May 17, 2005

High school teacher dissects live dog for students' benefit.
posted by Nickdanger 19 years ago
  • News story.
  • kitfisto nails high school teacher to the door, for his own benefit. One of the finest minds of the 13th century at work there, folks.
  • You have got to be fucking kidding me. Just ... fuck.
  • *cries*
  • This is going to get interesting.... The real problem here is a school administration that didn't see this coming.....
  • If the dog's alive, then it's vivisection, not dissection. Although the OED tells me that the word is only used by people who oppose the practice (i.e. me). Mind you, if there were some greater benefit than "teaching" a bunch of high school kids, then maybe, but you want to be sure there's some serious benefit going on when you open up a living creature. I'm not convinced that the students really learned much about the functioning of internal organs that they couldn't have learned some other way. Pah, substitute teachers.
  • and... after thinking about it a bit.. Bad to do this to a dog, just wrong.. The teacher is an asshole...no other word for it... This could have been prevented...it looks like notice was sent in advance and nobody did anything about it...
  • I'm not saying anyone should make any contacts...but... Principal Kirk Anderson (phone) 435-528-7256 [email protected] James R. Petersen, Superintendent, [email protected] Michael D. Barclay, School Board President, [email protected] Larry Smith, School Board Vice President, [email protected] Jim Braithwaite, School Board Member, [email protected] Nancy R. Jensen, School Board Member, [email protected] Kim Pickett, School Board Member, [email protected]
  • um... the dog was anaesthetised, and was going to be put to sleep anyway... am I alone in thinking this isn't as bad as cutting up a dog when it's awake and otherwise perfectly healthy? We euthanise pets. This pet was to be euthanised.
  • Yeah, but was there any need for its last day to involve being taken into school and hacked up by some guy who wasn't a vet? Did it serve any purpose? Why not do it to some death row fuck who's going to die anyway? Far more educational. Cutting up live animals in school can neber be a good thing.
  • Will Mr. Bierregaard be doing any other of the Royal Society's latest experiements? Perhaps he'll next test for the presence of phlogiston, or maybe something else from the cutting edge of the 17th century.
  • altolinquistic, nothing was to be gained by this, this hack lession by a sub teacher wasn't going to spread any education. Our humanity starts with how we treat the smallest of creatures.... .... what kitfisto said...
  • Who's dog was it?
  • Well, I'm sure the kids did learn more, but it wasn't about the functioning of the canine digestive track. It was about how cruel and stupid adults can be,
  • Hopefully the Principle's daughter. Restrained but angry email currently winging its way to the principle. Thanks HuronBob.
  • I'm going to provisionally side with altolinguistic here. Can those opposed to this practice, explain a) why they think nothing will be learned and b) how this practice is more cruel than simply euthenising the dog? For myself I see no practical difference between euthenising a dog and first rendering it unconcious and insensate, discecting and then euthenising it. People are right to say that if this was done to a human it would be bad, but I would argue that that's because humans feel their dignaty in life to be important. Dogs, manifestly, do not. That's why we have laws about what you do with dead humans while we don't have the same laws about dead animals. Finally, but on a level completely seperate to the above debate, I want strongly progest HuronBob's posting of the Principal's phone number. School board trustees are ok: they're public officials. Principals are not, and I think that posting his phone number and email is tantemount an incitement to harrass him. Lets keep this in the political arena, folks. Just to clarify that, I'm manifestly not saying that because I want to intimidate HuronBob into shutting up. But I think it has to be said in passing.
