veterinary school question

[SMW83]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Any vet school out there that would have the opportunity for alternatives for animal research for students that don't want to to do harmful research on animals?

regardless of what PETA or the ASPCA says, I personally just couldnt imagine myself inflicting unnecessary pain on a completely healthy animal just for the sake of medical/veterinary science research.

 

[Bill59]

First, as a vet. student you won't be doing "harmful research on animals."

But almost all veterinary schools have alternatives for students that don't want to participate in certain laboratories involving live animals, such as some surgery courses.

 

[HorseyVet]

Any vet school out there that would have the opportunity for alternatives for animal research for students that don't want to to do harmful research on animals?

regardless of what PETA or the ASPCA says, I personally just couldnt imagine myself inflicting unnecessary pain on a completely healthy animal just for the sake of medical/veterinary science research.

I really really think you need to consider another career.

 

[shine_bluesky]

I'm afraid i have to agree with HorsyVet. As a vet you would need to understand that research on animals does happen, and you may have to treat animals that have been used for research, would you be able to do this?

Also, you said inflicting pain on a healthy animal, what about putting a homeless animal to sleep? Would you be able to cope with that? That is definitely a necessary part of the job.

If you think you would be able to cope with this, or that you would be able to avoid it; Good luck to you. Otherwise i really would try and think of something else more suitable.

 

[Boxsterluv]

You should definately check out Western University. They have three main founding principles, one of which is Reverance for Life, which basically means that you don't hurt any animals. Period. They have a willed-body program in which owners donate the body of their pet who has passed away, that means that we don't kill/hurt animals just for the sake of learning. You work on cadavers, there are learning tools that simulate the real thing, etc, however, you don't do things like break the leg just to see how it grows back. So, the idea here is that you don't have to do the harmful things yourself, however, keep in mind what previous posters have said that it does happen and you do have to accept it. Also keep in mind that in practice, you will eventually come across a situation where you have to harm an animal in order to begin its healing. I suggest you evaluate your understanding of this profession, as well as your dedication to it. If you decide that this is really what you want to do, check out Western, it might be the right fit.

http://www.westernu.edu/xp/edu/veterinary/about.xml

I know that lots of people think that if you aren't performing the procedure (learning the procedure) on a warm animal, you aren't going to learn, so I'm not trying to start a fight or talk about which way is better, I'm just saying that for the OP, this may be the right path.

 

[SMW83]

You should definately check out Western University. They have three main founding principles, one of which is Reverance for Life, which basically means that you don't hurt any animals. Period. They have a willed-body program in which owners donate the body of their pet who has passed away, that means that we don't kill/hurt animals just for the sake of learning. You work on cadavers, there are learning tools that simulate the real thing, etc, however, you don't do things like break the leg just to see how it grows back. So, the idea here is that you don't have to do the harmful things yourself, however, keep in mind what previous posters have said that it does happen and you do have to accept it. Also keep in mind that in practice, you will eventually come across a situation where you have to harm an animal in order to begin its healing. I suggest you evaluate your understanding of this profession, as well as your dedication to it. If you decide that this is really what you want to do, check out Western, it might be the right fit.

http://www.westernu.edu/xp/edu/veterinary/about.xml

I know that lots of people think that if you aren't performing the procedure (learning the procedure) on a warm animal, you aren't going to learn, so I'm not trying to start a fight or talk about which way is better, I'm just saying that for the OP, this may be the right path.

thanks for the information. however out of curiosity, in what instance would you have to harm an animal in order to begin its healing? such as an amputation?

 

[HorseyVet]

thanks for the information. however out of curiosity, in what instance would you have to harm an animal in order to begin its healing? such as an amputation?

Ummm....ok in most places you will have to take units on FOOD animal and LAB animal. Do you just plan to fail these classes?

