Melbourne Uni - Surgeries in the news

[Nexx]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23530922-2,00.html

Dogs and pups operated on, then killed
By Eleni Hale
April 13, 2008 12:47am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

MELBOURNE University is using healthy dogs - some of them pregnant - for student vet operations, then killing the animals. The dogs are anaesthetised before students carry out surgical procedures, then put down before they are likely to regain consciousness.

A student who did not want to be named said she had been given a bitch carrying seven unborn pups for surgery practice. She said other students had been given two-month-old pups.

The university and its practices on dogs were dubbed "inhumane" by RSPCA Australia president Hugh Wirth . Dr Wirth yesterday urged an end to the practice at the Faculty of Veterinary Science on the Werribee campus.
Every year, dozens of dogs are taken out of the faculty's special "dog colony" - a row of cages - for student operations. Former student Lisa Elsner said: "Most dogs were absolutely petrified - so scared that the students couldn't walk them on a lead through the door of the hospital. "Some would lie close to the ground shaking all over, so in the end many had to be carried in." Dr Elsner, now a qualified vet, said she refused to operate on animals that were to be put down. Several other students claimed laboratories were often under-supervised - leaving baffled trainees to leaf through text books as they operated.

Dean of Veterinary Science Prof Ken Hinchcliff confirmed the surgery practice, but said it was common. "We use both dead and live animals in the instruction of veterinary students," he said. "Use of live animals is a small but vital part of our surgery teaching program before clinical training. "Dogs used in surgical teaching are anaesthetised before any surgical procedures are performed and are euthanised before awakening. "All animals are treated with the utmost care and compassion. All procedures, sourcing, and housing of animals ultimately used for teaching is with the approval of the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne."

Prof Hinchcliff refused to reveal where the dogs came from, saying only they were "donated".

An RSPCA spokesman said the society believed the university advertised for unwanted pets and former farm and breeding dogs. Greyhound Victoria admitted it provided dogs to the university. Dr Wirth said the use of the dogs was a waste of life. "We don't support any operations on live dogs by students," he said. "And we don't think that because a vet student has desexed one or two (dogs or cats) during their studies that it makes them a better vet."

Just wondering if this has been big news publicly over in Melbourne and what the school may have had to say on it... (as I figure it's only a matter of time before the same debate starts up over here)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[freyamaxine]

Its pretty big news over here. It was one of the main news topics on ABC news on Sunday night.

A few people at the vet school have been talking about it.

After lectures today we had a speaker (I came late because I thought uni was over, and rushed back when my friend told me we were having a talk).

Basically the school is a little confused by the RSPCA. The RSPCA never told Melbourne that it was not within guild lines, and then when Melbourne uni confronted them they said that we were within guide lines.

The school is very upset about Lisa Elsner's comments, as they felt that they went out of their way to accommodate her views while she was a student, and hoped that she would respect the schools views and the majority of the student populations views (that terminal surgery is a necessarily though undesirable part of the training).

The school is also upset that she would make these comments on the eve of Werribee Open day.

In a nut shell, the school thinks that someone make claims against Melbourne Uni to the RSPCA, and the RSPCA reacted by trying to save face, and in the process painted Melbourne uni in the worst possible light.

We are all hoping that the incident dies down. Melbourne University is a great uni and the Vet program is outstanding.

The public should be directing their concerns against such industry's as Greyhound racing and stray animal populations.

 

[Nexx]

Thanks for the reply! I just happened to come across the news article online, there hasn't been anything on our new yet.

Since we walked into classes first year the administrators have made sure to remind us (not that most of us needed it) that each animal for dissection, or live examination is to be treated with respect, and that we are lucky to have them essentially. Last year they even had an animal appreciation/remembrance day (although most of it was annoyingly scheduled during a 2nd year course that I happened to be taking at the time)

From the comments on the news sites I know there was some 'outrage' from the public--but yeah I agree public opinion and actions need to be changed before a huge change can occur in how students learn vet med procedures

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I'm really torn on things like this.

Personally, I think using live animals for things like practicing injections, blood draws, anesthesia, exploratory surgery, etc is necessary. You don't want the first dog you spay, or the first dog you ever actually put under, to be a client's.