  • First..... I think it is fine to post a phone number that is public information, this wasn't an unlisted phone number..and, dreadnought, sorry, i'm not intimidated by you, so don't be concerned... We we don't use communication with those we disagree with as a means to express our opionions and cause change, how the hell are we supposed to do it? And...last...here's the public statement, which I got by e/mailing someone on the list to express my concerns: Statement from South Sanpete School District Regarding the Vivisection Incident at Gunnison High School Last week senior students, in an advanced biology class, were allowed to observe a surgical procedure performed on an anesthetized, live animal. The animal had been determined to be dangerous, could not safely be placed for adoption, and was scheduled to be euthanized. The procedure was done by a licensed veterinarian in a hospital setting at the request of a retired, experienced biology teacher who was substituting at the time. Students were allowed to observe this procedure only with parental permission and anyone wishing to not participate was excused. (Note: This information is not provided to justify the incident but rather to give accurate information to many questions we have received.) As a School District we understand that such practices are controversial and offensive to many people. We wish to apologize that the incident happened. Such procedures have not been a part of our curriculum in the past and will not be allowed in the future. It was an isolated incident and will never happen again. We wish to assure the public that our instructional practices are intended to provide students with the highest levels of humane treatment and respect for all living things. All of our instructional staff will receive instruction on current Utah policy as outlined in the Utah Guidelines for Responsible Use of Animals in the Classroom. The South Sanpete School Board and District administration deeply regret the situation that occurred and will carefully review the incident. Any disciplinary action taken will be in accordance with District and State guidelines and advice from our legal counsel. Superintendent James R. Petersen South Sanpete School District
  • crap...sorry about the formatting...never cut and paste a pdf file without previewing... and the "we we" should have said "If we..." Enough from me, probably too much... I'm getting back to work, looks like the issue is resolved anyway...
  • A) Is it vet training school? No, it's high school. Do these kids need to see a pulsating digestive tract, when a book or website would do. Sure, biology is about learning about such things, but is he going to fuck a hooker when it comes to sex education? Just goes too, too far. B) Like i said before, this guy is not a vet, he's a teacher, and although I understand the need to put some animals down, I don't think they should be taken into noisy, probably less than sterile schoolrooms and cut open so a bunch of kids can either be horrified or desensitised to animal suffering / objectification. I understand your points, dreadnought, but disagree with them. This is just an horrific freak show, nothing more.
  • "The Anatomy Lesson of Mr. Disregaard." Altolinguistic -- that the dog was to be euthanized is not an excuse for this. Euthanizing animals is intended to be a compassionate act to end the suffering of an animal. Cutting it up while alive is not a compassionate act, although I'm making the assumption that the demonstration led to the dog's death -- that it wasn't some amateur surgery based on screwed-up didactic principles. Sadistic and incompetent teachers are a prime reason of why I couldn't wait to get the hell out of high school...
  • OK, so it was done by a vet. My bad. Still don't think it's the right thing to do...
  • I love the disconnect between 'we did nothing wrong' and 'it will never happen again'. Nice.
  • FYI, the statement.
  • I suppose there's other ways to consider the argument. From that last link: ..according to the Humane Society, eight states have already made it state law that middle school and high school students must have a choice to refuse dissection and not be penalized for it.. That having been said, I'm all for dissections. They are very very instructive. But just like our food, we humanely *hopefully* kill the animal(s) first.
  • I am beside myself. Go, go, culture of life.
  • In the U.S., we feel that people who do this sort of thing belong in the government.
  • It was going to be anasthetised then killed, instead it was anasthetised and cut up a bit then killed. So no extra suffering. The idea that we euthanise dogs to end their suffering is demonstrably incorrect given that we kill many just to keep the numbers down. The dying with dignity thing is pretty much bullshit, these animals lick their own balls and eat their own shit, projecting human dignity on to them is just ludicrous anthropomorphisising. HuronBob's posting of numbers is out of order though.
  • I think dissections are instructive for people who need to know anatomy: doctors, vets, nurses and the like. You could say that high school dissections serve as a recruiting tool for those professions, but I don't think they are the most effective tool to use. For those who will not use anatomical knowledge, dissections seem unnecessary and potentially cruel. Of course,I could be saying this because of my own (possibly contradictory, as a meat-eater) discomfort with dissection. In jr high and high school, I always agreed to do my lab partner's homework for a specific time period if s/he would do the actual dissection. (The rule at my school was that you could avoid the dissection and get a C for the unit. To my geek brain, a B was unacceptable, and a C was cause for abject panic. So I resorted to cheating.) If someone could explain to me the usefulness of dissection, I may change my mind, but no one has even successfully outlined why dissection is so useful in this age of good computer graphics and when most students have no intention of going on to careers where the knowledge of surgery and anatomy will be useful.