Granted, you aren't nescessarily "hurting" these animals during your time with them at veterinary school, but to learn to put together an effective treatment course you're going to need to be WELL aware of their function in society. You're not going to be able to tailor a 2K treatment for a couple hundred dollar feeder calf. Are you just not going to treat mastitis in dairy animals b/c you think they shouldn't be used for dairy? Are you going to lie about withholding durations so that the farmers can't use that animal?

What options are you going to give the person with a horse that's 10 years old and crippled for work, but which could be maintained another 20 years with expensive care and treatment?

What about show dogs? Are you not going to see these clients b/c they "exploit" their pets? The list goes on and on and on.

If amputation is the only "tough choice" on your mind...then that alone should be reason for you to seek another profession.

 

[kate_g]

Ummm....ok in most places you will have to take units on FOOD animal and LAB animal. Do you just plan to fail these classes?

This is still the wrong way to look at the problem.

Whether or not you participate in research or clinical development, the simple fact is that every treatment that a veterinarian can provide - medication, surgery, even housing - has been developed using animals. Often what makes it into veterinary practice is actually a modification of something that was developed for humans (using animals in the early research stages) and only later benefits animals - after further animal testing, of course.

If you offer medical treatment, you are partially responsible for all the "harm" and "suffering" that has ever been done to animals in the name of developing that treatment. You must accept that.

I strongly believe that medical treatment is worthwhile. Therefore, I strongly believe that animal research is worthwhile. The two are not separable. However, I also support strong regulations to ensure the welfare of animals used in research, and oversight to prevent the frivolous use of lives. And believe it or not, most scientists do not gleefully cause harm and suffering to their research animals. Most go to a lot of trouble to avoid it.

 

[chris03333]

👍

This is still the wrong way to look at the problem.

Whether or not you participate in research or clinical development, the simple fact is that every treatment that a veterinarian can provide - medication, surgery, even housing - has been developed using animals. Often what makes it into veterinary practice is actually a modification of something that was developed for humans (using animals in the early research stages) and only later benefits animals - after further animal testing, of course.

If you offer medical treatment, you are partially responsible for all the "harm" and "suffering" that has ever been done to animals in the name of developing that treatment. You must accept that.

I strongly believe that medical treatment is worthwhile. Therefore, I strongly believe that animal research is worthwhile. The two are not separable. However, I also support strong regulations to ensure the welfare of animals used in research, and oversight to prevent the frivolous use of lives. And believe it or not, most scientists do not gleefully cause harm and suffering to their research animals. Most go to a lot of trouble to avoid it.

 

[Bill59]

however, you don't do things like break the leg just to see how it grows back.

Does any school do this?

 

[HorseyVet]

This is still the wrong way to look at the problem.

My goal/point in my post was/is really that this person doesn't have a clue. Yes there are several ways to approach the "problem" of this person's misunderstandings, however when you're dealing with someone pro-PETA and/or someone who doesn't get the difference between "welfare" and "rights"....and still think they'll make a great vet....I'm really don't think their is anything that wrong with my approach (or yours for that matter). Just different.

Whether or not you participate in research or clinical development, the simple fact is that every treatment that a veterinarian can provide - medication, surgery, even housing - has been developed using animals.

Yeah...FYI to those that don't already know. Things like make-up chemicals etc. are always tested on animals and if a product claims that it wasn't...that means those particular chemicals were *already* tested on animal. The research was already done, so XYZ company didn't have to do it again.

If you offer medical treatment, you are partially responsible for all the "harm" and "suffering" that has ever been done to animals in the name of developing that treatment. You must accept that.

I strongly believe that medical treatment is worthwhile. Therefore, I strongly believe that animal research is worthwhile. The two are not separable. However, I also support strong regulations to ensure the welfare of animals used in research, and oversight to prevent the frivolous use of lives. And believe it or not, most scientists do not gleefully cause harm and suffering to their research animals. Most go to a lot of trouble to avoid it.

Agreed. Anyone that's ever had pound of IACUC or similar paperwork for maintaining a university display tank certainly doesn't think the rules and regs are lax.

