Terminal surgeries?

[168135]

This thread has given me a lot to think about. I'd be okay doing a one-time surgery on an animal that is headed for euthanisation. Now I want to look into the school that I'll be applying to. I know every student or group of students have a beagle that they are omg excited to name and care for but I have no idea why. If the school is getting these beagles shipped in to do something like that, I couldn't do it. With shelter animals, you won't be adding to the overpopulation. I can't find any information on what they use these beagles for... could be for something completely different... but I know a couple of people who currently go there who'd be able to answer my question. So thanks for reminding me of that

I got into a competative vet tech program by explaining why I'm okay with learning surgical procedures on shelter animals that were due to be euthanized because of behavioral or health problems and why I wasn't okay doing them on anything else.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thedogisgreen]

it seems to be the same question as last year "Do you support the use of animals in teaching and research?" so i'm not sure why you say it is "less loaded"

at the beginning of this thread, someone had posted that the question from two years ago, so the cycle before you, was directly about terminal surgeries.

Just remember to answer the question because I have heard that schools mark you down for forgetting to answer specifically what the question asks. So don't forget to talk about animals both in teaching and research .

Good point, I was talking mostly about use in teaching. Research, that's another huge issue, and I can't figure out a straightforward opinion about that. I'm so mixed on what to write, this is all so intense!

 

[Highlsnds3]

I think schools have come a LONG way with how the terminal sx are being done. A vet I used to work for went to UTK in the late 80's early 90's. They used to have a dog that would be "theirs". They would do various sx on them, recover them and see them through the entire recovery process, then have to euthanize them (no they were not allowed to adopt ANY of them). That, to me, if VERY harsh. My understanding is that they went from that, to having a beagle breeder supply dogs for terminal sx, and now (again, from what I understand) they use shelter dogs that are already slated for euthanasia. This is something I have no problem with. I think that until society gets progressive enough that there are a shortage of unwanted pets every school should adopt a similar policy.

Off topic, I think it would benefit every vet school to offer free spay/ neuter (and other sx) to sight hound rescue groups as they have such different sedation requirements. There may be other breeds that do as well, but I'm only familiar with sight hounds

 

[luplodw]

Couldn't they have picked some ugly breed of dog and not cute beagles

 

[168135]

Like pugs?

I think I'm just asking to get slapped.

Their eyes freak me out a little though.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

Couldn't they have picked some ugly breed of dog and not cute beagles

Here's a vote for Jack Russel Terriers. Damn little devils.

 

[NStarz]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I don't find it appropriate to pit one dog breed against another in terms of which animals should be bred for terminal surgeries. Almost as bad as BSL, IMO.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I don't find it appropriate to pit one dog breed against another in terms of which animals should be bred for terminal surgeries. Almost as bad as BSL, IMO.

My comment was in complete jest. Sorry if I offended you. I actually fully support the shelter animals destined for euthanasia to use for the terminal surgeries.

 

[alliecat44]

Off topic, I think it would benefit every vet school to offer free spay/ neuter (and other sx) to sight hound rescue groups as they have such different sedation requirements. There may be other breeds that do as well, but I'm only familiar with sight hounds

Off-topic, but just wanted to comment that this is a common misconception. Sighthounds do NOT require "special" anesthetic protocols.

Just wanted to inform since it was brought up.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Sighthounds do NOT require "special" anesthetic protocols.

Weeeeeelll its sort of true in a way. Sighthounds traditionally have very little body fat. That DOES make you change your anesthetic protocols slightly because it means it'll take longer for them to come out of it if you slam them in the beginning due to drug metabolism. However it applies to all skinny dogs. Just that sighthounds are usually thin. But yea, all the stuff about the hundred million drugs not to use on sighthounds is overdone....I'd go easy on the acepromazine for pre-induction sedation, use the lower end of the range.... but would still totally feel comfortable using it unless there had been a previous bizarro issue with that particular dog.

