Vegan Veterinary Students

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I just hadda say a couple of things. First of all, you want to be very careful about mixing the terms animal rights and animal rescue, as they are in a vast majority of cases very different things.


A very big +1 to Minnerbelle (on all counts!!). And btw, tsethar, ArmyMutt25 actually DOES know what he is talking about. Before you chastise someone and basically dismiss every speck of their knowledge.....you should probably be more confident in your own terms......just sayin'.
 
Its still really common over here in Australia, mainly on large stations where there is a muster once a year and the bulls are always run with the cows. This makes it easier to ensure that the cows you dont want to get pregnant (due to age or being poor stock etc) dont become pregnant.

So, there are two main methods:

Flank spey:
A local anaesthetic is administered to the flank, a ~5cm inscision is made, ovaries are cut out, stitched up.
A fast flank speyer can do this in 2-3min. They are placed in a squeeze crush with side access.

Willis Dropped ovary technique:
Insert one hand in the rectum to be able to palpate the cervix, uterus and ovaries. Insert your willis spey tool into the vagina. Poke through the vaginal wall and hook the ovary through the spey tool and inscise through the blood vessels supplying them. Drop the ovary back into the body cavity.
A fast willis speyer can do this in 2-3 min. It now has a lower mortality and complication rate to the flank spey method, and is more widely used.
http://www.farmerswarehouse.com.au/images/T/Spay Tool Willis.bmp
The spey tool.

Fascinating! I know so very little about food animal. (scratch that - I know NOTHING) Anyone here in the US know if we use any of these methods?
 
Its still really common over here in Australia, mainly on large stations where there is a muster once a year and the bulls are always run with the cows. This makes it easier to ensure that the cows you dont want to get pregnant (due to age or being poor stock etc) dont become pregnant.

So, there are two main methods:

Flank spey:
A local anaesthetic is administered to the flank, a ~5cm inscision is made, ovaries are cut out, stitched up.
A fast flank speyer can do this in 2-3min. They are placed in a squeeze crush with side access.

Willis Dropped ovary technique:
Insert one hand in the rectum to be able to palpate the cervix, uterus and ovaries. Insert your willis spey tool into the vagina. Poke through the vaginal wall and hook the ovary through the spey tool and inscise through the blood vessels supplying them. Drop the ovary back into the body cavity.
A fast willis speyer can do this in 2-3 min. It now has a lower mortality and complication rate to the flank spey method, and is more widely used.
http://www.farmerswarehouse.com.au/images/T/Spay Tool Willis.bmp
The spey tool.

Wowwww that's crazy! I've seen a flank spay on a nursing cat before but I cant even imagine doing it on a cow that's awake! And 2-3 minutes?? Wow again! Hopefully I'll get to see some of that in vet school because it sounds really cool!
 
I find this thread a bit strange... just in the last half a page or so, to me it kinda feels like people are saying the ethical vegan students care more about animal welfare than their meat eating counterparts. I don't think this is true. I mean, maybe I would feel differently about eating meat if meat in Australia was farmed the way it is in America... but its not... and out of all the "ethical vegetarians" I've met, I know more about, and CARE more about the welfare of animals then they do. I wouldn't be going to vet school if I didn't. The fact that I eat meat has nothing to do with how much I think about the pain a bull may be in when its castrated, or dehorned, or how I feel about mulesing.

I don't think that was the intention. I think everyone, vegans and meat eaters alike, get defensive about their lifestyles. Only one or two vets I know are vegetarians - the rest eat meat, and I don't think that in any way means that they care less about animals or animal welfare.

I consider myself an "ethical vegan" because I don't believe any other term describes my lifestyle choices. But when it comes down to it, we all have different beliefs. Vegans don't eat animal products, and try to avoid using them in everyday life. Other than that, there's no set of "rules" for what makes a vegan a vegan. I don't think it's hypocritical to go into the veterinary profession.

I say "try to avoid" because while I can make sure I only consume vegan foods and wear vegan clothing, we live in a very nonvegan world. Hell, if I boycotted everything with animal derived products, I wouldn't be able to drive a car, take public transportation, or take medications that could save my life. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. It's a grey world, there's no black and white here.

I'm going into the veterinary profession because it is what I want to do with my life, and I don't believe it in anyway contradicts my beliefs - just as I don't believe that people who eat meat hate animals.
 
