Dogs Operated On, Then Killed

[poodlefan]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

So, dogs that get desexed at the Uni through the pound system shouldnt be, as it is a surgical procedure and

of lower standard?

Dogs that get desexed via the pound system don't have owners who'll sue.

[Kia]

It seems a shame that our vet students and nurses are being made to feel guilty about trying to learn. They all are animal lovers who have decided that they want to be able to help give animals a full heathy life.

These young people need our support rather than adding to their stress.

As to the use of these dogs .....what is the alternative....have them living in kennels for years waiting for a possible home? Let's give our students the very best chance to be the best they can.

[haven]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

Yes, I agree with this.

I also wonder what would happen legally if something went wrong, would the Vet still accept liability if the animal died as a result of the student's lack of experience or would the owners just be expected to accept the fact that they took a risk on a lower standard of care because that is all they could afford and their animal died as a result?

I find this more unethical in some mays than operating on dogs to be euthanised to be honest.

[Bartok]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

So, dogs that get desexed at the Uni through the pound system shouldnt be, as it is a surgical procedure and

of lower standard?

Dogs that get desexed via the pound system don't have owners who'll sue.

That is what a waver is for

No vet can guarantee you dog will live once put under anaesthetic

and we all sign paperwork before surgical procedures

I just think there could be alternatives and thinking outside the square is a good thing

Where possible trying to preserve life should be the main objective

I just believe that if the students are to operate on live animals, then use animals

that need procedures whose owners (or non profit resuce for that matter)

who don't have the finances to have it done and then the students

get to see the recovery instead of just its death

[poodlefan]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

So, dogs that get desexed at the Uni through the pound system shouldnt be, as it is a surgical procedure and

of lower standard?

Dogs that get desexed via the pound system don't have owners who'll sue.

That is what a waver is forNo vet can guarantee you dog will live once put under anaesthetic

and we all sign paperwork before surgical procedures

I just think there could be alternatives and thinking outside the square is a good thing

Where possible trying to preserve life should be the main objective

I just believe that if the students are to operate on live animals, then use animals

that need procedures whose owners (or non profit resuce for that matter)

who don't have the finances to have it done and then the students

get to see the recovery instead of just its death

If a vet kills your dog, they have professional insurance to cover any compensation.

You can't contract out of your liability at law. Waiver or not, if the dog dies due to error, there's probably a case for compensation. Of course that doesn't bring the pet back to life.

[Bartok]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

So, dogs that get desexed at the Uni through the pound system shouldnt be, as it is a surgical procedure and

of lower standard?

Dogs that get desexed via the pound system don't have owners who'll sue.

Dogs that vet desexed from the pounds only do so once they have been adopted.

doesnt that mean they have an owner?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Bartok

[leopuppy04]

It may be distasteful to some to have these animals PTS after their experiences with the vet students, but they are learning..... would you rathered they learnt on your own pet?

Sorry but I don't see how through 'observation' you would learn the same as doing it yourself.

I'd much rather my vet practice on the surplus of unwanted animals rather than on my own pets.

As for the ethical issue -I think the issue lies more with the surplus of animals unwanted, than vet students using them as an education tool which in the end is for the benefit of many MANY more individual animals lives.

[poodlefan]

Dogs that vet desexed from the pounds only do so once they have been adopted.

doesnt that mean they have an owner? and what does it matter?

I think it matters because owners sue. I think it also matters because there's a family to mourn for the dog.

[~Anne~]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

So, dogs that get desexed at the Uni through the pound system shouldnt be, as it is a surgical procedure and

of lower standard?

Dogs that get desexed via the pound system don't have owners who'll sue.

That is what a waver is forNo vet can guarantee you dog will live once put under anaesthetic

and we all sign paperwork before surgical procedures

I just think there could be alternatives and thinking outside the square is a good thing

Where possible trying to preserve life should be the main objective

I just believe that if the students are to operate on live animals, then use animals

that need procedures whose owners (or non profit resuce for that matter)

who don't have the finances to have it done and then the students

get to see the recovery instead of just its death

If a vet kills your dog, they have professional insurance to cover any compensation.

You can't contract out of your liability at law. Waiver or not, if the dog dies due to error, there's probably a case for compensation. Of course that doesn't bring the pet back to life.

I have always assumed that the students doing surgery on Blacktown Pound dogs were in the last year or two of their degree. Although this assumption could be totally wrong. I can understand that first, second or even third year students may not have enough hands on expereince at this point, but those closer to completing their degree would have a fair degree of competency under direct surpervision wouldn't they?