 

[alliecat44]

Weeeeeelll its sort of true in a way. Sighthounds traditionally have very little body fat. That DOES make you change your anesthetic protocols slightly because it means it'll take longer for them to come out of it if you slam them in the beginning due to drug metabolism. However it applies to all skinny dogs. Just that sighthounds are usually thin. But yea, all the stuff about the hundred million drugs not to use on sighthounds is overdone....I'd go easy on the acepromazine for pre-induction sedation, use the lower end of the range.... but would still totally feel comfortable using it unless there had been a previous bizarro issue with that particular dog.

Exactly. Nothing to do with breed, only body condition--which is true regardless of breed, as you pointed out.

I'm so sick of all these breeders with their contracts/"information" handouts to owners regarding anesthetic protocols--not just sighthounds but ANY breed--claiming it has "special needs." No, it really doesn't...sigh.

 

[david594]

Exactly. Nothing to do with breed, only body condition--which is true regardless of breed, as you pointed out.

I'm so sick of all these breeders with their contracts/"information" handouts to owners regarding anesthetic protocols--not just sighthounds but ANY breed--claiming it has "special needs." No, it really doesn't...sigh.

I've seen some small breed dog breeders send home handouts saying their animals should only be vaccinated with 1/2 the volume of the vaccine because of the size of the dog.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Exactly. Nothing to do with breed, only body condition--which is true regardless of breed, as you pointed out.

I'm so sick of all these breeders with their contracts/"information" handouts to owners regarding anesthetic protocols--not just sighthounds but ANY breed--claiming it has "special needs." No, it really doesn't...sigh.

I think you are arguing semantics here, which seems especially inappropriate when dealing with lay people... (Note... I am a pet owner of sighthounds... IGs).

As dogs with certain "body conditions" do require different protocols and most sighthounds have that body condition and most other breeds do not, it is easy for a lay person to state imprecisely that sighthounds are different.

You are an educated person with a specific interest in anesthesia if I recall. There are plenty of mediocre vets out there who may not be quite as on top of things as you are. Is it so hard to believe the breeders who feel a few bad apples have treated their "skinny" dogs the same as the 99% of labs, goldens, etc that they normally treat? If I learned anything from our previous discussion on anesthesia is that there is a wide range of methods of practicing this in the field, and not all of it is textbook protocol.

Are there exaggerations going on? Sure! But I would guess the problem didn't start with the breeders or the owners, but with the vets who weren't careful and professional.

It is our job to educate our clients. Give em a break. At least they care.

 

[StealthDog]

Yes, I think the issue with anesthesia is that you need to discuss with owners that every pet should have a unique anesthestic plan created specifically for their pet- you don't make a plan based only on species or breed or age, but based on every aspect of their pet that might affect their anesthetic risks. That said, I think sometimes we have to be careful with the ideas that owners come in with... i.e., the myth that dogs with a history of seizures shouldn't get ace because it "lowers the seizure threshold" may be a myth, but there are SO many sources that report it as "fact" that I probably wouldn't use ace in an epileptic because of what owners might have heard about it.

 

[alliecat44]

I think you are arguing semantics here, which seems especially inappropriate when dealing with lay people... (Note... I am a pet owner of sighthounds... IGs).

As dogs with certain "body conditions" do require different protocols and most sighthounds have that body condition and most other breeds do not, it is easy for a lay person to state imprecisely that sighthounds are different.

You are an educated person with a specific interest in anesthesia if I recall. There are plenty of mediocre vets out there who may not be quite as on top of things as you are. Is it so hard to believe the breeders who feel a few bad apples have treated their "skinny" dogs the same as the 99% of labs, goldens, etc that they normally treat? If I learned anything from our previous discussion on anesthesia is that there is a wide range of methods of practicing this in the field, and not all of it is textbook protocol.

Are there exaggerations going on? Sure! But I would guess the problem didn't start with the breeders or the owners, but with the vets who weren't careful and professional.