Last edited:
Wowwww that's crazy! I've seen a flank spay on a nursing cat before but I cant even imagine doing it on a cow that's awake! And 2-3 minutes?? Wow again! Hopefully I'll get to see some of that in vet school because it sounds really cool!

It's generally kind of frowned upon, since there is significant pain/distress associated with having your ovaries and uterus removed, and these things are rarely done by veterinarians. (I can't speak for Australia)
 
It's generally kind of frowned upon, since there is significant pain/distress associated with having your ovaries and uterus removed, and these things are rarely done by veterinarians. (I can't speak for Australia)

When speying cattle they don't remove the uterus - that would be too invasive and is not needed. They are mainly done by trained stockies over here who are also trained to do preg testing etc, but all work "under" a vet - though they just need to be associated with the vet, the vet may be on a different station and hours away when they're doing it. Yeah it sounds bad to say that its somewhat invasive surgery done by a non-professional, but the farmers out there would use a vet IF THEY COULD GET ONE. There is such a shortage of vets willing to go out there that they have to use who they can get.

Those stockies who I have seen do it, have extremely low mortality rates (<0.5%) and are super good. One taught me to preg test way better than I was ever taught at vet school!!! 😀

And I mean (and I know this may sound shocking on this thread but i'll roll with it) all the speyed cattle are kept in yards close to the homestead post surgery for a few days, and any that look like they are suffering or look unwell get shot pretty quickly (either that or they're probably going to die on the 3-4hr walk back to the paddock) so the welfare is actually pretty good, they're pretty on to it. And if you compared a bunch of cows just speyed by willis technique vs just a bunch of cows, I think you would have a hard time telling the difference.
 
When speying cattle they don't remove the uterus - that would be too invasive and is not needed. They are mainly done by trained stockies over here who are also trained to do preg testing etc, but all work "under" a vet - though they just need to be associated with the vet, the vet may be on a different station and hours away when they're doing it. Yeah it sounds bad to say that its somewhat invasive surgery done by a non-professional, but the farmers out there would use a vet IF THEY COULD GET ONE. There is such a shortage of vets willing to go out there that they have to use who they can get.

Those stockies who I have seen do it, have extremely low mortality rates (<0.5%) and are super good. One taught me to preg test way better than I was ever taught at vet school!!! 😀

And I mean (and I know this may sound shocking on this thread but i'll roll with it) all the speyed cattle are kept in yards close to the homestead post surgery for a few days, and any that look like they are suffering or look unwell get shot pretty quickly (either that or they're probably going to die on the 3-4hr walk back to the paddock) so the welfare is actually pretty good, they're pretty on to it. And if you compared a bunch of cows just speyed by willis technique vs just a bunch of cows, I think you would have a hard time telling the difference.

*shrug* Good! I've heard stories involving uteri. And just flipping them over and cutting. So... it's nice to know that sort of butchery is less common. Spaying just isn't as frequent/widely known here, so maybe it gets blown out of proportion...?
 
As is titre and odour (oh wait, maybe that's England)

Yeah, they have all the 'u' words. Colour, odour, humour... And they call it a 350 Zed. And a Pry-us. And it's a bonnet and a boot. And a four door car is a saloon...

I watch too much Top Gear.

ETA: Also, they avoid using the letter 'z' a lot, anyway. Revitalising, capitalising. Things like that.
 
*shrug* Good! I've heard stories involving uteri. And just flipping them over and cutting. So... it's nice to know that sort of butchery is less common. Spaying just isn't as frequent/widely known here, so maybe it gets blown out of proportion...?

Ummm... are you sure? The time and effort involved in "flipping" a cow over would be HUGE, i dont even know why you'd bother??? I mean, the single biggest concern to farmers (here at least) is time... When you've got in excess of 1000 heifers to spey and you want them back in the paddock in 3 days... flipping them over boggles the mind!!!
 
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I just hadda say a couple of things. First of all, you want to be very careful about mixing the terms animal rights and animal rescue, as they are in a vast majority of cases very different things. Though they're not always mutually exclusive, most animal rescue groups (the ones actually interested in helping real, live animals in need, not hypothetical animals) steer clear away from the term animal rights.