 

[HorseyVet]

Does any school do this?

I know some sort of used to do this according to some of the older vets I worked with. I say "sort of" because what they did is they'd first spay/neuter the animal, then allow it to heal. Then remove the spleen and allow that to heal. Then they'd break the leg and repair it, but they wouldn't allow the animal to wake up from the break and repair because the healing process would have been painful.

 

[Bill59]

OK, they "sort of" used to do this.

So to be clear, veterinary students don't break dog legs just to see how it heals, as was implied earlier.

 

[Moonpaw]

Then they'd break the leg and repair it, but they wouldn't allow the animal to wake up from the break and repair because the healing process would have been painful.

I understand that we don't want to cause animals pain, and I'm totally for it, so don't think I'm advocating recovering animals after their legs have purposely been broken, but how do you know the repaired leg was fixed properly if it isn't allow to recover? Is the surgery done for practice, without seeing how well the surgery was done?

 

[Bill59]

An experienced orthopedic surgeon, e.g. the instructor, would have a very good idea as to whether the repair was performed properly or not.

I know of one surgery instructor who was known to ring a bell or pop the student on the hand with an instrument whenever he saw a student doing anything wrong, including holding an instrument improperly or tying a knot wrong. With all that bell ringing and knuckle cracking, it was very unlikely you would get to the end of a fracture repair with any major mistakes.

 

[HorseyVet]

I understand that we don't want to cause animals pain, and I'm totally for it, so don't think I'm advocating recovering animals after their legs have purposely been broken, but how do you know the repaired leg was fixed properly if it isn't allow to recover? Is the surgery done for practice, without seeing how well the surgery was done?

First, I agree with everything Bill said in response to this.

Second, I believe largely part of the reason these dogs were considered to have too painfull of a recovery might be related to some changes we have made in the last 10+ years in both setting bones and pain management. Most of the vets I spoke with that did this were 20+ years out of school.

Today I think it would be a much more reasonable thing to allow the bone to heal and then adopt the dogs out. Obviously, however, animal use regulations being what they are today this would never fly as a procedure to begin with.

On a similar line...the advent and increasing number of specialists and specialty training is greatly movtivated by the fact that one "learns less" in vet school then they did 20 years ago. The other side of that of course is that there is much more to be learned as many procedures formally relagated only to human med are now more mainstream in vet med.

I also thought of another example of non-recovery that I had forgotten. When I visited OK vet med and they have, I think what is now a commons room for the students, that used to be a part of the teaching hospital/lab area. There are still these monitors in the walls and I was told they were used, once upoun a time, for monitoring rabbits (I think) as they did a sort of "live dissection"...so the student could see the heart/lungs etc working (and also, not working). Again, today, that's a no-fly zone.

 

[Quaggi]

at tufts, 3rd years do spays and neuters on animals from the local shelters to practice surgey on, and then those pets get adopted. so it is possible for vet students to do surgeries and then recover the patient, and I think this is better obviously because we wont be doing surgeries on purpose bred animals. we also don't use purpose bred dogs for anatomy lab, we get donations from pets that were euthanized at the hospital. so SMW if you really are serious about vet school, check out tufts and or western. but, more importantly, there are a lot of things that vets have to deal with that arent so glamorous...if you've made your decision that you cannot ever do something unpleasent to an animal (such as euthanasia or any surgery with a painful recovery period) you probably should find a different career path.

 

[are_jay]

I also thought of another example of non-recovery that I had forgotten. When I visited OK vet med and they have, I think what is now a commons room for the students, that used to be a part of the teaching hospital/lab area. There are still these monitors in the walls and I was told they were used, once upoun a time, for monitoring rabbits (I think) as they did a sort of "live dissection"...so the student could see the heart/lungs etc working (and also, not working). Again, today, that's a no-fly zone.

ooooohhhhhhh, so *that* is what that room was for... (we call it the "old phys lab")

 

[HorseyVet]

ooooohhhhhhh, so *that* is what that room was for... (we call it the "old phys lab")

It was almost a year ago and they mentioned it really quickly so feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist.