I understand exactly what you're saying, and perhaps on a (mostly) layperson's board it IS a question of semantics. Sorry about that. My point, semantic though it was, is the same as the other students/vets were saying (and they were more concise and clear)--that anesthetic protocols should be based on the individual patient, not some incorrect arbitrary rule that "such and such breed CAN'T have this or it will DIE."

Certainly signalment (including breed) has to be taken into account (helloooo, brachycephalics) but it's only one piece of the puzzle and nothing linked to specific breed sensitivities for any particular drug--which is the idea bandied about by many breeders/clients. That's all I meant to say in the first place.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I understand exactly what you're saying, and perhaps on a (mostly) layperson's board it IS a question of semantics. Sorry about that. My point, semantic though it was, is the same as the other students/vets were saying (and they were more concise and clear)--that anesthetic protocols should be based on the individual patient, not some incorrect arbitrary rule that "such and such breed CAN'T have this or it will DIE."

Certainly signalment (including breed) has to be taken into account (helloooo, brachycephalics) but it's only one piece of the puzzle and nothing linked to specific breed sensitivities for any particular drug--which is the idea bandied about by many breeders/clients. That's all I meant to say in the first place.

No argument there!

 

[Highlsnds3]

Well, the reason I specifically stated sight hounds (actually didn't know some people have objections to certain drugs being used on them), was that I personally have worked with vets that do not take into consideration the specific animal. They say the dog weighs X so it gets X amount of XYZ. They are willing to sedate a 50# sighthound the same way they sedate a 50# beagle. I understand that the metabolism is completely different in a dog with little or no body fat, compared to one that has plenty to spare. That's why I stated that there are different sedation requirements These vets were not recent grads, and maybe they just had not worked with "skinny" dogs enough to have it cross their minds, (most pets around here are very un-skinny) . I know there are a lot of practices out there that are current on sedation protocols, but I also know there are a lot that are outdated. There are vets in my area that do not use (they do not even carry) drugs for sedation that can be reversed. The most concession (at one clinic) is to use Telazol on young or infirm animals. Cats all got Ace/Ketamine and dogs all got Pentothal. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, just that I know that there are some better alternatives out there. When we become new grads it would be great to think we will all get great jobs at wonderful state of the art clinics with top of the line EVERYTHING, but the reality is that some of us will be practicing in clinics where everything is 20 or more years behind current standards.

So, I guess the whole point of this is that one day a vet 10 years out of school will for the first time in his or her rural practice get a sight hound (or some other skinny dog) and not just treat it like every other dog that comes through that weighs the same.

 

[Sandie]

Do the following universities practice terminal surgeries? Are they required or electives? Where do the subjects come from?

Colorado State
UC Davis
Texas A&M
Cornell
Glasgow
Sydney
Melbourne
London
Dublin
Edinburgh

 

[heylodeb]

Do the following universities practice terminal surgeries? Are they required or electives? Where do the subjects come from?

Colorado State
UC Davis
Texas A&M
Cornell
Glasgow
Sydney
Melbourne
London
Dublin
Edinburgh

Davis does not. However - we have an AWESOME surgical rotation where surgeries are done for members of the community who are unable to afford full price and allows their students to get surgical experience on more than spays and neuters. (amputations, mass removals, orthopedic surgery....CAN'T WAIT!)

 

[anotherbusybee]

Just wanted to say... a LOT (and I mean, a lot) of research institutions perform terminal procedures. So, even if the veterinary school specifically does not ask their students to perform terminal surgeries, terminal procedures can still happen elsewhere on the campus.

My two cents.

 

[Foxhunter]

Just wanted to say... a LOT (and I mean, a lot) of research institutions perform terminal procedures. So, even if the veterinary school specifically does not ask their students to perform terminal surgeries, terminal procedures can still happen elsewhere on the campus.

My two cents.

This is definitely true.

 

[cbarne01]

Thank you all for sharing your views, I've learned a lot about the beliefs and practices in different areas.

