Animals killed for training
- Thread starter Accyexplorer
- Start date
If it wasn't necessary then it wouldn't be done, you asked for opinions, you got them, they don't suit you but don't waste your time trying to change our minds, move on to the next sensational topic you want to make a pigs ear of, (try and do it on facebook though, then you won't be upsetting the sensitive folk of AccyWeb).
Yes, they are fully anaesthetised.
The pig has a fearsome set of teeth, the mouths are taped so that when they are coming round from anaesthesia, the possibility of a bite from a semi conscious pig is minimised.
As to your question as to whether I am sure they feel nothing - of course I cannot be sure, but they are given the appropriate anaesthetic as a man of the same weight would get. Having worked in a theatre environment I know that this means they should feel nothing.
What I am sure about is, that every attempt is made to ensure that this research is done in a humane way.
These are not unnecessary purposes. I suppose you would prefer that the field surgeon practised on wounded soldiers and if they die...well, they die.
If their death can be attributed to a lack of skills then wouldn't you prefer to see those skills acquired?
Service men and women deserve the best skilled care that can be given.
If skills learned this way saved a son or daughter of yours, then I think your perspective on the research would change.
I know of the Ceasar Patient Simulator, there must be some aspect of this research work that makes the Ceasar Simulator unsuitable.
We were asked for opinions. I have given mine and justified it in a clear way.
I know I am retired, but I still take a great interest in medical matters and still read research papers.
I am very wary of research in general, but I think this type of research is valid and enhances the skills of those involved in treatment of people who are injured in a theatre of war.
Anything that makes the survival of these combatants more likely and with a better quality of life will get my vote.
I would also like to add that I am not in favour of some of the animal testing that is used in some situations - but this is one of the situations where I feel that animal testing is justified.
Accyexplorer if this doesn't sit well with you then I am sorry....I have to be honest in my response.
I know I am retired, but I still take a great interest in medical matters and still read research papers.
I am very wary of research in general, but I think this type of research is valid and enhances the skills of those involved in treatment of people who are injured in a theatre of war.
Anything that makes the survival of these combatants more likely and with a better quality of life will get my vote.
I would also like to add that I am not in favour of some of the animal testing that is used in some situations - but this is one of the situations where I feel that animal testing is justified.
Accyexplorer if this doesn't sit well with you then I am sorry....I have to be honest in my response.
No Margaret you are wrong, you do not have to apologise for giving your honest opinion to this person, he/she just has to like it or lump it.
Less, I am sorry if my honest reponse causes offence to Accyexplorer.
When you are particularly passionate about something(and we have all been there at one time or another) it is sometimes difficult to see another point of view.
I am just outlining where my opinion comes from, justifying(although you may say that no justifcation is needed) why I hold the views that I do.
When you are particularly passionate about something(and we have all been there at one time or another) it is sometimes difficult to see another point of view.
I am just outlining where my opinion comes from, justifying(although you may say that no justifcation is needed) why I hold the views that I do.
You put forward your views in a straightforward fashion, easily understood by 95% of AccyWebbers.
I do say you have no need to justify it, the thread starter asked for opinions, we gave honest replies, he/she didn't like the replies, tough on him/her not us.
Margaret,like I've said before I value your opinion (even when it is different to mine) same as MOST folks opinion ...thanks for clearing up why you hold the views you do.I appreciate your time an effort.
I'm just split between what I think about killing innocent animals and the benefits (if any) to saving soldiers life's.Of course if it was as clear cut as some think,then obviously I'd choose a soldiers life over a pigs.
Thanks again
I wonder if the OP thinks that the people doing this actually "like" doing it?
Its necessary training to ensure that the medics are able top practice their training on live subjects without actually harming a human to do it.
Its not like using a crash dummy to test a car safety, it has to have living breathing flesh. Dead bodies react in different ways to live ones, wounds do too.
Its necessary training to ensure that the medics are able top practice their training on live subjects without actually harming a human to do it.
Its not like using a crash dummy to test a car safety, it has to have living breathing flesh. Dead bodies react in different ways to live ones, wounds do too.
You are welcome.
I can live with the views of others. They have their reasons for their belief system...and it deserves respect.
It would be a very boring world if we all had the same thoughts about things.
I can live with the views of others. They have their reasons for their belief system...and it deserves respect.
It would be a very boring world if we all had the same thoughts about things.
Thanks for your input RS.
I'm not sure if they "like" doing it....probably/hopefully not.
Would it be fair to say that animal flesh/wounds might react different to a humans?
Would it also be fair to say that compared to operating on pigs that have been shot, lifelike human simulations (like the one I mentioned) are a far superior way of preparing these doctors to treat injured humans?
Besides I'm sure they are fully aware by now of how flesh reacts to being shot.
Some animal flesh may react in a different way.....pig flesh is as close to human flesh as it can possibly be...and the anatomy is the same too.
It isn't just the way human flesh reacts to being shot, but it is reconstruction of flesh, organs and developing skills that will make this better for field surgeons.
The Ceasar simulator might be good for some practice methods, but no good for others.
It isn't just the way human flesh reacts to being shot, but it is reconstruction of flesh, organs and developing skills that will make this better for field surgeons.
The Ceasar simulator might be good for some practice methods, but no good for others.
What exactly are "innocent" animals and how do they differ from "guilty" animals? If you eat meat and wear leather (neither of which are prerequisites for human existence), "innocent" animals are being killed for your pleasure everyday.
Also for the record,
A innocent animal is, a pig that's strung up and shot to serve a controversial purpose (like medical training).
A guilty animal is humans that take a country to war over land,oil,greed.
Are the guilty animals not the ones who do the fighting instead of saying no?
Those would be politicians then...if you speak to most people in the street they abhor such practices.
No sane person wants to go to war - and politicians will volunteer our sons and daughters to go and fight on foreign soil, but would be unlikely to go themselves.
This thread show that not everyone finds the subject controversial....but media hype tries to make it so by not giving the full facts, or by distorting the facts.
Like everything else in life, you have to balance out the benefits against the losses.
Who says it's controversial? A fish-and-chip wrapper like the Mirror and you? As DinG said way back at the start of this thread, it's important that medics are trained to give effective treatment to our lads and lasses in the battlefield. Some of the wars they are required to fight in are unjust in my opinion, especially in recent years, but they are there to defend our country when the need arises and I would prefer them to receive the highest standard of treatment available, even if it means sacrificing a few "innocent" pigs.
Incidentally, do you worry over the fate of "innocent" pigs when you're chomping your way through your sausage butties?
There are other subjects I'd replace the pigs with,I'll leave it to your imagination
I, too, am surprised that no one has suggested using convicted murderers, rapists, and other associated nasty people ... maybe some would include pedophiles, queers, and various ethnic groups. Even Jews ... but that's already been tried.
There's never a shortage of posters who leap onto the capital punishment bandwagon and compete in coming up with creative ways of dealing with crime and assorted "deviances".However, I do tend to agree with you on the question of using pigs as experimental subjects. And I do think that certain questions are being ignored. Why is the practice illegal in Great Britain? Why, in the 21st. century, is this the best we can come up with, as there seem to be few limits to human ingenuity when it comes to developing weapons systems and smart phones? And, no doubt, there are more.
There is also the irony that, in a largely post-Christian world, most humans still go along with the Biblical idea that God created the world merely for humans to use as they see fit. Unfortunately for us, and the planet in general, this hubristic way of thinking is leading us, at an ever increasing speed, in the direction of the Holocene extinction. Which, thank God, will not happen until after I've shuffled off this mortal coil.