 

[SMW83]

I understand that we don't want to cause animals pain, and I'm totally for it, so don't think I'm advocating recovering animals after their legs have purposely been broken, but how do you know the repaired leg was fixed properly if it isn't allow to recover? Is the surgery done for practice, without seeing how well the surgery was done?

IMHO, the best way to actually observe this is to do a clinical rotation at an animal emergency hospital or something similiar where you would have a higher likelihood of having patients with fractures. (i.e. hit by a car)

 

[HorseyVet]

IMHO, the best way to actually observe this is to do a clinical rotation at an animal emergency hospital or something similiar where you would have a higher likelihood of having patients with fractures. (i.e. hit by a car)

So, by this rationale....If I watched a lot of say, soccer, then I'd be able to just jump up and play any position pretty well without ever having dribbled a ball before?

 

[birdvet2006]

The United Kingdom has strict animal welfare laws. At my vet school in Scotland, we almost didn't do ANY surgery in school. The most I did was do half a chinchilla castration (along with a real vet) and half a bitch spay (along with a real vet). The chinchilla was owned by one of the nurses, and the dog was a shelter animal looking for a home. Never did we do any "non-recover" surgeries - this is illegal in the UK. I got to scrub in for more complex surgeries like a TECA/LBO and an ex-lap, and some people got to scrub in for orthopaedic surgeries and neuro surgeries. But you function as passing the instruments, cutting the suture, etc.

I also had the opportunity to gain a week's experience at a lab animal facility in the UK. I had to learn all about the laws protecting animals (there are TONS and really, those animals are well-protected) and was able to see research being conducted by pharmaceutical companies and the like. It gave me an entirely different, "insider" view of lab animal medicine and I urge everyone to experience something similar. It was cool!

I also had to (as required in the UK to graduate) spend a week at an abattoir (slaughterhouse). I shadowed the head vet - who has the responsibility of protecting animal welfare and public health. A hugely important role in society that most people don't even think about, and sadly that most vet students don't want to pursue. (I still think private practice is more exciting and variable!).

So my advice is - if you want to experience the utmost in animal welfare, go to vet school in the UK. But yes, farm animal medicine is still a bit saddening to those who value the animal's lives, not so much their economic worth.

 

[are_jay]

But yes, farm animal medicine is still a bit saddening to those who value the animal's lives, not so much their economic worth.

Yeah I love working with "food animals" but not because I look at them as dinner... I see the cow we have in the chute and think "oh she's beautiful, let's see what we can do to get her healthy" not "what a nice steak." I am not anti-slaughter really, but I don't think I would survive FA practice because I really want what's best for the animal and the producer wants what is best for the animal until it exceeds the economic value. So while I'm in vet school, I will continue getting FA experience in case I get to work on the horse farm's small flock/herd of goats or sheep or cows, etc or maybe have a few of my own, maybe some from a rescue farm that were mistreated as pets or something. 🙂

 

[kate_g]

I'm really don't think their is anything that wrong with my approach (or yours for that matter). Just different.

The specific thing I was reacting to was that the OP might have interpreted the initial part of your argument (whether this is what you were really trying to convey or not) as "just find yourself a school where they don't make you do food and lab animal rotations, and you'll be OK." I think that is a dangerous idea, because it lets one get away with thinking that as long as she doesn't *do* the research, she hasn't been involved in it. The truth is that her patients (and her paycheck) benefit directly from research that others have done.

It's irresponsible to say "I don't do the research, therefore I don't have to feel guilty about it" because it leads to the villification (in the public mind) of the people who actually do the research from which one derives benefit. That makes it harder for scientists to get approval and funding for further research, which in turn impacts her future patients (and paychecks).

So all I meant by disagreeing with you was that you left a potential conceptual loophole that I didn't want the OP to fall through.

