you who are opposed to VIDA might change your mind if you went on the trip. I plan on returning to central america for more veterinary work in the future. I think it is a great opportunity to gain experience.

 

[karmapple]

You do not have to think it is ethical. After going there I believe it is 100% ok. If VIDA is not for you that is totally ok, it is definitely not for everyone. The only way us as students can learn is by doing. I learned the anatomy, suture techniques, and watched many hours of spay and neuters before going. I did not in any way feel unprepared for the surgeries. There was a vet by my side the entire time guiding me. Those of you who are opposed to VIDA might change your mind if you went on the trip. I plan on returning to central america for more veterinary work in the future. I think it is a great opportunity to gain experience.

I'm not even involved in this discussion, and replies like this make me want to bang my head against a wall. They answer nothing.

Basically, they have no way to defend it, but it was so super-duper cool!! They would totally shell out another $2000 to have someone guide their hands around in an animal's abdomen, so how can you criticize??!!

 

[david594]

I did not in any way feel unprepared for the surgeries. There was a vet by my side the entire time guiding me.

You didn't feel unprepared because you didn't know what could go wrong.

 

[168135]

You guys were talking about these other trips, where pre-vets only do tech duties. You said they fill up very quickly. How come they don't offer more trips to meet the demands of the students then?

I'm banging my head against the wall because people who haven't been on these trips or even know people have been on the trips are screaming OMG ETHICALLY WRONG, DON'T GO. This study shows that they don't do the communites any good, and these organizations only let pre-vets do tech duties, and it's faster if vets do all the work, and why isn't it okay to do surgery in America but it's okay to do it in other places?

Someone else brought it up... there is virtually no difference between a 1st year vet student and a pre-vet student. How come 1st year vet students can do it with supervision in the states and a pre-vet cannot? What's the difference? One is 95% likely to become a vet while the other is 50% likely not to get in and end up flipping burgers somewhere. That's about it. Yet no one is willing to talk about the ethics of that.

Oh, and I've seen uneducated techs perform cat neuters with no vet supervision and minimal complications. They even use staples instead of tying. I'm quite positive that when I attended my vet tech interview, they told us that in some places, techs scrub in and play an active roll in surgeries, and that some are even allowed to perform it. I'm not aware of the laws, but I doubt the most popular (and most expensive) vet hospital in my cushy, stuck-up town isn't the only one that's doing it. One of the techs even admitted to spaying his own cat and a vet's over the years, with supervision. This clinic also does a shoddy job at keeping things sterile. They cross-contaminate animals on a daily basis because they don't change their gloves and use the same instruments from animal to animal. They are the only clinic in town that fixes the animals that come into the local shelter. You'd think they'd notice an increase in complications due to techs performing the duties, cross contamination, or animals being left under anesthesia for longer than usual because the shelter brings in X number of animals per week. And this isn't some overcrowded shelter where the staff don't give a darn about their animals because I've volunteered there.

So yeah... given the fact that the circumstances are quite a bit worse... (no running water or electricity in some places for example), yeah, the number of complications is greater. No doubt about. How much greater should it be before these clinics are considered to be doing more harm than good? That's extremely difficult to do... since you don't have the numbers sitting there in front of you.

This weekend, I'm going to get my vet's opinion on the whole thing. She volunteered in Peru as a vet student and now owns an accredited veterinary hospital. She's been on the trip. She's been through school. Now she's performing surgeries by herself and seeing the outcome. In vet school, you get numbers thrown at you and you're not even sure of the relevance yet. "Oh, the prof says that if I forget to do this, there is a chance that this happens!" Then you get out in the real world and notice that if you forget to do this, the chance of complication increases by a measly 2% or something like that.

Seriously though... what do vets think of these trips... and if it's bad for the community and bad for the animals, how come more and more schools are coordinating their own trips with their own veterinarians?

 

[alliecat44]

You guys were talking about these other trips, where pre-vets only do tech duties. You said they fill up very quickly. How come they don't offer more trips to meet the demands of the students then?

I could think of about a million reasons, but this question is completely irrelevant.

 

[Ben and Me]

I'm just curious, for those of you who are against the practices of VIDA, are there other organizations that you would recommend to pre-vet students trying to get valuable experience?