 

[Sandie]

Just because it happens (it's legal) does not make it right (ethical). Some universities do not do it and their graduates go on to have successful careers. Hopefully it is phased out and the law changes. I would like to go to a university that recognizes this and is helping to move the policy forward rather than hold it back.

 

[twelvetigers]

Well, Western University has an entire reverence for life policy in place.

http://www.westernu.edu/veterinary-reverence

 

[futurehealervet]

An argument that has cropped up throughout this thread has been bugging me. Unless Im mistaken, it seems that one justification for terminal surgeries is that the shelter animals will be killed anyway and this way, at least their deaths have more meaning. However, it makes sense that veterinarians should be at the forefront of attempting to end the pet overpopulation problem and I know that is the case. This justification seems to hamper the effort of veterinarians to fix this rapidly growing problem. Isn't it contradictory to push for spaying and neutering, banning puppy mills, and promoting adoption while at the same time becoming dependent on the "extra" animals?

 

[485501]

An argument that has cropped up throughout this thread has been bugging me. Unless Im mistaken, it seems that one justification for terminal surgeries is that the shelter animals will be killed anyway and this way, at least their deaths have more meaning. However, it makes sense that veterinarians should be at the forefront of attempting to end the pet overpopulation problem and I know that is the case. This justification seems to hamper the effort of veterinarians to fix this rapidly growing problem. Isn't it contradictory to push for spaying and neutering, banning puppy mills, and promoting adoption while at the same time becoming dependent on the "extra" animals?

I would say that if schools were actually dependent on there being 'enough' animals slated for euthanasia, then it would be contradictory. However, I would guess that the number of animals used for terminal surgeries is nowhere near the number of animals euthanized at shelters near vet schools that perform terminal surgeries. Does anyone have any numbers on this?

 

[bunnity]

An argument that has cropped up throughout this thread has been bugging me. Unless Im mistaken, it seems that one justification for terminal surgeries is that the shelter animals will be killed anyway and this way, at least their deaths have more meaning. However, it makes sense that veterinarians should be at the forefront of attempting to end the pet overpopulation problem and I know that is the case. This justification seems to hamper the effort of veterinarians to fix this rapidly growing problem. Isn't it contradictory to push for spaying and neutering, banning puppy mills, and promoting adoption while at the same time becoming dependent on the "extra" animals?

First, overpopulation is not growing and has vastly improved over the last 25 years. Vets ARE at the forefront of spay/neuter programs, which are the most effective way to reduce shelter euthanasia. My school, like many schools, has us learn spays on shelter animals that we make great effort to place into homes.

Second, while I am not a fan of terminal surgeries, I think it's more of "let's give some meaning to and gain some knowledge from this animal's inevitable and unfortunate death" versus "let's support a steady supply of shelter animals." Considering that 3-4 million animals are euthanized in shelters yearly and there are only probably a couple hundred animals being used in this type of terminal surgery program, I don't think there's much of a supply and demand problem going on. I think schools are moving away from terminal surgeries a lot faster than we are solving overpopulation.

 

[sumstorm]

Additionally, not all terminal surgeries are performed on cats/dogs. While we are not required to participate in terminal surgeries, there is a terminal surgery in our core program. We use pigs for that surgery. In our electives, we have other terminal surgeries, but as far as I am aware, none are on dogs or cats. So I know we have had terminal surgery opportunities on fish, rodents, rabbits, chickens,and pigs. We also had a client donate a horse for a group terminal colic surgery (the horse was going to be euthanized for another pathological condition.)

 

[Foxhunter]

I'm going to reiterate that just because students aren't doing terminal surgeries, if there is research occurring on a school's campus there are most certainly terminal surgeries occurring, more than likely at a greater frequency than any school would use them for educational programs. If you're truly against terminal surgeries this is something to think about. I guess because to some extent education programs are more publicized there has been a much bigger push to remove terminal surgeries from them.

 

[NStarz]

Foxhunter, while that may be true, they are different issues for me. Research is one thing, personally performing terminal surgeries for my veterinary education was not something I was willing to do for my education (if I had a choice).