  • biffa..projecting human dignity on to them is just ludicrous Agreed. But killing in a humane way is dignified. /semantical interlude
  • Since the vivisection didn't cause the death of the animal, and didn't cause any suffering on the part of the animal, I don't see the cause for outrage. Is it the animal's dignity that you're concerned about? Is it because it's a dog (as opposed to some non-pet animal)? The whole thing seems very humanely done, and has a real educational benefit to an advanced biology class.
  • meredithea I think I agree with you. I've dissected maybe a couple of frogs and rats altogether which includes school, nursing and BSc. I've also seen a couple of autopsies. They were all instructive, but only to a degree. Reallllllly, unless you need to know the surgical techniques, it's probably satisfactory to see a video and practice online -- or have a group demo between a bunch of students. Certainly there's no need for each student to participate, even doing biology at Uni.
  • Biffa... you've got to be kidding.... Your "lick their balls" argument is about as absurd as anything I've heard... I sure to god hope you don't have any bad habits (picked your nose lately???), or we'll have justification to put you under the knife.. hell, just plain bad logic may be justification enough.... And, once again, the numbers/e/mail addresses I posted were public, what's your objection to that?
  • I think this is very, very wrong. Dogs may not have dignity, but I don't think we're anthropomorphising them by hoping to give them a decorum of dignity prior to death. As it had been said, how we treat animals reflects on our humanity and humaneness, not on how smart we think animals are. Also, how do we know that the dog didn't suffer? Was the anaesthetic sufficient to totally render it unconscious, or merely immobile? Could it have been aware that it was been eviscerated? Would you feel that it wouldn't have made a difference whether someone just killed you pointblank or rendered you immobile, cut you up, then killed you? If not, why say it makes no difference to the dog? There's a Chinese saying that even an ant will struggle for life. The dog had to be killed, and it couldn't have been happy about that if it knew; at least give it a swift death, rather than prolonging it like this.
  • It was a dog and it was sedated. I have absolutely no problem with that. I wonder if people would have got so worked up if it had been a sedated rat. /dissected a mouse at school when I was ~13. There was no scandal or anything.
  • Koant, believe it or not, as Alnedra just stated, some cultures have evolved to the point of believing all life is sacred... Some cultures, some people, haven't...
  • All life ? Sacred ? Sounds more like regressing to me than anything else.
  • Yes, and what about the countless numbers of frogs that are pithed in junior/high schools across the U.S. in biology classes each year? I don't recall seeing/hearing any news reports of outraged students/parents in reaction to our poor little frog friends being stuck with needles (?). Perhaps this is a touchy story in the U.S. because of the way pets are integrated into the culture. Dogs are almost humans by proxy; they are insured, they are included in wills, some are treated better than their human siblings...
  • The dying with dignity thing is pretty much bullshit, these animals lick their own balls and eat their own shit, projecting human dignity on to them is just ludicrous anthropomorphisising. By your logic, it is ok to mix shit in with your dog's dinner, because hey, they eat it anyway. By your logic, it is ok to beat a suicidal man to death, because if he thought dying was so bad, he wouldn't be considering doing it himself. By your logic, it's ok to rape a prostitute and leave a few dollars behind. Your defining dignity by judging the actions of the victim. If something is wrong (/barberic/demeaning/harmful), then it's wrong, no matter how the victim interprets it. If you make shit taste like chocolate and feed it to people, is it ok as long as no one finds out? Hey, they fucking liked it! What the fuck is wrong with you biffa?
  • Biffa feels that valuing life is "regressive".... I'm not even sure what to think about that, hard to believe that a thinking person would feel that way...
  • I'm assuming the anaesthetic rendered the animal unconscious. If not, then it should have. If so, then there was no suffering and no harm done. I've impaled living worms on hooks just to catch a fish. Does that make me an inhuman monster?
  • Err, that's me, Koant. And yes I make a difference between Human and animals when valuing life.