I think what people are saying is that pre-vets doing surgery isn't exactly "valuable experience" because you don't really know enough at that point to get the most out of it.

I think you'd be best served as a pre-vet working/volunteering at a clinic at home and learning how to talk to both clients and colleagues. It really is something that can't be taught in vet school (unlike placing catheters, doing spays, etc) and will serve you far better in the long run (both in vet school and after) than anything else.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ben and Me]

As for the costs of HSVMA-FS trips, the only costs are transportation to and from the meet up city, and occasionally staying in a hotel the night before/after the trip. So for domestic trips to reservations, I've never paid more than $300, and most of that cost was for the flights.

Intrigued as to how you only paid $300! Remember, there is a $200 non-refundable deposit, and most of the airports are teeny-tiny, so high fares! My flight to Rapid City, SD from the east coast would've been $600, but luckily my mom "paid" for it with frequent flier miles! Plus 2 nights in the designated hotel (I now know that there are cheaper options next door, which I'll be utilizing next summer!) even w/ 5 people in the room...And chipping in for gas for the folks that drove for the week...It adds up!

Sadly, in spite of the huge HSUS budget, the Field Service trips are pretty much required to be self-suficient, which is a big part of why that $200 deposit is required.

All that being said, I loved my RAVS trip and am (hopefully!) going back next summer!

 

[alliecat44]

To ask that question, you would have to prove that individuals are going on these trips and paying these fees ONLY because they have the opportunity to perform surgery. Not because they're interested in traveling, the culture, veterinary medicine in another country, or anything like that. Simply because there are other organizations that fill up very quickly and do not allow individuals to perform surgery, I think that is a rather difficult point to argue. It's not like they add on a surgical surcharge or something.

Also, your points are not particularly coherent to form that question.

Why we allow it: because different countries have different veterinary standards! Considering VIDA is actually run out of Costa Rica, I find it interesting that everyone questions them working within their own veterinary laws.

1. If there are two groups offering volunteer trips to third world countries and the cost and intangible benefits are much the same--EXCEPT that one company allows volunteers/laypeople to do surgery--THEN why do you choose the one who allows you to do surgery with no formal training? Do you personally think it acceptable to your personal morality?

2. This isn't about legality, this is about ethics.

Same circular arguments, round and round we go...

 

[Bigcatlover]

I think what people are saying is that pre-vets doing surgery isn't exactly "valuable experience" because you don't really know enough at that point to get the most out of it.

I think you'd be best served as a pre-vet working/volunteering at a clinic at home and learning how to talk to both clients and colleagues. It really is something that can't be taught in vet school (unlike placing catheters, doing spays, etc) and will serve you far better in the long run (both in vet school and after) than anything else.

Just my two cents.

I wasn't trying to argue against anyone...I was just wondering if the people who are against pre-vets performing surgery can recommend any type of organizations that would provide all of the other aspects of volunteering for a trip like this. I mean, the thread that started this whole debate is pretty much the first I've heard of this type of things, just wanted to know what other opportunities are out there

 

[Ben and Me]

I wasn't trying to argue against anyone...I was just wondering if the people who are against pre-vets performing surgery can recommend any type of organizations that would provide all of the other aspects of volunteering for a trip like this. I mean, the thread that started this whole debate is pretty much the first I've heard of this type of things, just wanted to know what other opportunities are out there

From previous posts, it sounds like WorldVets and RAVS are good places to start your search. I didn't do any trips like this as a pre-vet, so I can't speak with any confidence as to the opportunities available for pre-vets with either organization.

I do think that even domestic RAVS trips provide important cultural lessons -- and I do personally think that helping folks in our own country should take a priority over helping folks in other countries. (I realize that others will disagree.) Plus, the clients on RAVS trips speak English -- if you don't speak fluent Spanish, it's another great chance to improve your communication skills, since I'd imagine that even if you're just running the autoclave, you can still sneak in a conversation or two.