Animal rights has been smeared, many groups avoid the term for political reasons. A lot of rescues aren't run by 100% animal rights activists. Antagonism towards animal rights could be a part of the cause that animal rescues don't proclaim animal rights in their official stance, even if the organizers believe it personally (and I have met animal rescue program directors who follow A.R. but won't say it publicly). Most public animal rights organizations are more on the political campaigning side.

And while I don't doubt that there is a GREAT NEED for veterinary care for animals in need, I'm not sure that there's necessarily a GREAT NEED for veterinarians. Most animal rescue groups that don't have enough veterinary staff (if at all) don't because they can't afford them. Unless there's a bunch of veterinarians who are willing and able to provide uber cheap services, that need is not going to get fulfilled. Or esp for the animal rightsy orgs, their philosophies don't mesh well with vet med... and most vets just aren't the right fit (simply because western medicine is like the antithesis of animal rights).

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there needs to be more veterinarians willing to donate their time and supplies to rescue groups. You could think of it in this perspective: There is a great need for animal rights veterinarians, who are willing to put helping animals further in front of profit and vacation time. I know almost all vets love helping animals and almost none of them are animal rights activists. I have also met non-animal-rights vets working tirelessly and donating months of their time to animal welfare organizations. These people are my heroes.

I really don't think that animal rights and veterinary medicine are exclusive. That doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I should define my view of animal rights, so you guys can know where I'm coming from in better detail: Animals have the right to be free from systematic suffering and pain. Pet ownership (when done right) is not contrary to my views. I recognize that many humans don't do well on a vegan diet, so within reason keeping livestock in humane conditions or hunting non-threatened wild animals isn't going to end, ever. However modern industrial factory farms are, in my personal view, something of an abomination. Some animal rights activists do not agree with my views since I recognize the reality that agriculture somewhat defines our species at this point and I don't think it will be abolished. Maybe you can call me animal welfare. Whatever. I really don't care about "labels" despite being surrounded by them. but I know what I want to do with my life, which is reduce the suffering of other living beings.

Veterinarians are generally very kind hearted people who love helping animals... so there's a reason why certain niches like that aren't filled. So it's not a matter of these needy animals needing veterinarians as it is these needy animals needing $$$ for veterinary care (and rational people caring for them). I'm personally very passionate about shelter medicine and such, and would LOVE to become a shelter vet... but finding a job and making a living off of that is going to be very tough with my debt load.

It will be tough. I've been poor my whole life. No reason to stop now 😀 I want to be a shelter vet but having worked with shelter vets I do see the funding issues, they work part time, etc. So I'm going to specialize in a secondary area (most likely epidemiology, which can also have major positive impact for animals and humans alike), volunteer surgical hours on weekends to spay/neuter programs (yes you should check this out! at the s/n clinic I worked at, we had 1 staff vet and a bunch of volunteer vets who came in 1 day a month or so). I'll also be able to use my vacation time to go on volunteer trips for developing world spay/neuter projects such as Veterinarians Beyond Borders and World Vets.

Just as quickly as they're growing as a "movement," they're becoming public enemy number 1 to veterinarians in the private sector. Something to think about.

It's my understanding, and maybe someone can tell me if there's other reasons, that spay/neuter ops are disliked by private sector vets because they provide the same service at a much, much cheaper rate. However, these ops only provide s/n/v, which there is so much need for especially for low-income owners/homeless pets, that private vets are not filling the need (as evidence by high shelter death rates). You said in the previous paragraph that unless there's a bunch of vets willing to provide their services uber cheap, the need isn't going to be fulfilled. These cheap, ethically-motivated vets are becoming more and more common, and according to you the private sector is not happy about it.

It makes me sad how quick some people on this forum are to bash others for their views. (Minnerbelle I don't consider your post bashing, it's civil and brings up good points, though I'm having difficulty with the idea that animal rights and veterinary medicine are exclusive). I've worked with animal welfare groups and animal rescue groups that are run on an animal rights agenda and those that run on an animal welfare agenda. I find no difference in their FUNCTIONALITY in helping animals. I hope that when I enter the workforce that my colleagues are tolerant of philosophical differences as we work towards a common goal.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly that there needs to be more veterinarians willing to donate their time and supplies to rescue groups. You could think of it in this perspective: There is a great need for animal rights veterinarians, who are willing to put helping animals further in front of profit and vacation time. I know almost all vets love helping animals and almost none of them are animal rights activists. I have also met non-animal-rights vets working tirelessly and donating months of their time to animal welfare organizations. These people are my heroes.