  • ...as Alnedra just stated, some cultures have evolved to the point of believing all life is sacred... Some cultures, some people, haven't... Huron Bob: Are you referring to her Chinese saying? I don't think that points to the Chinese culture believing that all life is sacred.
  • rocket, in some cultures, it would.... We have to acknowledge a continuum in terms of the value of life, every culture, and every person, is placed by their behavior on the continuum. I think what we are seeing here is that, in our western (a generalization here, i know that) society, dogs fall in an area that prompts debate and disagreement... worms probably don't. and...biffa, I apologize for attributing koant's statement to you, my error.. and, koent... where do you draw the line....and how does your dog feel about that... although I'm betting you don't have a dog, and if you do, you probably shouldn't...
  • A sedated dog is different from a sedated person how, exactly? Because people have "dignity"? What is that- the desire to be treated as if your life had some value? And we've decided that dogs don't have that desire how, exactly? Does "dignity" require that you believe all life has value and is respect-worthy, or only human life? All human lives, or only some human lives?
  • I was sedated and anesthetized when I had my C-section. It didn't keep me from freaking out. It is a horrible feeling to be completely powerless. It was the wrong venue for something like this. Sadists would be attracted to this, especially sadistic high school kids who probably got massive boners over watching it. In another setting, I might not object so much. If I could see the REAL value of it. Not so here.
  • Rocket... you're right... it doesn't refer to sacred. I was reading that into it... But, there are cultures that do value all life....I guess that's my point...
  • In high school I observed a college biology class, with live animals under anaesthetic. It was very interesting and instructive. These advanced biology students had the benefit of a similar experience. Gross details (do not read if you are a sensitive type): The students sectioned out the bladder, and attached it to a catheter. This lead to an instrument that would count individual drops of urine. They then attached an IV, and measured the input and output. Then, various drugs were injected, and the timing and effect on the production of urine was measured. At the end of the experiment the animal was put to death in a clean and humane way. I was impressed not only by the experemental results, but also by the care that was taken to prevent suffering.
  • I'm thinking that the "retired biology teacher" probably was reliving his favorite teaching moments from 25 years ago in Gunnison, Utah, a burg of about 2000 Utahn souls right now. Who knows what the local industry is--maybe selling crap on eBay--but when Wild-Eyed Pete was the biology teacher, they made their living off the farm, dammit! Not saying that what he did was right (seeing as my decision to be vegetarian commenced on the day in college that I was asked to dissect a fetal pig), just saying that he probably thought he was in tune with his dirt-farming, hard-scrabble audience. Out of touch with the new demographic of sensitive rural Utah. Who'da thought?
  • look! nondissected tiny kittens!!! whaddya know?!?!
  • Biffa feels that valuing life is "regressive".... What the fuck do you base that on? Are you in the habit of making up any old shit and attributing it to someone who disagrees with you? And I object to your putting up people's emails because you were clearly encouraging people to have a pop at them. peacay: You're right, they should be killed humanely, and indeed they should only be killed where their is no other option, unfortunately this is still economically led in many cases. But is it inhumane to kill them and get something of value out of their deaths where this does not involve any additional suffering on the part of the dog? I suggest that it is not, an argument that I would also consider stretching to humans. Certainly I always carry my organ donor card.
  • there are cultures that do value all life I find this statement a bit vague, HuronBob, as I wonder what you mean here by "cultures", "value" and "all life". Who were you thinking of exactly? /without any snark
  • Thanks, Sidey -- with a bunch of undissected kittens, we can cut some of them up, and still have Control Kittens to boot!
  • >And yes I make a difference between Human and animals when valuing life. That's very broad-minded of you. You are, presumably, a human- and you think human life is more precious, don't you? What a coincidence. You probably value the lives of members of your family over the lives of strangers, too. But you'd probably agree that that's a very subjective value judgement- that the lives of people you love aren't inherently more valuable than the lives of people you don't know, except from your own point of view. So, except from your own point of view, why are human-animal lives more valuable than other-animal lives?
