Class Dissection Of Live Dog Outrages Parents, Students

[eakers]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Jzero
Isn't this fairly routine with frogs? I guess they aren't cute enough to make the outrage cut.

The frogs are dead.

Try again.

LIVE frogs. The procedure is called pithing. You anesthetize a live frog and then sever it's spinal cord. "Try again." :roll:

I know what you are referring to and that procedure IS banned where I live.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 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.

From a purely scientific aspect, there is no distinction. This is an ethical question, not a scientific one. And there is a huge ethical difference between killing an animal and killing a human.

 

[MisterCornell]

It's Utah, what you do expect.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: 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.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sqube]

exilera, if you truly believe that entertainment was as i mportant as education in this case, I don't know what to tell you.

I also find it interesting that you take the viewpoint of "If the majority won't learn from it, it shouldn't be done."

 

[torpid]

No one else found it amusing that a substitute teacher did this?

I'm a little unclear about how much more you are going to learn by chopping into a live dog as opposed to a dead one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but REMOVING the digestive system does not seem like a real useful way of seeing a digestive system in action.

Also, many students have enough problem dealing with a dead frog. Now they have to see "man's best friend" cut up while it's alive, and let's not kid around, if you remove a digestive system most likely the dog won't last long after that, so thus they have to watch the killing of the animal in this manner as well.

I don't know about your school, but in mine the dissections were required for the course. Meaning if you had any moral or gastronomical objections to the project, you would get an F on the project.

Also worth noting... there was only one dog. So you don't really get any experience as a vet or surgeon since someone else is doing all of the work; what you get is more like a surgeon's assistant who wipes his brow while he's doing the surgery.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: 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.

Entertainment? I am sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The teacher clearly stated that he wanted them to have the experience, something that few would have. I applaud the school for trying to up the level of education that its kids receive. God knows I never had access to stuff like this.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: 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

Nothing has been established. You may believe it has been if you already agree with the argument, though. Personally, if a teacher wants to disect a dead animal in class over seeing a video of it, then fine, but disecting a LIVE animal is wrong. As I said, there are no benefits of disecting a live animal over a dead animal aside from the novelty of seeing a beating heart etc. They are the same insides no matter what state the animal is in, so why be cruel and rip open a live animal?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 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.

What do you see here that indicates in anyway that this was done for entertainment?

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.

You mean the animal that was going to be dead, whether anybody learned anything from it or not?

And there is a good reason to do it in high school - that's where kids are deciding what to do with their lives. If you were interested in studying medicine, or biology, this would be a great thing to experience to help you make that decision.

 

[MrDudeMan]

exilera isnt totally off base. you guys arent giving his arguements enough credit.

dainbramaged, i think you should cut the crap about whether or not it is clear cut right or wrong. there would be a massive difference between doing this for high schoolers or for people in pre-med. everyone here is just BSing if you are saying high school kids can learn from something like this. an animal being cut up in front of a bunch of teenagers will provide some education, but the "oooohh" and "ahhhh" effect will kick in and their attention span is gone. if it was in front of people who have previously dedicated their lives to medicine (i.e. people going in the direction of medicine, be it college or already a professional) then a live dissection wouldnt be such a big deal since more could be learned due to the maturity difference.

it boils down to this. high school kids are way too immature for something like this. i would venture a guess that less than 1/10 of them really soaked up the experience for the purpose of education. that just isnt enough to justify cutting up a live animal. no, i dont know where to draw the line, so dont give me that bullsh!t. everyone here is so "my-opinion-is-better" and it is really annoying. not everything is a slippery slope or a fallacy, and just because someone calls someone else a moron doesnt mean they dont have a point. you people need to get it together or cut the crap.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: torpid
No one else found it amusing that a substitute teacher did this?

My guess is that he was probably retired from some field where he had expertise in this sort of thing, which the regular teacher probably didn't. There's alot to be said for a teacher who hasexperience beyond the classroom.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
exilera isnt totally off base. you guys arent giving his arguements enough credit.

dainbramaged, i think you should cut the crap about whether or not it is clear cut right or wrong. there would be a massive difference between doing this for high schoolers or for people in pre-med. everyone here is just BSing if you are saying high school kids can learn from something like this. an animal being cut up in front of a bunch of teenagers will provide some education, but the "oooohh" and "ahhhh" effect will kick in and their attention span is gone.

