A forum held Friday entitled "Alternatives to Live Animal Labs in Medical Education" demonstrated a growing University voice in opposition to the use of live animals in a third-year Medical School lab study.
The event, organized by first-year Medical student Lindsey Neal and fourth-year Medical student Rooshin Dalal, featured a speech by the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and a presentation of information on the use of animals in medical schools.
"My main goal for having this presentation was to make sure all the students were aware that alternatives do exist," Neal said. "And that you can opt out of the lab if you feel uneasy about it and still be a great doctor."
Each year, the Medical School purchases and raises up to 70 beagles for the dog laboratory, "Emergency Life Saving Techniques."
In the lab, students learn how to remove a spleen, perform a tracheotomy and to insert a chest tube. When the lab is over, the dogs are immediately given lethal injections.
Neal Barnard, President of the D.C. based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, was the keynote speaker at the presentation and spoke out against what he called the antiquated use of animals.
"This is beyond an optional issue; we have certain obligations and ethical principles," Barnard said. "According to the Animal Welfare Act, if good alternatives exist [the lab] is unlawful."
Barnard also presented a graph demonstrating the decline of animal labs in medical schools across the country from over 50 percent in 1985 to less than 15 percent in 2000.
Those in attendance viewed a video that documented the elimination of the dog lab from Harvard's Medical school curriculum.
The video pointed out several alternatives to the dog lab, such as students shadowing surgeons, practicing on fresh cadavers or the use of an artificial torso called Trauma Man, complete with skin and the ability to bleed. The video estimated the cost of each dog to be $5,000-$6,000 compared to the free experience of shadowing or the relatively cheap cost of a Trauma Man.
Second-year Medical student Scott Eisenhuth, president of the Cable Surgery Interest Society, said the presentation failed to convince him of the lab's immorality.
"Our dog lab is completely different from Harvard's," Eisenhuth said. "The Harvard lab was purely about physiology, which is completely different from what we do with basic surgery techniques and I definitely don't think the alternatives shown in the forum were good enough."
The University doesn't officially offer any of the alternatives shown in the presentation but does not require the students to participate in the lab.
First-year Medical student Lisa Boyette pointed out that, although shadowing is not an official alternative, many faculty are more than willing to accommodate students who want to observe real procedures.
"You're treated like the guest of honor if you're a student and not even required to be there," Boyette said.
In a survey administered at the presentation, 76 percent of those in attendance said that they would use an alternative like Trauma Man if it were offered. Another 12 percent said that they would rather do the dog lab and the last 12 percent did not comment.
"I really want to stress that this is an optional lab and students can choose to do this or not," Eisenhuth said. "And the majority of students now do choose to do this lab."
Curtis Tribble, the surgeon who oversees the lab, was unavailable for comment.
Read More
Who is Interim President Paul G. Mahoney?
By Brandon Kile | 16 hours agoThe former Law dean joined the University Law School faculty in 1990 and served as academic associate dean of the School of Law from 1999 to 2004.
Why a judge ruled against allowing Youngkin appointees to serve
By Nina Broderick | YesterdayThe denied appointees are now not recognized as official members and they can not vote or attend meetings.
Will Ryan’s resignation impact the University’s reaccreditation?
By Leigh Bailey | 4 days agoDr. Janea Johnson, public relations and data specialist at SACSCOC, said in a written statement to The Cavalier Daily July 28 that “a change in leadership does not automatically become a compliance concern.”
