First, do no harm
Among the many creeds to which medical institutions must adhere, one is fairly simple: Do no harm. Inevitably, this directive tends to become somewhat muddled once the myriad complicating factors arise, but the spirit itself should remain at the heart of everything our medical professionals do. It should be no different when animals are involved.
The debate over whether animal testing is scientifically necessary or ethically justifiable is colored by passion and moral ambiguity on both sides, and consensus seems elusive at best. But there seems to be at least one point on which both the defenders of animal welfare and reasonable medical practitioners can agree: Live animals should not be used for purely educational purposes.
For this reason, nearly every medical school in the country has abandoned the archaic and unnecessary practice of using live pigs as practice subjects for surgical students in training. And yet, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine is one of just a handful of institutions that refuse to join this broad professional consensus and discontinue a practice that most of their peers consider outdated and cruel.
It's true that pigs are neither as intelligent nor as rational as human beings, but certainly they are no less immune to pain and no less interested in their own well being than we are. Killing them needlessly or causing them pain - and the practice is truly needless - is both unethical and inhumane.
Here's how it works: The pigs are supplied to the medical school for the express purpose of surgical training. They are terminally anaesthetized before third-year medical students cut into them, performing various mock surgeries without regard for the health of the pig. The animals are then euthanized and discarded once the surgery is done.
To most physicians, this practice is senseless, unnecessary and cruel. The vast majority of medical schools use human cadavers or simulators instead, which most medical professionals feel is a more accurate rehearsal for the experience of operating on human patients.
Animal vivisection was once considered the best and most reliable method of learning about our own anatomy, just as bloodletting by the application of leeches was thought to cure various diseases. Modern advances in technology and medical science have rendered both of these practices obsolete, and to continue their use purely out of a stubborn allegiance to tradition is cruel and ethically indefensible.
Today, 116 of the nation's 126 medical schools have abandoned the practice of operating on live pigs purely for the purpose of education, and we call on the School of Medicine to do the same immediately. Hopkins is in a small minority of medical institutions that continue to engage in a practice that is both unethical and of little scientific value.
We urge the school to stop killing animals needlessly - doing so would be a significant step toward living out the physicians' most basic creed.
The debate over whether animal testing is scientifically necessary or ethically justifiable is colored by passion and moral ambiguity on both sides, and consensus seems elusive at best. But there seems to be at least one point on which both the defenders of animal welfare and reasonable medical practitioners can agree: Live animals should not be used for purely educational purposes.
For this reason, nearly every medical school in the country has abandoned the archaic and unnecessary practice of using live pigs as practice subjects for surgical students in training. And yet, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine is one of just a handful of institutions that refuse to join this broad professional consensus and discontinue a practice that most of their peers consider outdated and cruel.
It's true that pigs are neither as intelligent nor as rational as human beings, but certainly they are no less immune to pain and no less interested in their own well being than we are. Killing them needlessly or causing them pain - and the practice is truly needless - is both unethical and inhumane.
Here's how it works: The pigs are supplied to the medical school for the express purpose of surgical training. They are terminally anaesthetized before third-year medical students cut into them, performing various mock surgeries without regard for the health of the pig. The animals are then euthanized and discarded once the surgery is done.
To most physicians, this practice is senseless, unnecessary and cruel. The vast majority of medical schools use human cadavers or simulators instead, which most medical professionals feel is a more accurate rehearsal for the experience of operating on human patients.
Animal vivisection was once considered the best and most reliable method of learning about our own anatomy, just as bloodletting by the application of leeches was thought to cure various diseases. Modern advances in technology and medical science have rendered both of these practices obsolete, and to continue their use purely out of a stubborn allegiance to tradition is cruel and ethically indefensible.
Today, 116 of the nation's 126 medical schools have abandoned the practice of operating on live pigs purely for the purpose of education, and we call on the School of Medicine to do the same immediately. Hopkins is in a small minority of medical institutions that continue to engage in a practice that is both unethical and of little scientific value.
We urge the school to stop killing animals needlessly - doing so would be a significant step toward living out the physicians' most basic creed.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Jackie
posted 6/24/08 @ 11:59 PM EST
I agree absolutely that animals should not be used in medical experiments or for medical training. If intelligence was used as a criteria for choosing experimental subjects, a lot more humans would suffer, as animals do. (Continued…)
Thomas
posted 7/08/08 @ 9:08 AM EST
I'm afraid I disagree. There are some inconsistencies in your argument. First you state that "Killing them needlessly or causing them pain - and the practice is truly needless - is both unethical and inhumane. (Continued…)
Jason
posted 7/10/08 @ 3:10 PM EST
While I am at a loss for why my first comment was removed after being acceptable for several months. My primary disagreement with the editorial remains the same. (Continued…)
Post a Comment