  • quidnunc.. I was thinking, specifically, about the Buddist religion/philosophy (perhaps calling it a "culture" was a bit incorrect). A primary precept: Do not Kill One must not deliberately kill any living creatures, either by committing the act oneself, instructing others to kill, or approving of or participating in act of killing. It is a respect to others' lives. One should not deprive others (animals not excluded) of the right to live. If one is hurt or killed, one's family, relatives, friends will suffer. It is the cause of rebirth in Three Evil Paths. The effect of killing to the performer are brevity of life, ill health, handicapped and fear. In observing the first precept, one tries to protect life whenever possible. Furthermore, one cultivates the attitude of loving kindness to all beings by wishing that they may be happy and free from harm. By "value" I mean, cause no harm, respect. By "all life", I mean just that, all life, any living thing.
  • Hmmm... sounds like a lesson the kids will remember for ever. Several lessons (the dissection, the furore, the discussion, the role of the media, etc., etc.).
  • Some people are failing to draw the line between dissection and vivisection (or are deliberately ignoring it). The frogs you dissected in school were already dead. What you dissected was an object, not a living being. Med students dissect human corpses, and I have never heard anyone say that is wrong- this is not about whether its a frog or dog or human. It's about whether it's a living being, or an inanimate chunk of flesh. A living dog was cut up and put on display. There's a difference. Earwax- Performing a vivisection to count drops of urine is pointless. They cut up a live animal in every class, every semester to learn something they already fucking knew? Even if it was some new drug and nobody knew what it was going to do, it only has to be done once, if at all. I think the results could be found through a less invasive procedure- one that does not require vivisection, but even if it was necessary, it certainly does not need to be repeated over and over so a bunch of students can see.
  • Biffa.. I apologized above for attributing that comment to you, again, my mistake... but, again...Yes, by posting e/mail addresses and phone numbers, I was encouraging people to contact the appropriate decision makers in that school district. Isn't that what we should do when we object to something? Just talking about it on a discussion forum doesn't change a damn thing in this world... When did passing along the means to communicate with elected officials and public administrators become such a crime?
  • And Jesus H! Human life is not valuable compared with the price of a gallon of petrol.
  • quid.... I was referring to the buddhist philosophy (perhaps not a culture).. a major precept: Do not Kill One must not deliberately kill any living creatures, either by committing the act oneself, instructing others to kill, or approving of or participating in act of killing. It is a respect to others' lives. One should not deprive others (animals not excluded) of the right to live. If one is hurt or killed, one's family, relatives, friends will suffer. It is the cause of rebirth in Three Evil Paths. The effect of killing to the performer are brevity of life, ill health, handicapped and fear. In observing the first precept, one tries to protect life whenever possible. Furthermore, one cultivates the attitude of loving kindness to all beings by wishing that they may be happy and free from harm. By "value" I meant respect, honor, do no harm. By "All life" I meant, any living thing...
  • EarWax, was the experiment a necessary one? By this I mean, was it a new experiment or a replication of an existing experiment in order verify the procedures and the result? Or was it a stock demonstration experiment, intended to show how the scientific method works? I would consider the former case a valid reason, and the latter case an invalid reason. If you want to cut up a living person or a living animal, think of some new experiment that you need to answer before doing so. If it's just to show people, live and in the flesh, what it looks like to see a living creature looks like on the inside, then buy a DVD. As someone said, if it's to learn a surgical technique or similar, then there's reason to do it. If it's just to see, then it's the modern equivalent of a penny dreadful, cloaked under the guise of education. If students are really that interested, then they could try to intern at a veterinary clinic or go to an advanced degree in the subject or, as I said, find a video of it. Watch the Learning Channel, whatever. There are countless documentaries and television programs about even people being operated on, that will convey at least as much information as the vivisection of a living creature with no additional experimental benefits. On preview, smallish bear, I disagree. If it's a new drug, then the experiments need to be replicated at least a few times, especially if the drug is one destined for people. Otherwise there could be problems with procedure or just an odd statistical anomaly with the test animal. Without replication, it's not science, and it's far more dangerous.
  • Am I the only one thinking "it was only a dog"? (And yes, I am willing to die in the service of humanity. Aren't you?)
