MCW Dog Lab?

[Barton]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I just got accepted to MCW, and desperately want to go there. I have also read that they do a dog-lab in physiology in which you have to perform surgery on and harvest organs from (read as: kill) a dog. I don't know if I can do this. Maybe if it's some little annoying dog like a poodle or something, but seriously, I don't know. Any MCW students able to confirm or deny this? Anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this situation?

 

[immediate]

Congratulations on acceptance. I can confirm there is a dog lab and yes, the dogs give their lives for you scientific knowledge. It is actually a great experience and not as disturbing as yu would think. The dogs are supplied by the USDA and are scheduled to be put down regardless of whether or not you do the experiment.
However, that being said, it is not compulsory to attend, by not participating, one less dog is purchased (for every 4 students who choose to skip it) and that dog is put down back at the USDA labs. No one picks on you for not participating.

 

[Barton]

thanks for the reply. I am for animal experimentation in the abstract, to further medicine and all, but the idea of killing a dog myself is a bit much for me (especially if it was a beagle). It is comforting to know that there are options for people like me. I feel I wouldn't mind so much if it were a pig or a cat, but I guess I'll deal with it when it comes up.

 

[ryandel]

I was accepted to MCW and will be attending fall 2002. During the tour, I asked my guide about the dog lab and whether there is one at MCW. She told me there is now a pig lab, because too many students felt uncomfortable regarding the dog lab. To be quite honest, I believe I will be opting to not participate in the pig lab.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

If dog:

Our idealisims would like us to act within our psychological depictions of an ideal world. But realities must temper these.

In an ideal world no unwanted pets would be born. Problems of strays would be non-existant. But it is not so.

Hoards of dogs are indeed strays. They must be controlled for civil society to function. This entails control measures. The measures are soft and hard. Soft: finding adoptees. Hard: euthanization. We as an individual can do all we can to abolish the later. But we are only one. We cannot control others. Unwanted dogs will exist. Those not adopted will need to be put down, unless we would like hugely expensive dog haciendas in each town, with a correspondingly huge bueracracy. I would venture that euthanizing dogs will always be part of life.

But within this reality, an opportunity for good can be had. We can LEARN from these animals. Their lives can be not totally wasted, thereby. True, that one Rover could not have a happy home. But he can perhaps contribute to other people living longer, so that other dogs can perhaps be adopted and have happy homes.

An "objection" vote by non-participation will meet no plausible end for dogs. So, in the hierarchy of ethics, and in the balance of idealism and realism, one may rightly be seen as able to learn from dog lab without any strain of conscience or loss of social statement.

If pig: is the pig being eaten by some better than others learning from it? If he were not learned from he simply be fattened for the slaughter.

 

[Spang]

Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•

An "objection" vote by non-participation will meet no plausible end for dogs. So, in the hierarchy of ethics, and in the balance of idealism and realism, one may rightly be seen as able to learn from dog lab without any strain of conscience or loss of social statement.

•••


You are 100% correct and your argument is completely logical. I agree strays will always exist and that there will always be a practical need to put them down.

But that logical need does not compel me to participate. I am quite certain many competent physicians completed their training without a dog lab.

My head says you're right, but it is my heart I must follow. Dogs may have to die but I don't have to take part.

Spang

 

[cchoukal]

I recall that a medical school in Colorado (there's probably only 1, and I don't know what it is) got some bad press 5-10 years ago over a similar dog lab, so they discontinued the practice. I'm surprised to hear MCW is still doing this.

 

[immediate]

I heard the same story about Colorado. From the earlier reply, it appears MCW may not be doing it any more. I don't make it back to the basic science side much now, so I have no idea. As far as needing a complex philosophical argument to justify participating or not, I guess I just a less complicated person. I learned a great deal from it. The animal did not suffer in any scientifically defined way and would be put down any way. I have grown up with dogs my whole life, including a total of 10, 5 of whom have had to be put down. They are just dogs and they are treated very well, up to the anesthetic induction.

 

[lilycat]

Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•If dog:

Our idealisims would like us to act within our psychological depictions of an ideal world. But realities must temper these.

In an ideal world no unwanted pets would be born. Problems of strays would be non-existant. But it is not so.

Hoards of dogs are indeed strays. They must be controlled for civil society to function. This entails control measures. The measures are soft and hard. Soft: finding adoptees. Hard: euthanization. We as an individual can do all we can to abolish the later. But we are only one. We cannot control others. Unwanted dogs will exist. Those not adopted will need to be put down, unless we would like hugely expensive dog haciendas in each town, with a correspondingly huge bueracracy. I would venture that euthanizing dogs will always be part of life.

But within this reality, an opportunity for good can be had. We can LEARN from these animals. Their lives can be not totally wasted, thereby. True, that one Rover could not have a happy home. But he can perhaps contribute to other people living longer, so that other dogs can perhaps be adopted and have happy homes.

An "objection" vote by non-participation will meet no plausible end for dogs. So, in the hierarchy of ethics, and in the balance of idealism and realism, one may rightly be seen as able to learn from dog lab without any strain of conscience or loss of social statement.

If pig: is the pig being eaten by some better than others learning from it? If he were not learned from he simply be fattened for the slaughter.•••

Your argument works fine, unless you consider schools such as UCSD that purchase their dogs directly from a breeder expressly for the purpose of dog lab. Breeding life excplicitly for the purpose of ending it, in a situation where there are alternatives to the procedure (as in the case of dog lab; please note I am not talking about medical experimentation here) troubles me.