 

[HorseyVet]

The specific thing I was reacting to was that the OP might have interpreted the initial part of your argument (whether this is what you were really trying to convey or not) as "just find yourself a school where they don't make you do food and lab animal rotations, and you'll be OK."

So all I meant by disagreeing with you was that you left a potential conceptual loophole that I didn't want the OP to fall through.

lol....I thought you were getting on to me for being too curt.

My intention was much more of a "you're never going to make it 2 mintues in an interview".....or "how can do you think you can be a vet without ever coming across an issue or fundamental requirement that's anti-PETA/animal rights" ..... the whole idea of food animal is sort of not in the mix there....heck a lot of animal rights-ish people are against people riding horses (aka "make them our slaves" as it's been put to me)....A person with the OP's attitude isn't going to make through the countless lectures revolved around the "salvageable-ness" of various lameness/leg trauma.

ok I need to stop posting about this....REALLY gives me the grumps😡

 

[ReinaDeLuz]

The United Kingdom has strict animal welfare laws. At my vet school in Scotland, we almost didn't do ANY surgery in school. The most I did was do half a chinchilla castration (along with a real vet) and half a bitch spay (along with a real vet). The chinchilla was owned by one of the nurses, and the dog was a shelter animal looking for a home. Never did we do any "non-recover" surgeries - this is illegal in the UK. I got to scrub in for more complex surgeries like a TECA/LBO and an ex-lap, and some people got to scrub in for orthopaedic surgeries and neuro surgeries. But you function as passing the instruments, cutting the suture, etc.

I also had the opportunity to gain a week's experience at a lab animal facility in the UK. I had to learn all about the laws protecting animals (there are TONS and really, those animals are well-protected) and was able to see research being conducted by pharmaceutical companies and the like. It gave me an entirely different, "insider" view of lab animal medicine and I urge everyone to experience something similar. It was cool!

I also had to (as required in the UK to graduate) spend a week at an abattoir (slaughterhouse). I shadowed the head vet - who has the responsibility of protecting animal welfare and public health. A hugely important role in society that most people don't even think about, and sadly that most vet students don't want to pursue. (I still think private practice is more exciting and variable!).

So my advice is - if you want to experience the utmost in animal welfare, go to vet school in the UK. But yes, farm animal medicine is still a bit saddening to those who value the animal's lives, not so much their economic worth.

Just out of curiosity, were you ever able to participate in spay/neuter clinics for nearby shelters in order to get some experience that way? At my school, we have a TNR program called "Operation Catnip" where people trap local feral cats, bring them in on the third sunday of the month and they all get spayed/neutered/vaccinated and their left ear is tippped to show that this has been done. The local shelters also have clinics for juniors and seniors to come spay/neuter the animals thre as well. Would this be against the law in the UK?

 

[SMW83]

So, by this rationale....If I watched a lot of say, soccer, then I'd be able to just jump up and play any position pretty well without ever having dribbled a ball before?

no, you would do the clinical rotation at the animal hospital as part of 4th year clinical rotations. You would already have 3 years of vet school behind you so comparing it to just watching soccer and then "jumping up" to play is just totally irrelevant here.

 

[SRK85]

That would suck if I was put in a postion to put down a homeless dog I would probably try to adopt it, unless it was really sick.

 

[HorseyVet]

That would suck if I was put in a postion to put down a homeless dog I would probably try to adopt it, unless it was really sick.

Do you have any idea how many homeless animals there are? How big is your house and wallet?

Spay and neuter.