  • peacay - Certainly there's no need for each student to participate, even doing biology at Uni. You ever try to test university students on their knowledge of basic anatomy? Short answer is, unless you've actually done a dissection you aren't going to learn any of it. I know, I've administered and graded the exams. I'm not talking about a full-on anatomy course (although I've been involved with one for six years running now, and I see the same basic results). I'm talking about a single three-hour lab, with a small number of invertebrates (earthworm, starfish, squid) and one vertebrate (lamprey). Students dissected on Week 1, and were examined the following week. Never fails - the ones who study only from the book and photos really never do well. The number one rule you learn in anatomy is that every animal is unique, every one is a little bit different, so the photo of Animal A won't help you much with Animal B unless you've taken the time to examine a few and thus have learned about variations. Plaster or plastic models, computer sims and so on are I think great for high school students (especially because they are cheaper in the long run - reusable) and are probably a good tool for college kids. They are not however a replacement for the real thing, not at our current level of technology. This high school teacher on the other hand... how the hell did a substitute teacher get this thing through committee? We did some field trips in my high school anatomy class (human specimens at a chiropractic college) but we never had live ones, even under vet supervision I can't see this going over well.
  • monkeyfilter: vivisection to count drops of urine is pointless
  • I was referring to the buddhist philosophy Thanks, I suspected you were; I know some hindus who maintain a similar position regarding the sacredness of life and make a great chicken curry. Anyway - you are suggesting that this position is morally superior to that of this teacher, yes? If so, the liveness or otherwise of the dog is irrelevant, I suppose. If, however, we are to judge these persons on some other set of assumptions, then I don't quite see why the disciplines of the noble 8-fold path are relevant here. Are you saying - "I'm a buddhist, this is wrong?" Again, I ask this with infinite respect and many lotus blossoms.
  • I know. Why dont't we just use sedated death row prisoners for this this sort of thing? I mean, we were going to kill them anyway...*rolls eyes* I do think dogs have a sense of dignity. If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough. I am against vivsection. I am in support of limited disection. I have cut up my share of creatures in biology classes. Fascinating, but unecessary. Every school child does not need her very own frog corpse to mutiliate in order to learn how the frog works in the inside, and they sure as hell don't need to gut a living, breathing animal that most people in the US see as a companion species.
  • monkeyfilter: Every school child does not need her very own frog corpse
  • I see nothing wrong with killing animals for food, and I understand that a lot of drugs and surgeries ought to be tested on non-human animals first, etc., but there is such a thing as going too far: I think clubbing baby seals en masse solely for their fur is repulsive, and dissecting a live dog is even worse -- better to let students watch films of veterinary surgery that might even do the animal some good. I'm pretty sure veterinary colleges could sell videos of veterinary surgeries if there was a market.
  • quid... I'm not Buddhist... but I do feel this act was not necessary and probably did not add to the good in this world. I believe (ymmv) that we should all strive to become better people as we go through this life. Something about the destruction of other life, human or otherwise, does not fit with my way of thinking. Others may not agree with this. I do think that the Buddhist philosophy is not out of sync with my belief regarding this.
  • monkeyfilter: sleeping lump o' fluffy kittens
  • More on the urine drop issue: These were premed students, I believe. The purpose of the experiment was to demonstrate how to do research using live animals. The point was that these students would be be doing research in the future where the results were not already known. Therefore, they had to learn the steps that were necessary. Also, it was hands-on. I stand by to accept your differing opinions, drop by drop.
  • quid... I'm not Buddhist. I do believe that as a person it is my responsibility to value all life. It appears that this is in sync with the Buddhist philosophy. I'm not saying "I'm a Buddhist. This is wrong." I'm saying that I believe this is wrong, so I have a responsibility to speak out against it.
  • Thanks for your answers, mate.
  • While I don't agree with vivisection, (I just find it creepy) I don't have as much of a problem with ear waxes situation as I do with the former matter. These were HS students, who, while they may have an interest in biology most likely do not have the prior schooling to retain and process any pertinent discoveries. Pre-med students, (aspiring to be doctors or surgeons presumably) on the other hand, need to familiarize themselves with cutting open living beings. Speaking of frog, worm, and sheep heart dissections... how many people here can honestly say that it was an important educational experience for them? I vaguely remember the stink of formeldahyde (*sp) but that's about it...