However, I think terminal surgeries are totally unnecessary.

I do feel that Melbourne is probably being painted in the most unfair light possible, I know they're a *wonderful* school otherwise...but I really can't justify terminal surgeries, especially on colony dogs,

 

[Steelmagghia]

I'm not certain I like the idea of terminal surgeries, but I agree with WhtsthFrequency that live animals are necessary for veterinary students to properly learn surgery techniques.
However, this is a fairly common practice in veterinary medicine and since the university is obviously allowing students to refuse to do the surgeries (and complete the requirement some other way, I guess), I don't see why there is anything wrong with it.
I really think that particular vet who spoke to the newpaper really shot herself in the foot too.
I hate news stories involving animals in general, though. They are almost ALWAYS blown out of proportion and they always ignite some major response in the public that is usually the totally wrong response for the problem.
See any story about a pit bull, snake, or government funded animal shelter for example.

 

[freyamaxine]

but I really can't justify terminal surgeries, especially on colony dogs,

All of the dogs used in surgery and in the pre-clinical dissection labs are donated. They are going to be euthanized whether we do surgery on them or not.

I have heard that alot of the greyhounds used in the dog colony blood bank, are then adopted through the greyhound re-homing program.

 

[twelvetigers]

Blood donor greyhounds are fairly common. I have no problem with that - they're post-track greyhounds, and through the handling and training given while they are functioning as blood donors, they become more social and better for adoption. Also, it seems like there is usually at least one vet student that falls in love with each one, so they can get good homes that way as well.

From my experience, beagles are commonly used for research and terminal surgeries. Anyone know why this is?

 

[yankafaust]

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to let you know a few things. First of all this is the actual press release that the Melbourne Uni dean gave to the Herald Sun though a lot of it was strategically omitted.

Our primary concern is the health and well being of animals. All animals are treated with the utmost care and compassion at all times.
• We have an obligation to the public, and to animals, to produce graduates that are competent veterinarians. As veterinarians are not required to undertake an internship or residency after graduation, training in surgery during the undergraduate course is essential for competency in this core skill
• We use both dead and live animals in the instruction of veterinary students, as does every other reputable school of veterinary science in the world, including all established veterinary schools in Australia.
• Use of live animals is a small but vital part of our surgery teaching program before clinical training.
• Dogs used in surgical teaching are anesthetised before any surgical procedures are performed and are euthanased before awakening from anaesthesia.
• Euthanasia of dogs is performed by trained clinical staff.
• We strive at all times to minimise the use of live animals in teaching, and seek viable alternatives. As a result we are developing and utilising computer software (e.g. virtual surgery), models and inanimate materials, and ethically-sourced cadavers.
• All procedures, sourcing, and housing of animals ultimately used for teaching is with the approval of the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne. This committee includes veterinarians from outside the University, non-veterinarians, and an individual from an animal welfare organisation.
• Dogs used in teaching are donated to the University of Melbourne by their owner because of a desire to promote veterinary teaching and clinical investigation of injuries

and diseases of animals. The Faculty of Veterinary Science pays for the safe transportation of the dogs to the University.
• We do not use pound dogs.
• The Veterinary Clinic and Hospital runs the only registered blood bank for dogs in Australia and supplies blood and plasma to veterinarians for treatment of sick dogs. (See http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_4737.html)
• All dogs in the blood bank are offered for adoption at the end of their time in that program.
• From the appearance of the dogs and the environment in which the photographs were taken, the photographs that you emailed through to us appear to have been taken at the University of Melbourne’s dog colony. However they are at least two years old. The dogs lying on tables have been euthanased prior to use in student teaching.

It doesn't state it specifically but the greyhounds we use are used as blood donors first, and are walked and socialised by vet students voluntarily. They are then assessed by GAP (greyhound adoption program) only those that fail the program are then used for terminal surgeries. That means that either they are unsuitable around small animals or small children or in public etc.
The other dogs that we use are surplus farm dogs that basically have no socialisation and are not suitale as pets. All of them are to be euthanaised anyway. The dogs are premedicated with sedative as per normal and are at surgical anaesthesia level when the are euthanaised.