 

[SMW83]

I know some sort of used to do this according to some of the older vets I worked with. I say "sort of" because what they did is they'd first spay/neuter the animal, then allow it to heal. Then remove the spleen and allow that to heal. Then they'd break the leg and repair it, but they wouldn't allow the animal to wake up from the break and repair because the healing process would have been painful.

thats exactly what I wouldnt want to do. thats part of what I mean by my not wanting to do any harm to animals. Other than the spay and neuter thing, if it's not broken(example removing a completely healthy spleen that doesnt need to be removed), dont break it(another example is PURPOSEFULLY breaking the leg of an animal to "fix" it) to try to fix it!!

like I said before, do a clinical at an animal emergency hospital where you have a higher chance of coming across animals that have broken bones (hit by cars, etc.) and repair their broken bones. and as for the surgery part, if there is a way, do a clinical at a place that schedules surgeries for their animal patients, as well as an emergency animal hospital that does emergency surgeries. then it becomes a win win situation. in this hypothetical scenario, we wouldnt be putting the animal to sleep after purposefully breaking its leg. (what ever happened to the first rule of medicine, "first do no harm"?!?!) we would actually be helping an animal to recover from its injuries. I for one would learn alot more that way.

 

[UKYWildcat]

like I said before, do a clinical at an animal emergency hospital where you have a higher chance of coming across animals that have broken bones (hit by cars, etc.) and repair their broken bones. and as for the surgery part, if there is a way, do a clinical at a place that schedules surgeries for their animal patients, as well as an emergency animal hospital that does emergency surgeries. then it becomes a win win situation. in this hypothetical scenario, we wouldnt be putting the animal to sleep after purposefully breaking its leg. (what ever happened to the first rule of medicine, "first do no harm"?!?!) we would actually be helping an animal to recover from its injuries. I for one would learn alot more that way.

The issue with doing "clinical" rotations in a emergency hospital is a little thing called liability and the fact that clients that go to an established emergency practice aren't likely to want students learning on their pets. Clients of veterinary schools can be enough of a pain in the @$$ when it come to not wanting students to touch their animals (what part of TEACHING HOSPITAL did they miss when they walked through the door I don't know, but I digress...)

Welcome to the real world. It's not all fun and fuzzy puppies and kitties.

 

[SMW83]

The issue with doing "clinical" rotations in a emergency hospital is a little thing called liability and the fact that clients that go to an established emergency practice aren't likely to want students learning on their pets. Clients of veterinary schools can be enough of a pain in the @$$ when it come to not wanting students to touch their animals (what part of TEACHING HOSPITAL did they miss when they walked through the door I don't know, but I digress...)

Welcome to the real world. It's not all fun and fuzzy puppies and kitties.

but think of medical school. how many parents want medical students practicing on their children in surgery rotation or even being in the same room as just observers as the surgery was taking place?

oh by the way...a little off topic..... GO U.G.A!!!!!!!!!!!!!😀 👍

 

[Moonpaw]

but think of medical school. how many parents want medical students practicing on their children in surgery rotation or even being in the same room as just observers as the surgery was taking place?

oh by the way...a little off topic..... GO U.G.A!!!!!!!!!!!!!😀 👍

Don't med students do this anyways? Or was that your point...

In either case, I can sort of sympathize with people who don't want students "practicing" on their pets/children, but really...how else do they think tomorrow's doctors will get trained????

 

[UKYWildcat]

but think of medical school. how many parents want medical students practicing on their children in surgery rotation or even being in the same room as just observers as the surgery was taking place?

Your solution was to have veterinary student do clincial rotations at emergency clinics. Privately owned practices are not educational facilities, as their primary function. If parents take their childen to a teaching hospital then to some degree it is to be expect that students will be working on their children. Do you not understand the difference between privately owned facilities and educational facilities?

 

[SMW83]

Don't med students do this anyways? Or was that your point...

In either case, I can sort of sympathize with people who don't want students "practicing" on their pets/children, but really...how else do they think tomorrow's doctors will get trained????

it was my point. my other point also being that why cant the same thing happen for veterinary school students as well? (clinical rotations observing/doing surgeries rather than purposefully breaking an animals leg to see how it grows back in a lab setting. [if that even happens anymore.]) theres just something about doing this in a real world setting that makes students have the tendency to learn more.