With skyrocketing tuition and a crappy job market, you have to realize that there simply aren't many vets who can afford to be this generous. "Your heroes" are either likely independently wealthy or probably going to be burnt out in short order.

I really don't think that animal rights and veterinary medicine are exclusive. That doesn't make sense to me.
Animal rights activists oppose the use of animals for any human use. Unless you are referring to wildlife or conservation medicine, that includes all companion animals, lab animals, and livestock.

Maybe I should define my view of animal rights, so you guys can know where I'm coming from in better detail: Animals have the right to be free from systematic suffering and pain. Pet ownership (when done right) is not contrary to my views. I recognize that many humans don't do well on a vegan diet, so within reason keeping livestock in humane conditions or hunting non-threatened wild animals isn't going to end, ever. However modern industrial factory farms are, in my personal view, something of an abomination. Some animal rights activists do not agree with my views since I recognize the reality that agriculture somewhat defines our species at this point and I don't think it will be abolished. Maybe you can call me animal welfare. Whatever. I really don't care about "labels" despite being surrounded by them. but I know what I want to do with my life, which is reduce the suffering of other living beings.

That is the definition of animal welfare, and if you are interested in veterinary school, you will almost certainly need to learn where the line exists between animal rights and animal welfare. If you are a member of your school's animal rights club, I can almost guarantee you will be asked about it in your interview.

It will be tough. I've been poor my whole life. No reason to stop now 😀 I want to be a shelter vet but having worked with shelter vets I do see the funding issues, they work part time, etc. So I'm going to specialize in a secondary area (most likely epidemiology, which can also have major positive impact for animals and humans alike), volunteer surgical hours on weekends to spay/neuter programs (yes you should check this out! at the s/n clinic I worked at, we had 1 staff vet and a bunch of volunteer vets who came in 1 day a month or so). I'll also be able to use my vacation time to go on volunteer trips for developing world spay/neuter projects such as Veterinarians Beyond Borders and World Vets.

I commend you, but it is a lot easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk. (This coming from someone who wanted to work weekends in a shelter during my residency.)

It's my understanding, and maybe someone can tell me if there's other reasons, that spay/neuter ops are disliked by private sector vets because they provide the same service at a much, much cheaper rate. However, these ops only provide s/n/v, which there is so much need for especially for low-income owners/homeless pets, that private vets are not filling the need (as evidence by high shelter death rates). You said in the previous paragraph that unless there's a bunch of vets willing to provide their services uber cheap, the need isn't going to be fulfilled. These cheap, ethically-motivated vets are becoming more and more common, and according to you the private sector is not happy about it.

This is blatantly not true. Not only are some s/n/v groups performing non-population control surgeries, such as dentals and mass removals, but many of them do not do any sort of income verification. Additionally, they receive federal non-profit tax-exempt status and are still able to charge for services and collect donations. They are truly undervaluing proper veterinary care by doing these things.

It makes me sad how quick some people on this forum are to bash others for their views. (Minnerbelle I don't consider your post bashing, it's civil and brings up good points, though I'm having difficulty with the idea that animal rights and veterinary medicine are exclusive). I've worked with animal welfare groups and animal rescue groups that are run on an animal rights agenda and those that run on an animal welfare agenda. I find no difference in their FUNCTIONALITY in helping animals. I hope that when I enter the workforce that my colleagues are tolerant of philosophical differences as we work towards a common goal.

Only time will tell. I am sorry you feel like you are being bashed, but you ARE posting in highly controversial threads.
 
It's my understanding, and maybe someone can tell me if there's other reasons, that spay/neuter ops are disliked by private sector vets because they provide the same service at a much, much cheaper rate. However, these ops only provide s/n/v, which there is so much need for especially for low-income owners/homeless pets, that private vets are not filling the need (as evidence by high shelter death rates). You said in the previous paragraph that unless there's a bunch of vets willing to provide their services uber cheap, the need isn't going to be fulfilled. These cheap, ethically-motivated vets are becoming more and more common, and according to you the private sector is not happy about it.

Its late (here in Aus) and I'm tired from having a VERY long day doing nothing but diagnostic imaging... but i had to respond to this part of your post. I personally DONT believe that low cost spey-neuter clinics are nessercerrily more "ethically motivated" than higher, realistically priced clinics. the reason behind my thinking? its a bandaid approach.

