American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) Part II~ Pawprints and Purrs, Inc.

11. Weren't animals necessary for the organ transplants of today's modern medicine, and don't we need to use animals to meet the shortage of human organs?

The ethical, scientific, and public policy issues surrounding organ transplantation are often widely misunderstood. The research community and the general public often regard organ transplantation as a medical milestone, but the overall impact on human life expectancy as a result of organ transplants is virtually nil. Only a very small percentage of people in the world stand to benefit from an organ transplant. On the other hand, the majority of heart, liver, and kidney disease (the organs most often transplanted) can be prevented through lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, the investment of money into public education to reinforce and encourage these lifestyle choices is a minute fraction of the amount spent on animal research.

Preventive medicine and lifestyle choices are undoubtedly the most sensible and effective strategies for addressing the diseases and disorders which are treated by organ transplants. However, when transplatation is a viable option, it is clear that human organs are far superior to animal organs. Scientists are now attempting to overcome enormous scientific problems in order to transplant animal organs into humans.

The human immune system will violently reject implanted animal organs. Since the tissue comes from an entirely different species, the rejection is much more severe than any human organ transplant would evoke. Scientists are now trying to produce animals with human DNA, to reduce this immune reaction. The amount of money already spent to overcome these problems is enormous, and yet there has been virtually no investment in any public education campaigns to encourage people to take care of their health in the first place, or to encourage human organ donation.

This methodology is being pursued with great vigor, despite the fact that many scientists have warned of the dangers of epidemic disease from this "xenotransplantation." Viruses present in animal tissue, which may be harmless in that species, could turn out to be contagious and deadly to human beings. This enormous risk is absolutely unwarranted. Thus far, of several dozen human recipients of animal organs, not one has lived more than nine months.

12. Isn't it necessary to use animals in the training of medical students?

As a matter of fact, many medical schools in the US do not use animals in the training of medical students. Some of these include:

Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH
New York University, New York, NY
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Yale University, New Haven, CT
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Actually, most of the medical schools which do use animals allow students the option of foregoing the animal labs. This is because they clearly acknowledge that such labs are not necessary for the training of doctors. The sole exception is the military's Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.

Dogs are the most commonly used animals at medical schools which haven't implemented alternatives. The internal organs of a dog differ in shape from those of humans. The tissues, skin, internal organs and other parts of a dog differ in texture and elasticity from those of humans. While basic surgical skills could be learned from animals, it is certainly not necessary. What is necessary, for teaching anything but basic, rudimentary techniques, is that the students have experience observing and assisting with human surgery. For example, first year students at Havard Medical School observed the effects of cardioactive and anesthetic drugs during heart surgery in the hospital operating room. This method proved to be a valuable teaching and learning experience. As an alternative option, if medical schools insist on training their students with animals, we suggest that they have the students assist veterinarians with necessary surgery.

Scientific facts can be taught to medical students by use of films, models, diagrams, cadavers and other demonstrative techniques. Medical schools which allow their students to "practice" on live, healthy animals may be teaching future physicians to be callous and devoid of compassion. Doctors are considered to be humanitarian individuals, but vivisection during the training process can desensitize them to the pain they cause and teach them to put ethics aside.

A survey conducted at The University of Colorado Medical School, the last civilian medical school to finally forego a requirement for live animal labs, revealed that 78% of the medical students surveyed (which represented 81% of the class) felt that students should have the right not to participate in these unnecessary labs. The survey was conducted shortly before the University finally reversed its policy and allowed students the choice to not participate in these labs.

By what methods should future surgeons be trained? Students should first learn about anatomy by practicing with cadavers, and then work directly with accomplished surgeons, observing and assisting with operations. Finally, after they have assisted with many types of surgical procedures, they will be amply prepared to perform surgery themselves. This is the surgical training procedure in Great Britain, where practice surgery on animals is illegal. It is unquestioned that British surgeons are among the world's finest.

13. Animals that have been procured from pounds and shelters are going to die anyway. Why not put them to use in laboratories?

Animals in shelters are often euthanized if suitable homes cannot be found. The process of euthanasia is supposed to be painless. If these animals become tools for research, they are often subjected to excruciatingly painful experiments. A quick and painless death is certainly more humane than a lifetime of torture in a laboratory. Even when the animals are destined for a one-time experiment from which they will not awake, the trauma of transport, caging, and a laboratory setting is the last thing these neglected and abused animals deserve.

Consider also that there are two basic groups of animals in shelters:

(1) Those who are old, sick, injured, aggressive, etc., who are not likely to be adopted, and are destined for euthanization, and

(2) healthy and friendly animals who have a chance of being adopted.

Animal researchers want the animals from the second group, thus they are taking animals who may be adopted and are directly interfering with the humane function of the shelters.

Animal experimenters are able to obtain large numbers of animals at low cost from pounds and shelters. If this practice is discontinued, it will certainly decrease the number of redundant, unnecessary animal experiments which are performed.

Rather than attempting to rationalize the suffering and torture of animals in laboratories with the statement that "they are going to die anyway," we should address the problem of companion animal over-population. Low-cost spay/neuter programs would greatly reduce the number of animals in shelters in the first place.

Reference Resource:
American Anti-Vivisection Society, Jenkintown, PA USA, "Point/Counterpoint" brochure