Class Dissection Of Live Dog Outrages Parents, Students

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Crono
It was gonna be euthanized anyway, so I have no objections.

Should we do this to people on Death Row after they're through with appeals?

How about people that are comatose, where the family is going to take them off life support?

Dogs are NOT people!

Though I wouldn't be put out if we used Death Row inmates for this type of educational purpose.

The school knew, the parents knew, and I suspect the place that was going to euthenize the dog knew (the school isn't going to do that). Why is this a big deal? oh and I have a dog and I love it, but it's a dog, not a person.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: exilera
And who sedated it? The teacher? How could they be sure it wouldn't feel anything?

It would probably sure as hell have not just laid there while they cut it open if it wasn't sedated.

Just because it was too sedated to move or offer resistance doesn't mean it didn't feal pain...

*le sigh*

Boy, I bet your anesthesiologist just LOVES you.

That was a rediculous comment? The fact is that there's no way for an animal to tell you it's feeling pain if it can't move. The teacher didn't know 100% that the animal wouldn't feel any pain when he sliced his stomach open. I'm sorry, but anyone who would condone mutilating a live animal for any reason is nothing short of a morally inept neanderthal.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Crono
It was gonna be euthanized anyway, so I have no objections.

Should we do this to people on Death Row after they're through with appeals?

How about people that are comatose, where the family is going to take them off life support?

Dogs are NOT people!

Though I wouldn't be put out if we used Death Row inmates for this type of educational purpose.

The school knew, the parents knew, and I suspect the place that was going to euthenize the dog knew (the school isn't going to do that). Why is this a big deal? oh and I have a dog and I love it, but it's a dog, not a person.

Not to mention, no matter how worthless they are, death row inmates have a little thing called the constitution on their side. Something about cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Disections don't even belong in high schools. There is nothing gained from them. It has always been the same crap--cut your frog/pig/cat down the center, pull out the organs one by one and identify them. You don't actually do any research...

Where is the extra learning in that? You can get the same from a textbook.

Have you ever heard of "hands on" training or education. Generally, it is much easier to teach and learn when you are doing hands on experiments.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: dornick
I really don't see this as such a horrible thing. I mean, it's not like they did it to cause the dog pain, but for educational purposes. Plus, it was sedated.

So because it was for "education", that makes it ok to make an innocent animal suffer. Good point, moron.

Well, I hardly think the dog was suffering much, but yeah pretty much. Now tell me why that's bad.

Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do something.

We COULD do this to humans that are about to die, and that would feel no pain.

But should we?

I have no problem doing it with humans... humans who are being put to death for horrendous crimes. An animal on the other hand, is completely innocent.

I could 'maybe' see this being done for premed students, but in a high school? That's just unecessary.

I agree it was unecessary, but not that it was immoral. By the way, there's no such thing as an "innocent" animal or a "guilty" animal: they're just animals. That's the dividing lines between animals and humans.

Note: I don't advocate this on humans.

Amazing, all you have to do to justify almost any inhumane behavior is to term it "they are just animals" as if that somehow makes them not suffer and feel terror at what is being done to them.

I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Linflas
A decent reason is eating, not so 30 teenagers can see the wonders of the digestive system in a live animal.

How did you decide that?

How? Killing and eating an animal for survival is quite a bit different than disecting a LIVE animal for the entertainment of a bunch of teenagers. This kind of "lesson" can be taught from a video or through a textbook. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever for it to be done in person.

He didn't "decide" that, it's fact.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: oogabooga
Dissectoin of living animals isn't as prudent an education tool as it was x years ago. you would figure that they'd have an alternative means to do this. in Bio AP when i was in high school (it feels wierd saying that) we were shown a video of a live frog being cut into to demonstrate the power of his heart,etcetc. We dissected worms that were already dead etc. I just think that there are other ways now to get the point accross that don't involve direct interaction.

I don't think a dog is a person so equating it to death row inmates or whatnot right away is a far fetched. But it does make you wonder where it would stop? would we do it to dolphins? apes? etc? Would human eventually be that far off in the name of 'education'?

Your argument employs usage of the fallacy of a slippery slope. Just because other things may happen does not make this item wrong. Judge it based on what it is.

May happen? It has happened.

There are scientists, even today, that would probably love this to be an accepted practice on human beings.

But see, most of us can understand the distinction between humans & animals, so that just isn't going to happen.

Yes, so can I.

No, aparently you can't. As evidenced by what you post below.

But I fail to see why and how, if this is for the sake of science, you feel it is that much different between a person that will die (100% absolutely) that will feel absolutely no pain, and an animal in the same position.