I also wanted to comment that Dr Hugh Wirth is the FORMER president of the RSPCA and was giving his personal opinion not speaking on the RS's behalf. At the current time the RSPCA has no policy regarding use of dogs in terminal surgeries and has made no statements on the matter.

 

[yankafaust]

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to let you know a few things. First of all this is the actual press release that the Melbourne Uni vet school dean gave to the Herald Sun though a lot of it was strategically omitted.

Our primary concern is the health and well being of animals. All animals are treated with the utmost care and compassion at all times.
• We have an obligation to the public, and to animals, to produce graduates that are competent veterinarians. As veterinarians are not required to undertake an internship or residency after graduation, training in surgery during the undergraduate course is essential for competency in this core skill
• We use both dead and live animals in the instruction of veterinary students, as does every other reputable school of veterinary science in the world, including all established veterinary schools in Australia.
• Use of live animals is a small but vital part of our surgery teaching program before clinical training.
• Dogs used in surgical teaching are anesthetised before any surgical procedures are performed and are euthanased before awakening from anaesthesia.
• Euthanasia of dogs is performed by trained clinical staff.
• We strive at all times to minimise the use of live animals in teaching, and seek viable alternatives. As a result we are developing and utilising computer software (e.g. virtual surgery), models and inanimate materials, and ethically-sourced cadavers.
• All procedures, sourcing, and housing of animals ultimately used for teaching is with the approval of the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of Melbourne. This committee includes veterinarians from outside the University, non-veterinarians, and an individual from an animal welfare organisation.
• Dogs used in teaching are donated to the University of Melbourne by their owner because of a desire to promote veterinary teaching and clinical investigation of injuries

and diseases of animals. The Faculty of Veterinary Science pays for the safe transportation of the dogs to the University.
• We do not use pound dogs.
• The Veterinary Clinic and Hospital runs the only registered blood bank for dogs in Australia and supplies blood and plasma to veterinarians for treatment of sick dogs. (See http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_4737.html)
• All dogs in the blood bank are offered for adoption at the end of their time in that program.
• From the appearance of the dogs and the environment in which the photographs were taken, the photographs that you emailed through to us appear to have been taken at the University of Melbourne's dog colony. However they are at least two years old. The dogs lying on tables have been euthanased prior to use in student teaching.

It doesn't state it specifically but the greyhounds we use are used as blood donors first, and are walked and socialised by vet students voluntarily. They are then assessed by GAP (greyhound adoption program) only those that fail the program are then used for terminal surgeries. That means that either they are unsuitable around small animals or small children or in public etc.
The other dogs that we use are surplus farm dogs that basically have no socialisation and are not suitale as pets. All of them are to be euthanaised anyway. The dogs are premedicated with sedative as per normal and are at surgical anaesthesia level when the are euthanaised.

I also wanted to comment that Dr Hugh Wirth is the FORMER president of the RSPCA and was giving his personal opinion not speaking on the RS's behalf. At the current time the RSPCA has no policy regarding use of dogs in terminal surgeries and has made no statements on the matter.

 

[Bill59]

From my experience, beagles are commonly used for research and terminal surgeries. Anyone know why this is?

Small but not too small, sturdy, short hair and easy to care for, good temperment

 

[twelvetigers]

That makes sense. They're very sweet dogs...which only makes it more difficult...

 

[ccrose3]

I came across this board when searching for information on Melbourne Uni from a student's perspective, since it is one of the universities I'm considering applying to next year. As a pre-vet student, this is an issue that is of primary concern to me as I have a very difficult time imagining performing an operation on a live animal in a non-recovery situation.

I would like to say first that I'm not trying to bash anyone's point of view, but just raise some questions. On one hand I can see the common-sense aspects of performing these surgeries, and the benefits vs. those performed on cadavers. Also, on a positive note, I like the fact that Melbourne utilizes these particular sources of animals instead of procuring them from companies that breed animals specifically for this purpose.

However, one big question that comes to mind is why is it that human doctors, even specialists, can go through their education without having to perform this kind of surgery? I'm sure this is a question that has been posed before, but I just haven't been able to find it on this board.