Perhaps one of the vet students or Rappie could provide more detail in this area.

[poodlefan]

I have always assumed that the students doing surgery on Blacktown Pound dogs were in the last year or two of their degree. Although this assumption could be totally wrong. I can understand that first, second or even third year students may not have enough hands on expereince at this point, but those closer to completing their degree would have a fair degree of competency under direct surpervision wouldn't they?

Perhaps one of the vet students or Rappie could provide more detail in this area.

How do you develop competency if you've never put a scalpel into living flesh?

[~Anne~]

I have always assumed that the students doing surgery on Blacktown Pound dogs were in the last year or two of their degree. Although this assumption could be totally wrong. I can understand that first, second or even third year students may not have enough hands on expereince at this point, but those closer to completing their degree would have a fair degree of competency under direct surpervision wouldn't they?

Perhaps one of the vet students or Rappie could provide more detail in this area.

How do you develop competency if you've never put a scalpel into living flesh?

I am only guessing and taking it from the way they introduce graduate teachers (yes, I understand the two professions are poles apart but building knowledge and experience is the same regardless of profession). Students studying degrees in teaching start practical studies in the first year. Through the 4 years of study, the practical side becomes more involved and the length of time on practical studies is increased until they are teaching with only light supervision by the final year of the degree.

I would therefore assume that Veterinary Science students would undertake a similar method where practical experience is increased and becomes more independently based towards their final year. They may start with theory, build for some areas to cadavers, and then finally to live patients. By the time they reach their final year or two, they will have gained enough expereince to be able to perform basic surgeries under supervision.

Again, it is all purely speculation and assumption.

Therefore - if this was close or refelctive of how students build experience in this arena, they would be coming close to competency by their final year. This is what I assume happens with Blacktown Pound dogs when we are told 'Uni Students' perform the operations at UWS.

Edited May 5, 2011 by ~Anne~

[Are You Serious Jo]

Who would like a vet's first experience of using a scalpel on a live animal to be while operating on your pet. Being an objector is one thing and it seems to be more about legality, but the materials you use are not a substitute for a living breathing animal. There is no substitute, alternatives are just that, not substitutes. If people want vets then they have to accept that vets need to be adequately trained. It's not even a cruel practice for goodness sake, the animals aren't even killed for training!

[Sheridan]

I find the idea that a poorer family's pets should have lower standards of vet care far less palatable than the current situation.

Mistakes still would get buried - but in this case they'd be those family pets. As I said, great idea for non-surgical stuff, not so good for the surgical.

Hence my view expressed earlier that I would not be using any recently graduated vet. Give me someone who actually has hands on experience rather than some kid who doesn't have a clue.

[Bartok]

Who would like a vet's first experience of using a scalpel on a live animal to be while operating on your pet. Being an objector is one thing and it seems to be more about legality, but the materials you use are not a substitute for a living breathing animal. There is no substitute, alternatives are just that, not substitutes. If people want vets then they have to accept that vets need to be adequately trained. It's not even a cruel practice for goodness sake, the animals aren't even killed for training!

I have no issue with them using live animals. Never said I did, but I believe there is probably better alternatives

to the practice.

If a univeristy offered free vet care to a Rescue organisations I am sure they would take up that offer.

We arent talking about 1st year green students

They dont pick up a scalpel on the first week or even first

year I wouldnt think. Probably not even second year. They have Professors and Vets with them.

They can see dogs with Parvo, mites, pyomtra etc etc etc.

Learn to treat them and watch them recover where possible

Worse case scenerio is that one of the animals may die, but so many more positives.

they get to see people trying to save unwanted animals. The work with live animals and

they might even enjoy watching something regain its health and head out to a new life

I would find it hard if I was a vet student to not have anything live while doing my studies

I am sure it gets depressing at times for them working on cadavars or non-recovery animals

If that sounds like a bleeding heart idea, then I am a bleeding heart

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'd hardly call you a bleeding heart from what you wrote, unless you are out in the street protesting about something you know nothing about.

I don't think you are going to find any unis offering free service for their students to get experience as they cannot afford it. The guts was ripped out of the tertiary system years ago and they are forced to operate like businesses now. Secondly the paperwork it would generate and the liability issues makes it unworkable.