 

[squeegee]

I'm banging my head against the wall because people who haven't been on these trips or even know people have been on the trips are screaming OMG ETHICALLY WRONG, DON'T GO. This study shows that they don't do the communites any good, and these organizations only let pre-vets do tech duties, and it's faster if vets do all the work, and why isn't it okay to do surgery in America but it's okay to do it in other places?

this conversation started with a simple question of why the vets don't do the work and the volunteers do, especially since from an outside perspective it doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise. it has been asked eight ways from sunday with still no answer. and yes, the ethics has also been brought into question. but how do you know that nobody with these questions "even know people that have been on the trips"? so if i knew someone who went on the trip my opinion would be different? as a matter of fact i know plenty of people that went on these trips, yet my views are still the same. and no, i don't go yelling at them OMG ETHICALLY WRONG DON'T GO nor do i see where anyone else here has said that either. people have opinions and they have questions. instead of someone with trip experience giving a straightforward answer or saying that maybe there really isn't one, we just go around and around and around. but now on other threads you're saying things like those of us who feel this way are going to be bad vets because we only see black and white and can't see shades of gray. or omg if us vet students are sooo smart and smug about these things why don't we go over there when we graduate and do things a different way then, or how horrible we are that we're sitting here discouraging everyone in the pre-vet community from participating in these trips with our (horrible, horrible) questions and opinions.

i don't see how this morphed into a personal attack, as you and others who have gone on these trips have insinuated. as alliecat started the thread, it was out of genuine curiosity and a concern over the protocols on these trips that from some people's perspectives seem to be able to undergo improvement. again:

person A- years of hands-on experience, knowledge, licensed.
person B- has watched a little, no hands-on experience, no license.

should person A or person B perform surgery? the answer to some of us seems obvious, and nobody opposed to our general opinion has given a good reason as to why we're so "wrong" "going to be bad vets" etc etc.

nowhere did anyone say that those of us who believe these trips could benefit with vet-performed surgery are not willing to listen, or not willing to see your side. but as of this point it seems that nothing has been said in these trips' defense to change our minds!

 

[karmapple]

Someone else brought it up... there is virtually no difference between a 1st year vet student and a pre-vet student. How come 1st year vet students can do it with supervision in the states and a pre-vet cannot?

Well, this isn't a true statement, but I'll ignore that. I just wanted to say that I've researched many externships as a veterinary student, and I haven't found a single formal externship that allows a first-year vet student to perform surgery, because first year vet students have not had any education on surgery. (Well, at least not in our curriculum) Every one I've inquired about only allow fourth-year vet students to perform surgery.

As to the legality of a first-year vet student performing surgery, I believe that differs by state laws. It is not as common as you seem to think it is, and most vets would not feel comfortable with it.

 

[nyanko]

Someone else brought it up... there is virtually no difference between a 1st year vet student and a pre-vet student. How come 1st year vet students can do it with supervision in the states and a pre-vet cannot? What's the difference? One is 95% likely to become a vet while the other is 50% likely not to get in and end up flipping burgers somewhere. That's about it. Yet no one is willing to talk about the ethics of that.

There are differences between a pre-vet student and a 1st year vet student. It's a point that I made earlier - any person can call themselves a pre-vet student. The distinction means absolutely nothing except that you're considering filling out an application for vet school at some point in the future. A pre-vet student could be someone in biology I who has never done animal work, or it could be someone who has a Ph.D. in physiology and 25,000 hours of assisting with surgeries. A 1st year vet student is (probably more than 95%) going to become a veterinarian.

And as karmapple said, it really isn't very common for anywhere in the USA to allow 1st years to perform surgery, if it even exists. Our first year clinical skills labs pretty much stop at blood draws here at UCDavis, so that would be silly.

In vet school, you get numbers thrown at you and you're not even sure of the relevance yet. "Oh, the prof says that if I forget to do this, there is a chance that this happens!" Then you get out in the real world and notice that if you forget to do this, the chance of complication increases by a measly 2% or something like that.

What does this even mean and what is it supposed to be an argument for? That education is bad?

 

[chris03333]

\ Someone else brought it up... there is virtually no difference between a 1st year vet student and a pre-vet student. How come 1st year vet students can do it with supervision in the states and a pre-vet cannot?

There is no state in the US where it is legal for a 1st year vet student to perform surgery under direct supervision of a vet.

 

[Minnerbelle]

There is no state in the US where it is legal for a 1st year vet student to perform surgery under direct supervision of a vet.

hmmm... i have to admit that i've never actually pulled legal documents out and looked it up, but a shelter vet's come to CSU twice in just the last few months (once in front of the whole first-year class + some professors, and once in front of shelter club) and said it's legal...

is it not?