Most of the vet schools here in the US do require non-recovery situations, but a few have been able to move to a more progressive approach, and have had success with it. Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, one of the premier vet schools in the US, has successfully implemented an Educational Memorial Program: http://www.educationalmemorial.org/model.html

This seems to be a somewhat similar program to that that was mentioned at Melbourne, with the exception that the animals are already euthanized and preserved prior to surgery.

There have also been studies that show that students who learn primarily on cadavers treated with Heparin prior to death possess surgical competency on par with their counterparts. These studies were done at 3 of the premier universities in the US: Colorado State, Purdue and Tufts. Furthermore, after performing surgery on cadavers the students then assist in surgery in the same manner that human doctor (students) do in their training. Although all of the students that trained solely on cadavers had to demonstrate their competency in non-recovery situations, the study did prove that these students could successfully and skillfully perform these surgeries on their own.

As someone who always questions the status quo, but doesn't have the insight and knowledge of a vet student, I would like to know what your thoughts are on these types of programs and how feasible they are, both in implementation and training. Again, I'd like to stress that I don't mean to undermine anyone's opinions on this matter, but am just trying to question whether there are other alternatives. At the moment I feel as if the only difference between how human and veterinary doctors approach their training is in the value in which society places on different species' lives.

I know that no veterinary student likes the idea of non-recovery surgeries, and only do so because they feel it is an essential part of their training, but at the same time I think if there are other alternatives that can prove to be just as beneficial, while holding the value of other animals' lives on par with ours, universities should try to progress in that direction.

I would really like others' opinions on this, whether you agree or disagree. It is always helpful to be able to see an issue from other's perspectives. Thanks in advance for any information and/or advice you could give.

 

[StealthDog]

However, one big question that comes to mind is why is it that human doctors, even specialists, can go through their education without having to perform this kind of surgery?

Human doctors are not allowed to perform surgery after finishing their four years of med school, while veterinarians are. If we had to do a required residency in order to perform common surgeries like spays and neuters, the cost of those surgeries would rise dramatically. Consider how much more money human surgeons make than general practitioners!

At the moment I feel as if the only difference between how human and veterinary doctors approach their training is in the value in which society places on different species' lives.

Agreed that animals are not valued as highly as human lives, which is why we vets have to be trained in surgery as quickly and efficiently as possible. Again, compare the salary of a human surgeon versus a vet- we do surgery for a fraction of the cost, and I don't know many pet owners who would pay $30,000 to fix their dog's cruciate tear.

You also have to consider that many human medical school have their students perform terminal surgeries on dogs as they learn surgical techniques. I heard Dr. Bernie Rollin tell a story about approaching the dean of a medical school to try and get them to reduce the number of dogs used in their terminal surgeries. The dean's response? "You're not a doctor until you've killed a dog." Ew. All the animals that I've seen used at the vet school, whether for dissections, surgeries, blood donors, or terminal surgeries, have been treated with the utmost respect.

 

[ccrose3]

Human doctors are not allowed to perform surgery after finishing their four years of med school, while veterinarians are. If we had to do a required residency in order to perform common surgeries like spays and neuters, the cost of those surgeries would rise dramatically. Consider how much more money human surgeons make than general practitioners!
Well that isn't something I knew (re: the yrs of med school), so that is good information to know. I think a big part of how much money human surgeons make also comes from insurance companies, because most people can't afford the bulk of the charges (I know this all too well from personal experience).

Agreed that animals are not valued as highly as human lives, which is why we vets have to be trained in surgery as quickly and efficiently as possible. Again, compare the salary of a human surgeon versus a vet- we do surgery for a fraction of the cost, and I don't know many pet owners who would pay $30,000 to fix their dog's cruciate tear.
Yes, I have to agree, I can't argue this point that people wouldn't pay that for their dog's surgery, but then again if I didn't have insurance I probably wouldn't have been able to pay the $25000 it took for my reconstructive knee surgery, either, or the 1.5 million it took for my sister's brain surgeries and rehab. It is a shame, though that this is the reality. This may also be the reason that not all, but many people don't respect veterinarians as much as human doctors (most people I come in contact with don't even know it's a doctorate degree). Perhaps the move toward pet insurance will change this, although the vets I've worked with have many different views on how this is affecting the industry (it causes many problems for humans, after all). Of course I guess I am one of those people that HAS paid thousands of dollars for the care of a pet, but I know that's not the norm.
You also have to consider that many human medical school have their students perform terminal surgeries on dogs as they learn surgical techniques. I heard Dr. Bernie Rollin tell a story about approaching the dean of a medical school to try and get them to reduce the number of dogs used in their terminal surgeries. The dean's response? "You're not a doctor until you've killed a dog." Ew. Wow, that's an eye-opening story. All the animals that I've seen used at the vet school, whether for dissections, surgeries, blood donors, or terminal surgeries, have been treated with the utmost respect.