Yes, it does mean people on low incomes can get their animals speyed/neutered. what it also means is that these people with little to no means to pay for their animals health care, may then assume that all healthcare for their animal should cost this much (when realistically, it shouldnt) or justify to themselves that they should get a pet (when realistically, it is actually not financially feasible for them).

The onus for animals to have access to healthcare should, by and large, be on the owner
. Yes, we are the providers for that, but no, we cannot do it for free. I don't think people who cannot feasibly afford healthcare for their animals should be encouraged to take on that responsibility, and I do believe it is up to the veterinary community to, to a point, hold them accountable for that.

The sooner pet owners in society take responsibility for their animals healthcare, instead of expecting veterinarians to do it for them, will be a beautiful day. And by encouraging all pet owners to accept and shoulder the true (or as close to that as we can get) cost of healthcare from their pets we will get closer to that goal. The more we allow them to escape that responsibility, the further from that goal we get.

this is why i feel that vets who provide their services "really really cheap" are not nessercerrily more ethical, because in many ways they are setting animal healthcare back.

Lots of love,
someone whos spent 6 years trying to convice pet owners that the majority of vet fees are not exorbanent.

(disclaimer - i have worked in a vet clinic where i felt the owner was blantently ripping people off. i hated it. i do agree with fair pricing - but fair for both owner and vet clinic owner.)
 
However, just like JMO said, on an island or remote location there might not always be those options (or at least not ones that would provide any sufficient sustenance).

Actually, as a Ross student in St. Kitts, I feel like our island is very vegan friendly. There's always fresh fruits and vegetables in season and we have a farmer's market here on campus every Wednesday with locally-grown produce. There's an enormous variety of beans and lentils available, and I've seen tofu in every grocery store as well as Morning Star, etc. brands of frozen vegetarian food. My roommate is even able to get the gluten-free bread that she buys back home.
 
Can you define what a "mainly agricultural school" is, and maybe give an example or two? I wasn't aware such places existed.

Generally, to me this means a public, land-grant institution in a mostly agricultural state. Examples would be Iowa State (my alma mater), Kansas State, maybe the Oklahoma and Texas schools (though I'm not as familiar with those). I'm not vegetarian, but I can tell you that whenever there was a signup for a lunch meeting in any club I was in, there was always a vegetarian option. Granted, I was not in any of the "food animal" clubs (e.g. AABP), but you probably wouldn't be either. Very seldom was there a vegan option, however. Also, in schools like this with a lot of food animal students, I admit that you may be considered "weird" by some of your classmates, but I never saw any outright arguments or anything like that. I must say, however, that no one in my class seemed to be really outspoken about their views, and I think that's what helped keep the peace. At this point in life, I think most people are mature enough to realize that other people have different views.

I've seen a flank spay on a nursing cat before but I cant even imagine doing it on a cow that's awake!

The vast majority of procedures in cattle are performed standing (awake), if possible. This is often true in horses, too. They tolerate it very well with just local blocks and maybe some IV sedation, and it is safer than laying them down. They can hurt themselves when going down or during recovery (this is why horses are often anesthetized and recovered in a room with 6 inches of padding on all sides). Also, due to the large weight of their abdominal contents, horses and cattle do not breathe well when anesthetized and put in dorsal recumbency.

Maybe I should define my view of animal rights, so you guys can know where I'm coming from in better detail: Animals have the right to be free from systematic suffering and pain. Pet ownership (when done right) is not contrary to my views.

This is pretty much the definition of an animal WELFARE philosophy. As has been pointed out, you need to know the difference--it's a very common interview question, for one thing. Here is a pretty good summary: http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/aw/rights.php

It's my understanding, and maybe someone can tell me if there's other reasons, that spay/neuter ops are disliked by private sector vets because they provide the same service at a much, much cheaper rate. However, these ops only provide s/n/v, which there is so much need for especially for low-income owners/homeless pets, that private vets are not filling the need

I have a tough time with this situation myself. I love that, theoretically, these clinics mean that animals that would normally get NO veterinary care may get at least SOME level of care. I do wish that they really were limited to those with genuinely low incomes, but I don't think a business can legally ask for income verification. I have to agree that these clinics devalue veterinary services so that people expect them to be cheap. Also, people do not understand that there is a huge difference between these vets, who are likely using injectable-only anesthesia, no pre-op bloodwork, and little to no intra-op monitoring, and a high quality vet who is individualizing anesthetic and vaccination protocols based on bloodwork and patient status, intubates and puts patients on inhalant anesthetics, gives intra-op fluids, and monitors heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure. They just think that the latter vet is overcharging and only in it for the money. Lastly, I also have to agree that having things like this further encourages people to get pets who really can't afford them. The logical side of me says that these clinics are bad, but the humanitarian side of me likes them and would even volunteer for them, so I'm torn.
 