  • Clubbing baby seals is the most humane way to kill them, and support some very poor people who also eat their meat. Try learning a little more about it. Seals are not endangered, and have a very healthy population (much healthier than cod, but no one pickets outside the local fish and chips). The campaign against it was one of the stupidest things Greenpeace ever did. It sold on cuteness, and not on actual environmental concerns, and it's done a lot of damage to the economically disadvantaged native and non-native hunters. The one thing we (Western, primarily urban) could all learn from vivisection and dissection is a lot more about life. I have no freaking idea what a dead, bloody corpse, human or otherwise, looks like, though I happily pop pork chops in my oven. Whenever I talk to people who grew up around animals, including killing them, they respect the animal, but they also understand a lot better about life and death, certainly than I do. Also, phone-numbers are bad. If it's public information, we can google. Putting them here leaves it open for cranks, and also liability for tracicle.
  • "clubbing baby seals is the most humane way to kill them..." I'm leaving now... here ya go, jb
  • I disagree with those who said the kids could learn just as much from books or movies. Field trips are a vital tool to educators. All of these kids, whether they go on to careers in biology or not, will remember this trip for the rest of their lives. What do you remember from the books you read and in-class movies you saw in high school?
  • #HB: >where do you draw the line? As I said, between humans and animals. It's completely arbitrary and I'm fully aware of that; I'm not invoking anything sacred or taboo and such. You probably draw a line as well, only somewhere else. That's fine by me. But justifying it by some religious principles ('all life is sacred') doesn't make your position any stronger. These are pseudo and post-hoc reasons. #Stan the Bat : I agree, it's probably not a coincidence and I suspect it has to be with the psychology of human nature (my species first). #Skirk: no you're not the only one but some are louder than others.
  • Koant... It is evident in our world that my position is in the minority, you're right, it is not a strong position.. But, let me suggest this. As we, as a species, come closer to placing a value on all life, from one end of the continuum to the other, from humans to single cell, doesn't this world become a better place? When we have to "draw a line", doesn't it become easier to move the line when it is to our advantage in some way. I'm going to go find a dog to pet.... Discussions like this make me sad....
  • well let's all make sure we leave this post as pals. we lost dizzy over an animal issue, if i recall.
  • Huron Bob: If all life were equally valued, it would be wrong to kill millions of bacteria to save a single human life. We all draw the line somewhere.
  • So.....a baby seal walks into a club...
  • these animals ... eat their own shit Coprophagy [a.k.a. eating your own shit] is natural and necessary in many animals: For example, "Lagomorphs [e.g. rabbits] produce two kinds of feces. The first kind is basically a first-cut, digestively speaking, from which some but not all nutrients have been extracted. This gooey black feces is eaten as soon as it is excreted, and then re-digested in a special part of the stomach. This second round of food processing extracts more nutrients, and the final-cut feces is in the form of small, hard pellets." Eat that.
  • Coprophagy [a.k.a. eating your own shit] is natural and necessary in many animals: For example, "Lagomorphs [e.g. rabbits] produce two kinds of feces. The first kind is basically a first-cut, digestively speaking, from which some but not all nutrients have been extracted. This gooey black feces is eaten as soon as it is excreted, and then re-digested in a special part of the stomach. This second round of food processing extracts more nutrients, and the final-cut feces is in the form of small, hard pellets." Someone post that in the Intelligent Design thread.
  • my dog is a coprophagist. we can't keep him away from the kitty truffles.