Yes I know med students perform those surgeries on dogs also, and again, it's sad that the value of a dog's life is so much less than a human's and that's why this happens. I just don't think people would be accepting of the statement "all the humans that were used for terminal surgeries were treated with the utmost respect." While I'm sure that the dogs were in the eyes of the students, the fact that they can be viewed as disposable lives is hard to correlate with the word respect. However, if it comes down to it, which it does for most vet students, I know they would bite the bullet and perform the surgeries so they can help other animals in the future, even if they don't agree with it. I personally know some vet students that have done just that, and although they didn't agree with it, since they didn't have a choice they performed the surgeries and knew they would be able to make a difference in many other animals' lives.

I don't doubt that any vet student treats these animals with respect, and I know they do what they do with the best intentions and feel like they are doing the right thing. I am just trying to look at other options, and having seen respected universities implement these newer programs, I am curious as to why others have not. Have these other universities tried to implement these programs but found them wanting, or have they not because they really are not up to the same standard?

This is an issue that weighs heavily on my conscience, so I appreciate your input. Given no other choice, I don't know what else I could do besides perform the surgeries so that I could become a vet also. However, I would feel better about doing so if I knew for a fact that there were absolutely no other options. If using solely cadavers isn't an option, perhaps there could be a movement toward universities procuring the animals used for non-recovery surgeries from willed pets or other animals whose fate would have been the same anyway, as was mentioned by the student from Melbourne. This may at least be a good compromise for those on both sides of the fence. This is something I know I would have a little bit of an easier time with than using animals bred for the purpose or unwanted adoptable animals.

As someone who values the lives of pets on the same level as humans, it is very difficult for me to balance my personal ethics with what is required in order for me to go into this profession.

Hopefully with society beginning to slowly move in the direction of making their pets part of the family, the value placed on their lives and our profession will change for the better. Thanks again for your advice and explanation of your point of view.

 

[freyamaxine]

There has been a student in the past that has gone through Melbourne Uni without doing terminal surgeries.

I think she had very strong feelings.

I would email the uni with any concerns you might be having about this issue. They are very friendly and would be more than happy to help

 

[StealthDog]

I just don't think people would be accepting of the statement "all the humans that were used for terminal surgeries were treated with the utmost respect."

Again, I don't think it's appropriate here to be comparing humans to animals. We also don't euthanize thousands of humans a day due to overpopulation. At the U of MN, the animals we use are research animals that are at the end of their research career, at which point they will either be euthanized, or used for a terminal surgery and then euthanized. They are also not used only for the surgery- afterwards, any body parts that can be donated for organ transplants are taken, any parts that can be used for tools in other labs are taken, etc. They are not wasted lives. I am more sad about the thousands of animals euthanized in the back of shelters and cremated than I am about the dogs used for our terminal surgery labs. Society seems really upset by vet students doing terminal surgeries, but turns a blind eye to the dogs and cats euthanized in shelters. I'm not sure why the difference.

Given no other choice, I don't know what else I could do besides perform the surgeries so that I could become a vet also. However, I would feel better about doing so if I knew for a fact that there were absolutely no other options.

I can't speak for other schools, but at the U of MN, participation in the terminal surgery lab is optional. Actually, participation in any lab that requires the use of live animals is optional (including observing our anesthesiologist induce and intubate a dog, learning suture patterns on animals that had been euthanized at the humane society, etc). Anyway, I would say most if not all schools in the US now offer some sort of alternative, at least for small animal terminal surgery labs. I think the AVAR has a chart of which schools offer alternatives. You are not alone in not wanting to participate in these labs!