 

[sumstorm]

out of curiosity, what is the difference in working on a cadaver for ones education and doing a terminal surgery?

 

[NStarz]

out of curiosity, what is the difference in working on a cadaver for ones education and doing a terminal surgery?

Just a personal opinion. I guess there really isn't a huge difference.

 

[cbarne01]

out of curiosity, what is the difference in working on a cadaver for ones education and doing a terminal surgery?

There is a huge difference between live animals and cadavers wrt surgical practice. Dead tissue looses hydration, flexibility and response to stimuli (reflexes, pain, etc.) which means that while dissection of a cadaver may allow one to view structures, the texture and tension will not be the same. Add the "feel" of cutting with a scalpel or pushing a needle, and the kinesthetic learning involved in surgical practice is no longer educationally valid. Another aspect is the fluctuations in blood pressure, body temperature, respiration, etc that occur during surgery. I sure wouldn't want a vet to perform surgery on my pet if they've only seen things go wrong and have never had the opportunity to fix a similar problem.

 

[NStarz]

There is a huge difference between live animals and cadavers wrt surgical practice. Dead tissue looses hydration, flexibility and response to stimuli (reflexes, pain, etc.) which means that while dissection of a cadaver may allow one to view structures, the texture and tension will not be the same. Add the "feel" of cutting with a scalpel or pushing a needle, and the kinesthetic learning involved in surgical practice is no longer educationally valid. Another aspect is the fluctuations in blood pressure, body temperature, respiration, etc that occur during surgery. I sure wouldn't want a vet to perform surgery on my pet if they've only seen things go wrong and have never had the opportunity to fix a similar problem.

...I think she meant ethically

 

[cbarne01]

Well that would make sense too!

 

[Goknights55]

Does auburn perform terminal surgeries? It sure seems like they do (with the questions they have asked people) but I cant find any concrete answer to it. I know that if they do the dogs are purpose bred for the task of research/ practice but in that case why? Why would you have more dogs created to do this instead of using dogs that will be killed in shelters anyway? I really want to know the other side to this argument so I am prepared in my interview

 

[Minnerbelle]

Why would you have more dogs created to do this instead of using dogs that will be killed in shelters anyway? I really want to know the other side to this argument so I am prepared in my interview

I think it has a lot to do with bad memories of the olden days when dealers would take dogs from shelters and sell them for research. How do you think people will react if their dog got lost and they found out that the dog was used for surgical practice and put down on the table? It's already bad enough when that lost dog is euthanized at the shelter or adopted out... But I think that would put a lot of people over the edge. It does seem silly that breeding dogs specifically for that purpose is any better, but from the shelter's side there isn't much incentive for them to agree to this kind of agreement. Just a whole lot of negative press and controversy, which is horrible for private nonprofits that rely on donations. Plus, if these dogs are being put down for aggression, I'm not sure they're ideal dogs for students to practice anesthesia on...

 

[hygebeorht]

Everyone has a corner of vet met where they have super-strong opinions. Just like that vegan/vegetarian thread. I personally don't have major problems with terminal surgeries, but I do with declawing and to a lesser extent ear cropping and tail docking.

Obviously terminal surgeries are a big deal to some people. A girl raised her hand to ask Cornell about it at the info session I was at. I was like, what are terminal surgeries? Then I thought for 5 seconds and was like, oh, really? If an unwanted animal is going to be euthanized anyway, why waste its death?

 

[wildcatj]

Who knew this thread would blow up? :eyeroll:

Everyone has a corner of vet met where they have super-strong opinions. Just like that vegan/vegetarian thread. I personally don't have major problems with terminal surgeries, but I do with declawing and to a lesser extent ear cropping and tail docking. I'm sure a bunch of people will jump down my throat about my opinion, but honestly, who cares? I'm not going to change any minds here.

Obviously terminal surgeries are a big deal to some people. A girl raised her hand to ask Cornell about it at the info session I was at. I was like, what are terminal surgeries? Then I thought for 5 seconds and was like, oh, really? Who cares? If an unwanted animal is going to be euthanized anyway, why waste its death?