If it's for the sake of science, why should the distinction matter?

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: exilera
I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

That may be true. Lets go with something solid like the fact that the dog was going to die, it was more than likely sedated beyond feeling, and its digestive system being removed and the discomfort potential there was outweighed by the fact that it gave students the chance to see something that few ever will see. That sounds much better.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Disections don't even belong in high schools. There is nothing gained from them. It has always been the same crap--cut your frog/pig/cat down the center, pull out the organs one by one and identify them. You don't actually do any research...

Where is the extra learning in that? You can get the same from a textbook.

Have you ever heard of "hands on" training or education. Generally, it is much easier to teach and learn when you are doing hands on experiments.

For some high school kid who is never going to use any of this knowledge in life? Maybe for a premed student, or one that will actually make use of the knowledge. The teacher and principal are complete idiots.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Disections don't even belong in high schools. There is nothing gained from them. It has always been the same crap--cut your frog/pig/cat down the center, pull out the organs one by one and identify them. You don't actually do any research...

Where is the extra learning in that? You can get the same from a textbook.

Have you ever heard of "hands on" training or education. Generally, it is much easier to teach and learn when you are doing hands on experiments.

For some high school kid who is never going to use any of this knowledge in life? Maybe for a premed student, or one that will actually make use of the knowledge. The teacher and principal are complete idiots.

What about the kids there that *are* going on to premed? Are you saying that ones degree changes the morality of the rights or wrongs concerning dissection of an animal? That's pretty weak. And calling people names only serves to weaken your argument from a professional point of view.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera
I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

That may be true. Lets go with something solid like the fact that the dog was going to die, it was more than likely sedated beyond feeling, and its digestive system being removed and the discomfort potential there was outweighed by the fact that it gave students the chance to see something that few ever will see. That sounds much better.

And to what end? So the students can cringe, scream and make comments to eachother during class? What exactly will that teach that a video of the same thing won't? It's completely unecessary.

The fact that the dog was going to die is irrelevant. If that were the case, they should have disected it 'after' it was dead, instead of cutting open a live animal.

I just love how you refer to an animal being ripped open as "discomfort potential". We have a real winner here.

:roll:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera
I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

That may be true. Lets go with something solid like the fact that the dog was going to die, it was more than likely sedated beyond feeling, and its digestive system being removed and the discomfort potential there was outweighed by the fact that it gave students the chance to see something that few ever will see. That sounds much better.

And to what end? So the students can cringe, scream and make comments to eachother during class? What exactly will that teach that a video of the same thing won't? It's completely unecessary.

The fact that the dog was going to die is irrelevant. If that were the case, they should have disected it 'after' it was dead, instead of cutting open a live animal.

I just love how you refer to an animal being ripped open as "discomfort potential". We have a real winner here.

:roll:

Okay, how about this, then, since no one seems to have read it the first time I posted it.
Why did the students and parents wait until AFTER it was done to complain, when they had advance notice? If they actually cared, I imagine they would have done something to stop it in the first place. I guess it's less work to complain about something than it is to try to stop it.

 

[DrPizza]

Great argument against ever cutting into an animal for practice. Not a skill that someone may eventually need. Besides, we can learn it all in a book. Taking the argument to the other extreme, I'll bet you're going to be thrilled, when that doctor fresh out of medical school starts cutting into you to remove your appendix. "Have you ever done this before, doc?" "no, but I read about it and looked at pictures in a book!" /end sarcasm.

I'll agree that of course those skills will be learned in med school by working on cadavers. And, the same skills necessary for veterinarians or biologists, etc. can be picked up in college as well. But, the goal of a well-rounded high school education is to expose students to as many fields as possible to help them pick a career for the future. Exposure to such labs may create an interest in biology or medicine (or whatever), or it may persuade a person that perhaps they don't want to be a heart surgeon.

There is absolutely no doubt that hands-on learning for science is superior to simply learning from a book. To propose that students shouldn't be exposed to hands on experiences such as dissections is ridiculuous.

And, finally, in my opinion, since the dog was scheduled to die, I have no problem with this as long as the dog was sedated.
Furthermore, if a prisoner is on death row and scheduled to die at 12pm, but that prisoner allows a live dissection to take place while under sedation (starting at 12pm to avoid potential last minute appeals problems), I have no problem with that either. Although, I don't think there's much that would be learned by the caliber of scientists who would be carrying out such experiments, thus, realistically it's not even something that anyone would seriously consider.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera
I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

That may be true. Lets go with something solid like the fact that the dog was going to die, it was more than likely sedated beyond feeling, and its digestive system being removed and the discomfort potential there was outweighed by the fact that it gave students the chance to see something that few ever will see. That sounds much better.