On that note, I am off to spay a humane society kitty, which is a much less morally and ethically taxing type of surgery lab

 

[ccrose3]

Again, I don't think it's appropriate here to be comparing humans to animals. We also don't euthanize thousands of humans a day due to overpopulation. I think that reiterates my point. If society would have more respect for pets, we wouldn't euthanize thousands of animals a day due to overpopulation. I find that totally unethical as well, which is why I have only worked for non-profits that are trying to make a difference in this regard. There is a very good reason to question how we treat animals' lives as compared to humans, because they suffer for the lack of respect that society has for them (hence the overpopulation problems). So, it is an unfortunate comparison but one that's undeniable.At the U of MN, the animals we use are research animals that are at the end of their research career, at which point they will either be euthanized, or used for a terminal surgery and then euthanized. They are also not used only for the surgery- afterwards, any body parts that can be donated for organ transplants are taken, any parts that can be used for tools in other labs are taken, etc. They are not wasted lives. Well again, I just think where the animals are procured from makes a difference in this regard. By wasted I mean their lives are disposable, not that they weren't used for any purpose, which they obviously were. I am more sad about the thousands of animals euthanized in the back of shelters and cremated than I am about the dogs used for our terminal surgery labs. Society seems really upset by vet students doing terminal surgeries, but turns a blind eye to the dogs and cats euthanized in shelters. I'm not sure why the difference. Actually, I don't. I have volunteered and/or worked at humane societies, kill shelters, and now a non-profit spay/neuter clinic. The thousands of animals euthanized every day that you mentioned is precisely why I do this, as well as foster animals on the kill list at the local kill shelter. I don't know about other people in general, all I know is about myself, and I don't see a difference between the two morally.



I can't speak for other schools, but at the U of MN, participation in the terminal surgery lab is optional. Actually, participation in any lab that requires the use of live animals is optional (including observing our anesthesiologist induce and intubate a dog, learning suture patterns on animals that had been euthanized at the humane society, etc). Anyway, I would say most if not all schools in the US now offer some sort of alternative, at least for small animal terminal surgery labs. I think the AVAR has a chart of which schools offer alternatives. You are not alone in not wanting to participate in these labs! Thanks, that's good to know. At least I may have other options.

On that note, I am off to spay a humane society kitty, which is a much less morally and ethically taxing type of surgery lab

That's terrific to hear; I know the vet students here in my state do many of those surgeries every year at the humane society and it makes a huge difference. Thanks again for your time. We obviously don't agree on some points, but I'm just trying to get some questions answered and find out about alternatives, so you have helped me accomplished that. Hopefully you know that despite our differences, I do appreciate your taking the time to give me this information.

 

[ccrose3]

There has been a student in the past that has gone through Melbourne Uni without doing terminal surgeries.

I think she had very strong feelings.

I would email the uni with any concerns you might be having about this issue. They are very friendly and would be more than happy to help

Freyamaxine, thank you so much for this info; I will definitely follow your advice. I'll post anything I find out from them on this matter here in case others are interested. Melbourne sounds like a great school and I hope to visit this coming March.

 

[cscip]

Hey guys, butting into your discussion... This is an issue I have been torn about for some time now. Sometimes I feel that I can understand how the ends justify the means, and I've heard practically every logical argument in favor of terminal surgery as a teaching tool. However, the majority of the time I just feel so basely repulsed by the idea I figure it cannot be right.

That being said, Ohio State doesn't perform terminal surgeries so I won't have to deal with that internal struggle in the immediate future. Apparently they had some legal problems with a student in the past. From what I understand, at least a few of the top US schools have done away with terminal surgeries or are moving away from them.

 

[cateyes]

at my interview they told me that there was one we had to perform...this isn't true?

 

[cscip]

Hey cateyes, that's really strange because I heard this story at my interview. When we were on the tour we saw students prepping for surgery and I asked "Do you guys do terminal surgeries here?" and they freaked out. They said no, absolutely not, because a student sued them several years ago over the issue. The crazy part is that the student won the law suit! From what I understood, they practice on cadavers and then do live surgeries on adopted shelter animals. I guess we will find out soon!

 

[cateyes]

I guess we will! I bet you're right about the terminal surgeries...It was one of the questions they asked me at my interview, and they probably just wanted to see what my reaction was.