I know you have made comments in other threads that have struck people as less than stellar and that you've said it's just the way you come off and not your intention. Now I am someone who this can happen to in daily life and I truly don't recognize that I am coming off in a negative light. I always ask that people tell me when I'm being a dick and I'm going to do the same for you here.

This post just comes across as belittling in it's entirety. I haven't read through the entire thread in a while, but if I remember correctly it was, for the most part, a productive discussion on terminal surgeries. Even if it had blown up, there are many pre vet students who don't know they may have to perform these surgeries in school and may want to consider that when they make their decision. Why is that so wrong?

So who cares? A lot of people. Why should their opinions not matter? What was the point of this post? Because all I see is you taking the opportunity to make other people feel bad. And that's not ok.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using SDN Mobile

 

[twelvetigers]

Who knew this thread would blow up? :eyeroll:

Everyone has a corner of vet met where they have super-strong opinions. Just like that vegan/vegetarian thread. I personally don't have major problems with terminal surgeries, but I do with declawing and to a lesser extent ear cropping and tail docking. I'm sure a bunch of people will jump down my throat about my opinion, but honestly, who cares? I'm not going to change any minds here.

Obviously terminal surgeries are a big deal to some people. A girl raised her hand to ask Cornell about it at the info session I was at. I was like, what are terminal surgeries? Then I thought for 5 seconds and was like, oh, really? Who cares? If an unwanted animal is going to be euthanized anyway, why waste its death?

This thread was dead for A MONTH before someone asked a question about Auburn. It was created 14 days before you even joined SDN. But thanks for passing judgement.

Certain topics make their rotations on these boards - they come up, they get argued about, and then the threads die down again. Veganism/vegetarianism, cheating/ethics, terminal surgeries, school prestige, DVM vs. MD/DO, specifics of pet care and how to deal with mistreatment - these things come up several times a year. It happens.

Kudos on generating the first ever argument on dress code, though!

 

[felinelvr44]

Who knew this thread would blow up? :eyeroll:

Everyone has a corner of vet met where they have super-strong opinions. Just like that vegan/vegetarian thread. I personally don't have major problems with terminal surgeries, but I do with declawing and to a lesser extent ear cropping and tail docking. I'm sure a bunch of people will jump down my throat about my opinion, but honestly, who cares? I'm not going to change any minds here.

Obviously terminal surgeries are a big deal to some people. A girl raised her hand to ask Cornell about it at the info session I was at. I was like, what are terminal surgeries? Then I thought for 5 seconds and was like, oh, really? Who cares? If an unwanted animal is going to be euthanized anyway, why waste its death?

Snark aside, would you mind sharing Cornell's response? No one asked/I forgot during my info session and this is an issue I care about.

 

[EngrSC]

Is anyone else on the fence about terminal surgeries? On one hand I support them because the animals used would be euthanized anyway so why not give them a great purpose prior, but on the other hand it feels ethically wrong to me. I've done so much thinking about it but I can't seem to lean one way or the other ... anyone else out there feel this way??

 

[hygebeorht]

My apologies. I wrote my response without reading the whole thread, which was lazy. From some of what I read the first page it seemed like it was going to turn into a festival of GIFs and butthurt. Next time I'll be less rash, because there is actually a lot of very considered discussion here.

To answer the question, the answer was they mostly do not do terminal surgeries, but there are some. It was vague.

 

[Foxhunter]

Kudos on generating the first ever argument on dress code, though!

 

[Foxhunter]

My apologies. I wrote my response without reading the whole thread, which was lazy. From some of what I read the first page it seemed like it was going to turn into a festival of GIFs and butthurt.

Excluding smilies (and TTs signature), there are no GIFs in this thread. I don't know why you thought it was headed that way.

Butthurt is unavoidable, we're all wanna-be vets, vet students, or vets love those rectal thermometers, anal gland expressions, and rectal palpations.