And to what end? So the students can cringe, scream and make comments to eachother during class? What exactly will that teach that a video of the same thing won't? It's completely unecessary.

The fact that the dog was going to die is irrelevant. If that were the case, they should have disected it 'after' it was dead, instead of cutting open a live animal.

I just love how you refer to an animal being ripped open as "discomfort potential". We have a real winner here.

:roll:

First, there is such a thing as "opt out." Anyway, just because its on a video, does that somehow make it better from your point of view?

Disection after death would have been pointless for the teachers purposes.

Again, you use insults to try to get people on your side. Bad case of logical fallacy. Do you have anything to actually add to this argument or did you just want to try to tell me that I'm stupid?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Linflas
A decent reason is eating, not so 30 teenagers can see the wonders of the digestive system in a live animal.

How did you decide that?

How? Killing and eating an animal for survival is quite a bit different than disecting a LIVE animal for the entertainment of a bunch of teenagers. This kind of "lesson" can be taught from a video or through a textbook. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever for it to be done in person.

He didn't "decide" that, it's fact.

It wasn't for entertainment, it was for education. And we don't need to kill animals to survive. We could all easily be vegetarians. I personally think this a better reason to kill an animal then just for a couple of fast food meals.

Reading about it, seeing the video isn't the same as actually doing it, and seeing it. Anyway, how would they make the video without doing it? Is it less unethical to kill a dog (that will be killed anyway) for 30 people vs. 30,000?

I know I've learned alot by seeing just how living things are put together inside. If you're not interested in that kind of learning, then opt out of the class. I'm personally glad that some people still think its important to see things hands-on, and not sanitized behind a TV screen.

 

[Sqube]

I would just like to say that, although you can learn something from a book, it is no substitute for actually experiencing something.

Do not misconstrue this statement to mean that I am taking one side or the other; I merely take the opportunity to say that "Well you could read about it" is a very poor argument, since reading about something in no way is similar to actually doing something yourself.

If it was, we would all be geniuses, fantastic lovers, etc etc etc.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Disections don't even belong in high schools. There is nothing gained from them. It has always been the same crap--cut your frog/pig/cat down the center, pull out the organs one by one and identify them. You don't actually do any research...

Where is the extra learning in that? You can get the same from a textbook.

Have you ever heard of "hands on" training or education. Generally, it is much easier to teach and learn when you are doing hands on experiments.

For some high school kid who is never going to use any of this knowledge in life? Maybe for a premed student, or one that will actually make use of the knowledge. The teacher and principal are complete idiots.

What about the kids there that *are* going on to premed? Are you saying that ones degree changes the morality of the rights or wrongs concerning dissection of an animal? That's pretty weak. And calling people names only serves to weaken your argument from a professional point of view.

Then those kids can witness the wonders of disecting a live animal in medical school, not in a high school where 99.9% of them will have absolutely no use for the 'lesson'.

Explain why this should be done in person, with a live animal, instead of showing a video of the same thing. Please explain how it would benefit the majority of the class later in live, to disect a living animal. Explain why this is necessary.

I didn't realize I was speaking from a "prefessional" point of view. I'm just a guy with a (seemingly) higher moral standard than some people posting in this thread.

 

[jalaram]

I really don't think there would've been an outrage at all if it was a living frog or something that isn't a normal pet.

 

[Sqube]

Originally posted by: jalaram
I really don't think there would've been an outrage at all if it was a living frog or something that isn't a normal pet.

QFT dammit.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: exilera
And to what end? So the students can cringe, scream and make comments to eachother during class? What exactly will that teach that a video of the same thing won't? It's completely unecessary.

The fact that the dog was going to die is irrelevant. If that were the case, they should have disected it 'after' it was dead, instead of cutting open a live animal.

How is it irrelevant that the dog was going to be euthanized? It seems completely relevant.
I imagine this exercise could very well have helped some students decide they did not want to be a veterinarian or doctor, and maybe helped some decide that they would like to choose one of those career paths.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Yes, so can I.

No, aparently you can't. As evidenced by what you post below.

But I fail to see why and how, if this is for the sake of science, you feel it is that much different between a person that will die (100% absolutely) that will feel absolutely no pain, and an animal in the same position.

If it's for the sake of science, why should the distinction matter?

Don't let how I ask the question give you a false idea of what I actually believe.