 

[kate_g]

it was my point. my other point also being that why cant the same thing happen for veterinary school students as well?

Er... But it *does* happen. All of fourth year, and some of third year at some schools, you spend doing clinical rotations, exactly as you described. (Usually you spend most of your time at the vet school's teaching hospital - which is run pretty much exactly like a med school teaching hospital as far as I can tell, since you brought up the comparison - which generally do offer emergency services.) The problem is, what you get is what you get. If you're on surgery rotation and a dozen broken legs come through the door but no ruptured spleens, well, then you get good at fixing broken legs but you graduate never having seen a spleen removed. (This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that most vets who really want to concentrate on surgery will do an internship/residency in which they'll hopefully get more varied experience.) The point of the "surgery lab" as described earlier (where you induce an animal, do a bunch of proceudres, and sacrifice it at the end) is so you are guaranteed to learn a set core of procedures without having to hope that they all happen to walk in during the two to four weeks you spend in the surgery service during fourth year.

All of that said, it really seems to me like many (most?) schools don't do this anymore. They do exactly what you seem to be looking for - teach sterile technique, practice on models or donated cadavers, then practice "live" surgery by neutering some shelter dogs and cats. Then during your rotations in fourth year, you observe and maybe participate in whatever else happens to come through the door when you're on that rotation.

So I'm really not sure what you're complaining about at this point. You keep saying you don't want to do "harmful research"... Most vet schools offer an opportunity for students to get involved in scientific research if they want to, and some of that research certainly uses animal subjects. But it's not a requirement of the curriculum. Now if you object totally to research, and don't want to go to a school that allows any research at all, then I think you're out of luck. And I've already expressed my opinion of people who want to use medical technology but also think they're opposed to research. *And* I feel like I should stress again that no scientist is interested in doing "harmful" research, and everyone generally tries very hard to prevent suffering while still getting useful scientific data. But beyond all that, like I said above, many schools are now structured so that you *don't* have any labs that result in sacrificing the animal or fixing something unnecessary.

 

[ReinaDeLuz]

Er... But it *does* happen. All of fourth year, and some of third year at some schools, you spend doing clinical rotations, exactly as you described. (Usually you spend most of your time at the vet school's teaching hospital - which is run pretty much exactly like a med school teaching hospital as far as I can tell, since you brought up the comparison - which generally do offer emergency services.) The problem is, what you get is what you get. If you're on surgery rotation and a dozen broken legs come through the door but no ruptured spleens, well, then you get good at fixing broken legs but you graduate never having seen a spleen removed. (This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that most vets who really want to concentrate on surgery will do an internship/residency in which they'll hopefully get more varied experience.) The point of the "surgery lab" as described earlier (where you induce an animal, do a bunch of proceudres, and sacrifice it at the end) is so you are guaranteed to learn a set core of procedures without having to hope that they all happen to walk in during the two to four weeks you spend in the surgery service during fourth year.

All of that said, it really seems to me like many (most?) schools don't do this anymore. They do exactly what you seem to be looking for - teach sterile technique, practice on models or donated cadavers, then practice "live" surgery by neutering some shelter dogs and cats. Then during your rotations in fourth year, you observe and maybe participate in whatever else happens to come through the door when you're on that rotation.

So I'm really not sure what you're complaining about at this point. You keep saying you don't want to do "harmful research"... Most vet schools offer an opportunity for students to get involved in scientific research if they want to, and some of that research certainly uses animal subjects. But it's not a requirement of the curriculum. Now if you object totally to research, and don't want to go to a school that allows any research at all, then I think you're out of luck. And I've already expressed my opinion of people who want to use medical technology but also think they're opposed to research. *And* I feel like I should stress again that no scientist is interested in doing "harmful" research, and everyone generally tries very hard to prevent suffering while still getting useful scientific data. But beyond all that, like I said above, many schools are now structured so that you *don't* have any labs that result in sacrificing the animal or fixing something unnecessary.