I disagree. Some people actually learn something in high school. That the majority are morons doesn't mean you should deprive the minority of the opportunity.

if it was in front of people who have previously dedicated their lives to medicine (i.e. people going in the direction of medicine, be it college or already a professional) then a live dissection wouldnt be such a big deal since more could be learned due to the maturity difference.

it boils down to this. high school kids are way too immature for something like this. i would venture a guess that less than 1/10 of them really soaked up the experience for the purpose of education. that just isnt enough to justify cutting up a live animal. no, i dont know where to draw the line, so dont give me that bullsh!t. everyone here is so "my-opinion-is-better" and it is really annoying. not everything is a slippery slope or a fallacy, and just because someone calls someone else a moron doesnt mean they dont have a point. you people need to get it together or cut the crap.

 

[MisterCornell]

I'm in medical school right now, and let me just say there is *no* dissection of live animals (or dead animals for that matter). It would be pretty outrageous if there was.

Also, the trend is away from the cadaver dissections. Many of the top schools (UCSF, UM) have done away with it, or will do away with it shortly.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: torpid
No one else found it amusing that a substitute teacher did this?

My guess is that he was probably retired from some field where he had expertise in this sort of thing, which the regular teacher probably didn't. There's alot to be said for a teacher who hasexperience beyond the classroom.

I agree, but it's kind of funny for a substitute teacher to cause such an uproar.

 

[NFS4]

The reason why this is even an issue is because it is a DOG. A dog is man's best friend. Dogs are a part of the family, dogs are loved, some dogs are even genuinely "smart" relatively speaking. Speaking as a dog owner, I love my two dogs to death. Call me strange, but Buttons (the one on the left) is like my little sister. I know, some of you are probably like WTF, but I'm am damn close to that dog. She absolutely HATES my mom and is indifferent towards my dad. But when I come home to visit, she perks up and she runs to me and and jumps up so that I can pick her up and give her attention (just like a little kid). We're inseperable when I'm home and she goes everywhere with me even in the car...

Keeping that in mind, people have a natural distaste for undue harm done to dogs. Remember the public outrage over the man that pulled a woman's dog out of her car and threw it into oncoming traffic?

When my first dog died (she lived to be 14), we had a burial service for her (we each said a few words, dug a whole in the backyard and put her in the ground and put a rock over the spot in memory of her). I was 20 at the time, but I balled like a little bitch...I didn't even ball when my grandma died

Anyway, these were high school students. What the fvck do they know? They aren't in medical school or vetinary school or any crap like that. This is science class. They should be looking at computer models or some sh!t like that:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html

 

[MagicConch]

'The dog used in the experiment was going to be euthanized despite the class project.'


That makes it okay :disgust:

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: Sqube
exilera, if you truly believe that entertainment was as i mportant as education in this case, I don't know what to tell you.

I also find it interesting that you take the viewpoint of "If the majority won't learn from it, it shouldn't be done."

I think it has something to do with it, yes, because for the life of me, I simply do not see the benefit of doing this to a living animal, especially when there are morality issues involved. It just seems so rediculously cruel and unecessary, that there MUST be another reason involved.

I stand by that 'viewpoint' you mentioned. This might be a good lesson in a vet school or for a premed student, but for a high school? What purpose does it serve to do this to a living animal for a bunch of kids? A dead animal I wouldn't have a problem with, but the fact that the dog was still alive makes it just plain absurd and incredibly cruel.

 

[iamwiz82]

I have to admit I would find that fascinating from a scientific point of view.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
exilera isnt totally off base. you guys arent giving his arguements enough credit.

dainbramaged, i think you should cut the crap about whether or not it is clear cut right or wrong. there would be a massive difference between doing this for high schoolers or for people in pre-med. everyone here is just BSing if you are saying high school kids can learn from something like this. an animal being cut up in front of a bunch of teenagers will provide some education, but the "oooohh" and "ahhhh" effect will kick in and their attention span is gone.