I'm asking the question from a purely scientific standpoint (as in the 100% reason for doing something). If the ultimate goal is to further knowledge on the subject, it should be irrelevant if the subject is human or animal. If you're using science as justification for one thing, why not use it for another? This is assuming you put science and knowledge above everything, which is something I definitely don't agree with.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera
I agree. "they're just animals" is supremely stupid and ignorant argument.

That may be true. Lets go with something solid like the fact that the dog was going to die, it was more than likely sedated beyond feeling, and its digestive system being removed and the discomfort potential there was outweighed by the fact that it gave students the chance to see something that few ever will see. That sounds much better.

And to what end? So the students can cringe, scream and make comments to eachother during class?

The majority will probably be to caught up in being dramatic, but I bet, heaven forbid, that there were a few that actually learned something, and who knows whewre that could lead?

What exactly will that teach that a video of the same thing won't? It's completely unecessary.

Have you ever done a dissection on anything bigger then an earthworm? Ever field dressed & butchered an animal? To say that watching a video gives you the same level of understanding as actually doing it, live & in person, is absurd.

The fact that the dog was going to die is irrelevant. If that were the case, they should have disected it 'after' it was dead, instead of cutting open a live animal.

shrug - dead is dead, isn't it? The dog was sedated, and didn't feel anything. And there's more to see & learn if it's still alive.

I just love how you refer to an animal being ripped open as "discomfort potential". We have a real winner here.

:roll:

 

[aidanjm]

that guy looks like a serial killer

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Disections don't even belong in high schools. There is nothing gained from them. It has always been the same crap--cut your frog/pig/cat down the center, pull out the organs one by one and identify them. You don't actually do any research...

Where is the extra learning in that? You can get the same from a textbook.

Have you ever heard of "hands on" training or education. Generally, it is much easier to teach and learn when you are doing hands on experiments.

For some high school kid who is never going to use any of this knowledge in life? Maybe for a premed student, or one that will actually make use of the knowledge. The teacher and principal are complete idiots.

What about the kids there that *are* going on to premed? Are you saying that ones degree changes the morality of the rights or wrongs concerning dissection of an animal? That's pretty weak. And calling people names only serves to weaken your argument from a professional point of view.

Then those kids can witness the wonders of disecting a live animal in medical school, not in a high school where 99.9% of them will have absolutely no use for the 'lesson'.

Explain why this should be done in person, with a live animal, instead of showing a video of the same thing. Please explain how it would benefit the majority of the class later in live, to disect a living animal. Explain why this is necessary.

I didn't realize I was speaking from a "prefessional" point of view. I'm just a guy with a (seemingly) higher moral standard than some people posting in this thread.

The percentage of people going to benefit from the disection is irrelevant. Either it is right or wrong. Not doing it in high school to save it for premed might make more sense since it would be directed toward a more selective audience but it does not change any of the ethical questions of it.

It should be done in person for "hands-on" experience. That has been established over and over in this thread.

I realize that you are not speaking from a professional level. That has been made quite obvious, however, I was merely saying that people will take your arguments more seriously if you use real arguments rather than a conversation that goes like this:

A: Dissection is wrong
B: No its not!
A: Your MOM

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: exilera

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Linflas
A decent reason is eating, not so 30 teenagers can see the wonders of the digestive system in a live animal.

How did you decide that?

How? Killing and eating an animal for survival is quite a bit different than disecting a LIVE animal for the entertainment of a bunch of teenagers. This kind of "lesson" can be taught from a video or through a textbook. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever for it to be done in person.

He didn't "decide" that, it's fact.

It wasn't for entertainment, it was for education. And we don't need to kill animals to survive. We could all easily be vegetarians. I personally think this a better reason to kill an animal then just for a couple of fast food meals.

Reading about it, seeing the video isn't the same as actually doing it, and seeing it. Anyway, how would they make the video without doing it? Is it less unethical to kill a dog (that will be killed anyway) for 30 people vs. 30,000?

I know I've learned alot by seeing just how living things are put together inside. If you're not interested in that kind of learning, then opt out of the class. I'm personally glad that some people still think its important to see things hands-on, and not sanitized behind a TV screen.

It was for entertainment just as much as it was for education. Give me a break. This isn't necessary. I'm sure it's a better learning tool than using a textbook, but considering that the vast majority of the class wouldn't use any of that later in life, it shouldn't be done. Also, why use a living animal? Why not use a dead one? You still see the same insides. What could that possibly provide in terms of education? Nothing, nothing aside from the 'novelty' of seeing a living animal's beating heart. I'm far from a prude, but I think that's just rediculously callous and VERY unecessary.

Explain why it's necessary to kill a living animal for a bunch of high school kids, over doing the same disection with a dead animal.