I called the new uni vet clinic down here in SA for desexing prices, not only were they not discounted, they were more expensive than a lot of other places and insisted that you had pre-ana bloods done on all desexing. They aren't interested in cheap desexing programs and from what I've read there aren't any other unis willing to do it for free either. The thing is pracs need to be organised ahead of time and allowances made for errors by the student. If they eff up in the lab then no harm done, they eff up in the surgery then the uni faces a potential lawsuit. Students need to be able to practice, that is the bare bones of it, you cannot afford to practice on someone's pet.

[frenzied1]

Please be aware too that this is the internet, you cannot always understand people's tone in the written word and some people are more rational than emotional when discussing isues like this and vice versa. Don't make the mistake of thinking that someone is a heartless bitch just because they agree with something you don't and can state why without using overly emotive language, I can tell you as a long term member of this forum that isn't at all the case.

Currently in this country we have far too many dogs and nowhere near enough homes for them all and as a result extremely large numbers of them die every year. They can either;

a) be euthanised and disposed of

or

b) some of the dogs can be anaesthetised and made available for Vet students to get valuable experience, which benefits everyone in the future as our Vets are more experienced. Then they can euthanised and disposed of.

NOBODY is thrilled about the fact that these dogs die at all, but so long as they do this practice is akin to the lesser of two evils I think, at least something good can be made from an awful situation. It's hasn't got anything at all to do with not caring about the dogs because they are going to die anyway, the animals are well cared for and extremely strict guidelines are adhered to in order to ensure that the animals are not mistreated in any way and do not feel any pain.

I admit I have a hard time understanding why anyone would choose option a over option b just as others may struggle to understand why I see option b as preferable, but either way the choice isn't as black and white as picking between a good option and a bad one. It isn't at all correct or appropriate to say that anyone who prefers option b is 'perfectly ok' with the dogs dying anymore than it is correct or appropriate to say that the people who choose option a are.

I think this is a great post

I honestly don't know what I'll do whens she retires.

Come to mine, he is great

Edited May 6, 2011 by frenzied1

[john.davey.1960]

In my considered opinion this story is totally barbaric and proves how valueless Animal Ethics Committees are. Any practice should be done on dogs in veterinary surgeries with an extra year added to the course for supervisory training. Is it any wonder vets are eager to accept obscene animal management practices when they are desensitised to the suffering of animals while training.

[stormie]

In my considered opinion this story is totally barbaric and proves how valueless Animal Ethics Committees are. Any practice should be done on dogs in veterinary surgeries with an extra year added to the course for supervisory training. Is it any wonder vets are eager to accept obscene animal management practices when they are desensitised to the suffering of animals while training.

How are the animals suffering and how is this barbaric? There is no difference with what happens in this situation to what happens when your pets go in for surgery, except what whilst already asleep, they are given an injection which sends them to heaven.

I take offence to your comments saying vets are desensitised to the suffering of animals in their training. If you read some of the previous posts, you'll see that Vets have one of the highest rates of suicide compared to other professions. This doesn't sound like a group of people who are desensitised.

I have not met one Vet who enjoys euthanasia. All the vets I've known and/or worked with take great joy in fixing an animal and seeing it go home. I've been nursing for 6+ years now and have witnessed many many euthanasias and am by no means desensitised - in fact, it's the opposite for me and I can't remember the last time I didn't get upset having to do it.

The idea of using rescue animals is all good and well, but that would mostly just be for the routine desexing surgeries. But there are other things that are done (well, they were when my boss went through), such as spleen removals, cruciate repairs, amputation, fixing a deep chest wound etc etc. They can also see the effects of an animal too deep under GA and learn how to correct it.

Obviously there will still always be their first surgery on someone's pet, but I'm sure knowing they have done the procedure successfully before, during Uni, will give them greater confidence, as well as the owner.

[poodlefan]

In my considered opinion this story is totally barbaric and proves how valueless Animal Ethics Committees are. Any practice should be done on dogs in veterinary surgeries with an extra year added to the course for supervisory training. Is it any wonder vets are eager to accept obscene animal management practices when they are desensitised to the suffering of animals while training.

I'm not going to dignify this sort of hyperbole with a response.

[Are You Serious Jo]

In my considered opinion this story is totally barbaric and proves how valueless Animal Ethics Committees are. Any practice should be done on dogs in veterinary surgeries with an extra year added to the course for supervisory training. Is it any wonder vets are eager to accept obscene animal management practices when they are desensitised to the suffering of animals while training.

So at which point does the animal suffer? Can you give precise moments during the whole procedure?