I totally agree with you 🙂 Although, at some schools research is required for graduation. Up until last year (my year is the first that doesnt have to do it) a research project was *required* by the university in order to graduate (you still have to do it if you want to graduate with honors), I don't know of any specific schools that require it, but I assume that there are some. Also, I know at UF you definitely don't have to do any terminal surgeries unless you choose a surgery elective in your senior year. I agree with you, kate g in that I seriously doubt that many schools do this anymore as a "required" part of their curriculum. It seems seriously archaic.

 

[Bill59]

The association of veterinarians for animal rights has a survey of various veterinary schools and what alternative are available for live animal use at:
http://avar.org/links.asp

 

[SMW83]

Your solution was to have veterinary student do clincial rotations at emergency clinics. Privately owned practices are not educational facilities, as their primary function. If parents take their childen to a teaching hospital then to some degree it is to be expect that students will be working on their children. Do you not understand the difference between privately owned facilities and educational facilities?

oh i understand the differences, but that doesnt stop the parents from taking a child to a teaching hospital and saying "no students are allowed to practice on my child." what are you supposed to do in that situation but respect it.

what schools should do is contract with private practices so that vet students get all sides of veterinary medicine.

 

[UKYWildcat]

oh i understand the differences, but that doesnt stop the parents from taking a child to a teaching hospital and saying "no students are allowed to practice on my child." what are you supposed to do in that situation but respect it.

what schools should do is contract with private practices so that vet students get all sides of veterinary medicine.

Would you like to personally cover the liability insurance?

 

[birdvet2006]

Just out of curiosity, were you ever able to participate in spay/neuter clinics for nearby shelters in order to get some experience that way?

No, unless you consider the one day in our soft tissue surgery rotation where we went to the cat & dog home. We got to do half a spay on one dog with guidance and help from a vet.

We were supposed to get our surgical experience when we were "seeing practice" (we were required to see 26 weeks minimum over our last 3 years). But there were some places I did NOT want to be doing surgery at (they didn't wear gloves, gowns, masks, etc.). I did manage to do several cat spays and a couple of dog neuters, but I feel really deficient in my dog spay skills. I think it'd take me at least an hour and I'd be really scared. I will get good mentorship in a couple of months on my internship's surgical rotation...but I won't be spaying or neutering in high volume.

Another thing I did was I went on a RAVS (Rural Area Veterinary Service) trip in the USA. But there were a LOT of vet students there, and most had more surgical experience than me. They tend to let those students do the most surgery - so I ended up just doing 1.5 dog neuters and part of a couple of dog spays (not much considering how we as a group spayed and neutered around 200 animals or more over 5 days).

 

[cyrille104]

yes

 

[cyrille104]

oops

 

[birdvet2006]

The UK slaughtered 7 million animals in 2001 because they were too cheap to give vaccinations, which ended up costing them more money anyway by dragging out foot and mouth disease and killing tourism.

Yes, and what does this have to do with animal welfare? Humane slaughter is welfare-conscious. I do not intend to have a discussion (argument) about FMD and vaccination on here. I was talking about animal welfare laws. I don't appreciate the flame.

 

[cyrille104]

forget it

 

[dvm'08]

This has a lot to do with animal welfare. Euthanizing animals for financial reasons is considered humane and ethical. The government gave up discussion of the vaccine under pressure from National Farmers Union (read: easiest way out). Had more consideration been given to the situation, they would have realized that the prospective financial losses incurred by giving the vaccine was much less than the amount that was lost on tourism. My point is that they did not give due consideration to all of the options before taking such measures, and the culling of animals was *not* the most financially sound option, and therefore not a humane option.

Granted governments make mistakes, and immediately afterwards they changed the laws to allow vaccination, but I just think that the point of your post was a little too congratulatory and misleading for a country whose animal welfare record isn't perfect.

this post is utterly ridiculous.

 

[cyrille104]

whatever, this entire thread is ridiculous