However, this is old territory between me and Stephen -- for more info., check out this classic thread: <a href="http://www.studentdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001621" target="_blank">Dog Lab?</a>

 

[12R34Y]

I understand the logic of it......I just CAN'T emotionally DO it. I just couldn't. The logic of learning and such makes great sense. I just couldn't bring myself to participate in the lab.

later

 

[racergirl]

I know it's lame, but I still occasionally burst into tears when putting down my research animals, especially the healthy controls. And I work with MICE!

I know all the benefits. I know we are helping people. But for the mice, well, they pretty much get screwed.

I'd have to skip the dog lab. But this is a personal decision I think. Everyone needs to decide for themselves how they feel about it.

 

[ryandel]

My faculty interview at NYMC was going pretty well. I guess I trusted the professor and at the end of the interview I asked if there were dog labs at NYMC. He told me yes, and that they get their dogs from a breeder who breeds the dogs for the lab. My interviewer then asked me if I was in support of dog labs. I told him I would feel uncomfortable participating for personal reasons. I think my interviewer didn't like my response very much because he started discussing his run-ins with animal rights groups, etc. He also asked me if I was opposed to research on animals (which I'm not opposed to, if conducted humanely of course).
Needless to say, I was not surprised when I did not receive my acceptance letter.
From then on, I kept my questions at my next interviews sweet and generic- even if I really clicked with my faculty or student interviewer.

 

[Emcat]

Ryandel, that's the reason I didn't bring it up when I interviewed down at LSU-NO. I wanted to ask the student tour guides, but thought it may create some weirdness. So, does anybody know if LSU-NO has a dog lab? I know they at least used to. Is it at least optional? There is no way that I could do that. I wouldn't say I'm opposed to all research on animals, but in situations where there are viable alternatives, I am definitely opposed. I think the dog lab would qualify as such.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

Originally posted by Spang:
•
My head says you're right, but it is my heart I must follow.•••

Originally posted by 12R34Y:
•I understand the logic of it......I just CAN'T emotionally...bring myself to participate in the lab.•••

Originally posted by ryandel:
•My faculty interview at NYMC was going pretty well. I guess I trusted the professor and at the end of the interview I asked if there were dog labs at NYMC. He told me yes, and that they get their dogs from a breeder who breeds the dogs for the lab. My interviewer then asked me if I was in support of dog labs. I told him I would feel uncomfortable participating for personal reasons. I think my interviewer didn't like my response very much because he started discussing his run-ins with animal rights groups, etc. He also asked me if I was opposed to research on animals (which I'm not opposed to, if conducted humanely of course). Needless to say, I was not surprised when I did not receive my acceptance letter.
•••

Med school is about far more than learning facts. It is about being psycholgically conditioned into a way of thinking, and a way of approaching and viewing things.

Part of that must come about through what I call "a series of small, appropriate deaths to ourselves." In a sense, some certain part of us has to desensitize, die, in order for us to become the best possible physicians we can be.

Those "small deaths" frequently come about through series of decisions we have to make throughout the med edu process. Those decisions involve choices, sometimes hard, that go against our heart, our sentiment. We must follow our head. In doing this, we are conditioned into the whole psychology of being a physician. Dog lab, and things like cadaver disection for some, can be very important in all this; and it is probably for this reason more than any other that I support it, and in some sense, why they are even used.

The psychological conditioning we undergo, and the mindset of a physician we form during med school, can be just as important as the actual facts we learn there. We are training, not just learning. In fact, the conditionining and mindest in a real sense forms the very basis for us to best use the facts when it comes to working with/on patients--the conditioning makes the facts most usable. This is the wholistic process of becoming a physician.

For the physician, the head must be disciplined to take precedence over heart and emotion. This discipline is a choice. And discipline is not discipline except it come amidst conflict and some pain.

Think about it.

 

[ryandel]

Mr. Ewen, I have thought about it.

The tone of your last reply suggests that those individuals who do not wish to participate in the so-called dog labs have not thought logically regarding the value of their participation in the lab with respect to the practice of medicine.

I cannot speak for the rest of the individuals who have shared their views in this forum, but they seem to be intelligent soon to be physicians, indeed capable of making decisions that may cause internal conflict- sometimes conflict, as you put it, that pits the heart against the mind.

I know my decision to choose to not participate is based on my knowledge system, and I made my decision based on logic.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

Edit to quote was made.

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

In response to the logician Stephen Ewen,

Dog labs are unnecessary for learning, furthermore, I am learning to be a people doctor not a veterinarian so I think we should use prisoners who are going to be "put down anyway" for our experiments. I might also make a motion to use the strays found in parks on off/on-ramps etc. This would free up much time in the lives of pre-meds who feel they have to go feed them down at the soup kitchen to be accepted to med school. Sounds logical right? Lesson here kiddies is that logic is not always right, so follow your instinct. If your instinct tells you to hack rover so you can be a better doc, then have fun. If your instinct says that you shouldn't participate in outdated barbaric practices (like vivisection and dog labs) then don't do it. very simple

 

[mcwmark]

As an answer to the original question: Yes there is a dog lab, but no one is required to participate. About 75% of the class does participate.

I'll leave the ethics discussion to the others.

 

[Slingblade the Surgeon]

I wonder if there is a dog lab at NOVA...anybody know?

 

[Stephen Ewen]

I bet an admis rep could tell you.