This is pretty much the definition of an animal WELFARE philosophy. As has been pointed out, you need to know the difference--it's a very common interview question, for one thing. Here is a pretty good summary: http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/aw/rights.php

Actually that link is pretty much just a simplified caricature of the most extreme form of AR philosophy..
Not helpful in the least..

Animal rights proponents believe that violence, misinformation and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals.
No, not every animal rights supporter is for violence and misinformation, and it sure as hell doesn't further the debate much to stereotype your opponents as such..

There are valid criticisms of certain elements of Animal Rights ideology, but pretending that AR/AW is a black and white issue is counterproductive to healthy debate..
To say that all Animal Rights advocates support violent means is as ridiculous as saying all Muslims support violence.
To say that Animal Rights advocates support giving every animal the same rights as humans is an unhelpful oversimplification of a complex issue.

Sometimes I think self-described Animal Welfare advocates would benefit a ton from picking up a book about Animal Rights, by somebody like Bernard Rollin (CSU hopefuls, i'm looking at you).

It's not all naive starry eyed idealists setting fire to labs and threatening researchers.. Very frustrating to see how little thought is commonly put into the dismissal of Animal Rights.

Years of watching and reading debates on various subjects has me on high alert for strawmen and naive oversimplifications, and I must say I see a lot of it when I hear people talk about animal rights..

I realize that Animal Rights is a taboo issue in the biomedical / veterinary sciences, but let's keep a certain level of integrity in the debate and not dismiss opponents without giving them a bit of respect
 
Last edited:
No, not every animal rights supporter is for violence and misinformation, and it sure as hell doesn't further the debate much to stereotype your opponents as such..

I apologize--I didn't notice that line. I admit I was having a hard time finding an objective description of the two terms. Wikipedia has a decent description of each, but I didn't use it simply BECAUSE the first line started out "Animal rights, also known as animal liberation..." Animal liberation brought to mind ALF, but from reading the rest of the intro, it appears that that was not what they were referring to (later, it even says, "There has also been criticism, including from within the animal rights movement itself, of certain forms of animal rights activism, in particular the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front."). I realize most animal rights advocates are not radical like ALF. The rest of the intro seems more accurate. The last line in the intro states "A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position."

I do, still contend that a "true" animal rights philosophy is incompatible with being a veterinarian, for the reasons already enumerated by others.
 
I realize that Animal Rights is a taboo issue in the biomedical / veterinary sciences, but let's keep a certain level of integrity in the debate and not dismiss opponents without giving them a bit of respect

Fair enough. Can you offer an explanation of Animal Rights (that's shared by sufficient Animal Rights supporters as to be not completely fringe; there's always going to be far-flung one-off cases to skew things) that is compatible with veterinary medicine as a career choice?
 
Fair enough. Can you offer an explanation of Animal Rights (that's shared by sufficient Animal Rights supporters as to be not completely fringe; there's always going to be far-flung one-off cases to skew things) that is compatible with veterinary medicine as a career choice?

I'm more of animal welfare person myself, but I think someone with an animal rights background generally agrees with the welfare position while adding the belief that exploitation of other animals is also wrong. Exploitation would include the use of animals for entertainment, food, and clothing. Some more extreme activists also think pet ownership is wrong, but given the likelihood that a number of AR activists probably own pets (given the crossover with the rescue community) I don't think that is a prevalent position.

Since animals are used in teaching veterinary students and in the research used to bring new drugs to market, it would seem to me that a veterinarian would find it hard to maintain a life perfectly in line with an animal rights perspective. Not only was a lot of knowledge about animals gained in the past through some pretty crude experiments, but even human medicine has benefited from some sketchy endeavors throughout history.
 
Top