I disagree. Some people actually learn something in high school. That the majority are morons doesn't mean you should deprive the minority of the opportunity.

if it was in front of people who have previously dedicated their lives to medicine (i.e. people going in the direction of medicine, be it college or already a professional) then a live dissection wouldnt be such a big deal since more could be learned due to the maturity difference.

it boils down to this. high school kids are way too immature for something like this. i would venture a guess that less than 1/10 of them really soaked up the experience for the purpose of education. that just isnt enough to justify cutting up a live animal. no, i dont know where to draw the line, so dont give me that bullsh!t. everyone here is so "my-opinion-is-better" and it is really annoying. not everything is a slippery slope or a fallacy, and just because someone calls someone else a moron doesnt mean they dont have a point. you people need to get it together or cut the crap.

some = very small minority. i paid attention in high school for the most part, but the fact remains that everyone between the age of 14-18 is pretty immature and hardly any would benefit from this little stunt.

doing this in front of a medically inclined audience would have been a much better use of the dog.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
I'm in medical school right now, and let me just say there is *no* dissection of live animals (or dead animals for that matter). It would be pretty outrageous if there was.

Also, the trend is away from the cadaver dissections. Many of the top schools (UCSF, UM) have done away with it, or will do away with it shortly.

Exactly, so why do this to a LIVE animal in a HIGH SCHOOL? Just pretty damn barbaric, and pretty cruel of anyone to condone it.

 

[exilera]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th
exilera isnt totally off base. you guys arent giving his arguements enough credit.

dainbramaged, i think you should cut the crap about whether or not it is clear cut right or wrong. there would be a massive difference between doing this for high schoolers or for people in pre-med. everyone here is just BSing if you are saying high school kids can learn from something like this. an animal being cut up in front of a bunch of teenagers will provide some education, but the "oooohh" and "ahhhh" effect will kick in and their attention span is gone.

I disagree. Some people actually learn something in high school. That the majority are morons doesn't mean you should deprive the minority of the opportunity.

if it was in front of people who have previously dedicated their lives to medicine (i.e. people going in the direction of medicine, be it college or already a professional) then a live dissection wouldnt be such a big deal since more could be learned due to the maturity difference.

it boils down to this. high school kids are way too immature for something like this. i would venture a guess that less than 1/10 of them really soaked up the experience for the purpose of education. that just isnt enough to justify cutting up a live animal. no, i dont know where to draw the line, so dont give me that bullsh!t. everyone here is so "my-opinion-is-better" and it is really annoying. not everything is a slippery slope or a fallacy, and just because someone calls someone else a moron doesnt mean they dont have a point. you people need to get it together or cut the crap.

" disagree. Some people actually learn something in high school. That the majority are morons doesn't mean you should deprive the minority of the opportunity.
"

And that minority can experience the same thing in medical school, not in a high school surrounded by kids.

 

[Attrox]

The outrage is because it's a dog. Ethically speaking nothing wrong with it since the animal was about to be put to dead, was sedated and for scientific experiment purposes. Of course it seems fvcked up since the animal is man's best friend. I will opt out of that class if it's me for sure and they had the chance to do that and yet did nothing and only complained afterward. So IMO it's their own fault they choose to be part of the experiment.

<-- Had done live frog and rabbit dissection in Highschool biology's class.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
I'm in medical school right now, and let me just say there is *no* dissection of live animals (or dead animals for that matter). It would be pretty outrageous if there was.

Also, the trend is away from the cadaver dissections. Many of the top schools (UCSF, UM) have done away with it, or will do away with it shortly.

Why? I would much rather a future doctor get his first experience with that sort of thing on someone who's already dead.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
I'm in medical school right now, and let me just say there is *no* dissection of live animals (or dead animals for that matter). It would be pretty outrageous if there was.

Also, the trend is away from the cadaver dissections. Many of the top schools (UCSF, UM) have done away with it, or will do away with it shortly.

Why? I would much rather a future doctor get his first experience with that sort of thing on someone who's already dead.

agreed

 

[shuan24]

there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with dissecting a dog for educational purposes. Anybody who has some personal affection for dogs just needs to get over it.

So lemme guess, dogs are not okay, but frogs are? Oh wait, but I LOVE frogs! Frogs are my bestest friend in the whole wide world!! Oh NOes!!