 

[168135]

I can go do neuters as 1st year at local animal shelter (under supervision) but I know probably a lot less than TT among others. Sept 1 next year I can do spays as a 2nd year and will still probably know much less than many on that VIDA trip. So what. I assume the supervising vet is there to make sure things go as they should.

Either StartingoverVet is lying, or the laws exist.

What does this even mean and what is it supposed to be an argument for? That education is bad?

Education isn't bad. Just can be ambiguous at times. If you do x procedure, a, b, c, and d can possibly happen. Yikes, oh no, maybe I should rethink about doing prodecedure x when I'm a vet! Then one you're in the clinic, you realize that a happens in 1/20 cases, b happens in 1/30 cases and dreaded c happens in 1/55 cases and now procedure x doesn't look as bad anymore. You can start pulling numbers out of textbooks and come up with the assumption that 55% of animals die when they are operated on by pre-vet students in Costa Rica, but how the heck are you going to prove that's correct if you've never actually seen pre-vets operate in Costa Rica or done any number crunching? You have yet to offer pure solid proof that these clinics are doing more harm than good to the animals. Instead of going straight to the horses mouth, which would be probably be a vet or a vet student who already has surgery knowledge and who has attended a trip, you're just speculating.

And once again... how come vets who teach at vet schools are attending these trips and letting 1st and 2nd years do surgery for credit? Have any of you asked a vet what they think of these trips?

 

[EllieGirl89]

There is no state in the US where it is legal for a 1st year vet student to perform surgery under direct supervision of a vet.

I've looked it up in the Ohio Revised Code, and I'm pretty sure it's legal here. Not during the first year, but after a student has completed one year of veterinary school they are allowed to perform surgery under direct veterinary supervision.

 

[alliecat44]

And once again... how come vets who teach at vet schools are attending these trips and letting 1st and 2nd years do surgery for credit? Have any of you asked a vet what they think of these trips?

a) They are receiving credit because they are VET STUDENTS. At every stage of their veterinary education, they are being graded and judged and verified that they have enough knowledge to move on to the next semester. Which, in many schools, includes surgery instruction in the second year.

b) Actually, I discussed this two days ago with a friend who is finishing up her residency. Her mouth dropped open in horror and she said something to the effect of, "sure, that's what's best for the volunteers, but how about what's best for the ANIMALS?" Just, you know, since you asked.

P.S. Thank you for insinuating otherwise, but in veterinary school we are also taught to think critically and not to accept information at face value. But thanks--I'll continue to analyze and trust what my instructors have taught me. And you will find that a complication rate of 1/55 is actually pretty darn unacceptable, FYI, since you're throwing numbers around.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Time to face reality...

Idealism is nice but in the real world doesn't get a lot accomplished.
I would tend to agree that in a perfect world only licensed vets would operate on any animal (ex-humans) anywhere in the world. We don't live in that perfect world.

I would argue that as a matter of policy these programs serve a larger purpose when you look at it from a practical point of view.

Fact: Vets are not donating their time in large numbers to help out in these countries.

Fact: These programs attract people and their money because they can do something they wouldn't elsewhere.

My conclusion is that it is better that the animals are spayed/neutered to help a larger problem. It really isn't much but it is better than nothing.

As for pre-vet, I would say that anything you can do to attract more people to be vets, then the better the overall welfare of animals will be so these programs do serve a purpose. And if you get more and more people to think about volunteering in these countries then they may get even more treatment in the future.

Sure it may not be the highest standard of care a particular animal can get (and no one can argue otherwise) but it is probably better than the nothing they would get otherwise. And it does serve the public's benefit in my mind in some non-quantifiable way.

The countries benefit, the animals benefit, the potential students benefit.
If this is the worst ethical problem out there then the world has gotten a lot better in the 3 months I have been sequestered in West Philly.

Again to me the key point is that vets are not knocking themselves out running down there to do these surgeries themselves, but are do seem to join these groups whatever their motivations. Unless that were to change and they weren't needed then I don't see the problem.

Again, there are programs out there training local non-vets to do veterinary roles in poor countries because it better that some care is provided than none at all. Given that reality how can this be a problem?

As a matter of disclosure... I have not participated in any of these programs so I have no particular axe to grind.