 

[hygebeorht]

Excluding smilies (and TTs signature), there are no GIFs in this thread. I don't know why you thought it was headed that way.

Butthurt is unavoidable, we're all wanna-be vets, vet students, or vets love those rectal thermometers, anal gland expressions, and rectal palpations.

LOL, hooray for anal glands!

I guess some of the tone was very touchy, and the latest vegetarian thread started in about the same way...and look how fast that went to hell.

 

[felinelvr44]

To answer the question, the answer was they mostly do not do terminal surgeries, but there are some. It was vague.

Thank you. I got the impression that there are no required terminal surgeries but that there may be some in the elective classes you get to choose.

Is anyone else on the fence about terminal surgeries? On one hand I support them because the animals used would be euthanized anyway so why not give them a great purpose prior, but on the other hand it feels ethically wrong to me. I've done so much thinking about it but I can't seem to lean one way or the other ... anyone else out there feel this way??

I am very much on the fence and am struggling with the same justifications you are. I will have to re-evaluate my thoughts when the time comes. If doing a terminal surgery on an animal that will be euthanized anyway will make me a better vet, and will give me more practice before I'm actually treating people's PETS... is it worth it? I'm not sure yet.

 

[wildcatj]

I am very much on the fence and am struggling with the same justifications you are. I will have to re-evaluate my thoughts when the time comes. If doing a terminal surgery on an animal that will be euthanized anyway will make me a better vet, and will give me more practice before I'm actually treating people's PETS... is it worth it? I'm not sure yet.

I too am kind of on the fence about it. Logically, I know it makes sense, but emotionally I just don't know how I would feel about it. Do I have a real problem with them? Not really. Do I wish there was another alternative? Absolutely. If it came down to me either having experience with a surgery or not, I probably would do the terminal surgery. It's possible down the road be looking at a patient requiring an emergency surgery and thinking you wished you'd done that terminal surgery and had some practice. I'm not sure I can validate risking future lives by passing on an opportunity to make me a better vet. Even though it means a life is lost, at least it's being given purpose? I don't know, it's a tough grey area for me. I think it's just something I'll have to confront if/when the time comes.
(Not that we necessarily need to resurrect this thread, but yeah.)

 

[dyachei]

I too am kind of on the fence about it. Logically, I know it makes sense, but emotionally I just don't know how I would feel about it. Do I have a real problem with them? Not really. Do I wish there was another alternative? Absolutely. If it came down to me either having experience with a surgery or not, I probably would do the terminal surgery. It's possible down the road be looking at a patient requiring an emergency surgery and thinking you wished you'd done that terminal surgery and had some practice. I'm not sure I can validate risking future lives by passing on an opportunity to make me a better vet. Even though it means a life is lost, at least it's being given purpose? I don't know, it's a tough grey area for me. I think it's just something I'll have to confront if/when the time comes.
(Not that we necessarily need to resurrect this thread, but yeah.)

So I originally responded in this thread BEFORE I was a practicing vet and I read through it again recently. There is a huge advantage to having done 1 surgery versus none/reading it in a book the first time. And being able to have that experience would be so worth it. It's not just about technical skill but about confidence. I didn't do any terminal surgeries in vet school because the 1 class offered was filled so quickly, but after being in practice for 2 years, I would jump on the opportunity to perform certain surgeries. Cystotomies, gastropexies, and liver biopsies would be up there for me.

 

[Trilt]

I've done some terminal procedures on small mammals in a selective so far (guinea pig, rabbit, rat) and they were retired lab animals. Considering they would be euthanized anyway, I really appreciated the opportunity to practice the procedures on them before it was someone else's pet.

It was sad, and if we had ferrets (which I personally own) I would have been even sadder, but honestly, I wish terminal surgeries (in to-be-euthanized shelter or laboratory animals) were more common. I really prefer the idea of gaining something from the (inevitable) animal's death that will make me a better vet for future patients, rather than just have them die.