  • I think it was really Jainism that was being referred to upthread... Jainism teaches that "every single living thing is an individual and eternal soul They are the people (Rajasthan, India) who walk along with veils over their faces to prevent accidental inhalation of insects and brush the ground ahead of them to keep from squishing the non-flying insects. Earwax -- In the circumstances you describe, I would have no real problem with such a dripping experiment. caution live frogs (how appropriate a moniker for this thread) -- I certainly wouldn't wish to cast aspersions upon your good teaching practices and perhaps I was a diligent and interested student but I can't really see how the argument you put forward could stand on 4 stout legs and walk effectively across the room. Anatomy can easily be learnt from a book and if people fail a course or an exam then they'll certainly learn how to study more appreciatively. You can read about each individual of a species having uniqueness in the array and size and functioning capacity of organs they possess without necessarily having to dissect one. That said, I do understand the educational assistance these dissection classes provide to some less than book-happy students. I'm not completely against what you're saying, but I don't think that your argument is completely valid, is all. There's no offense intended by that, I'm just looking at it argumentatively ;- )
  • In medical school, we dissected cats that were to be euthanized, and had been anesthetized, to better understand the body while it was still working. No point, really, in learning how the body systems look; it's about how they WORK. That said, that wasn't exactly high school...
  • It's like a car wreck - I don't want to see it, but I can't look away. No, I don't mean the disection/vivasection, I mean the level of discussion on this thread.
  • Damn - I take it back. The second half of the discussion is way more civil and substansive. That'll teach me to post before reading the whole thing.
  • That's False, true Keraptis
  • False Keraptis--you think this is even remotely bad? Don't EVER walk into a trainwreck on the other Meta! You'll be damaged for life! Gee, I thought this was quite friendly. It's all about the debate...
  • You know, every day hundreds of dogs are anastesized and cut open. It's called surgery. Most of those dogs wake up afterwards, some don't. Would there be the same moral outrage if the class had been performing surgery, but weren't sucessful and the dog winds up being dead anyways? Either way you have a dead dog in the classroom.
  • I don't think I'd want a bunch of Utah school-kids operating on my rampant piles, but then again I have private cover.
  • Actually, buck09 I believe that was my particular point. The surgery should have a purpose other than entertainment or "learning". If there was a veterinarian available to do surgery on a dog that was going to be euthanized, why not perform surgery on a dog that needed surgery? That presumes that the operating theatre was set up in such a way as to not increase the risk of exposure to bacteria etc., otherwise you would be increasing the risk of death in an animal not likely to die. rocket88, I'm not saying that they would learn as well, per se. I'm saying that they would learn enough for what they need, and then if they wanted to learn more, they could do one of the other things I suggested. And what did I learn from school movies that I remember? If you don't brush your teeth every day, you're going to be very, very sorry. Scientists have theories on how the big bang happened up to very near the event itself, but not including. Watson and Crick did a lot of work on discovering the double-helix nature of DNA. My English class was much suckier than the one that got to see the Playboy version of MacBeth. Winnie the Pooh saying "Think think think" in French is very cute ("Pense pense pense"). There is plenty more. EarWax, yeah, that counts as useful for me as well.
  • I posted this FPP without comment on the rightness or wrongness of the issue, and then spent the rest of the day thinking about it. My initial, gut level reaction was one of shock and horror, but it took me quite awhile to figure out why that was. Here's what I've come up with, reinforced by some of the arguments I've read here today (pro and con). First of all, I don't believe that this act provided any education of value for these children. Vivisection is outdated as even a teaching tool in this day and age. And yes, I have the same opinion regarding dissection, at least for students functioning at less than a high school education.. But my real problem with the demonstration is this: The act (and some of the comments in this thread) promotes a viewpoint that I find repugnant and dangerous. Namely, that we humans have decided that "lower" orders of life (ie: everything besides ourselves) neither have dignity of their own, nor do they deserve to be treated with dignity. They exist to serve us in any capacity that we see fit, whether as food, entertainment, or "education". This viewpoint is, plain and simple, Dominionism, where people see every aspect of the world as a resource to be exploited with no mind to such exploitations' effect on anything or anyone but themselves. This viewpoint leads us to subject our food animals to torturous, depraved condtions, to destroy ecosystems with little thought to worldwide consequences, and to slaughter people who we think of as other (due to the colors of their skin, or the country they live in) in order to save a few bucks on gasoline. In essence , the most important lesson those children learned that day was "Might Makes Right", the dog doesn't deserve dignity because we choose not to give it to him, our resources don't deserve to be preserved because we choose not to do so, and the Iraqi citizens (and whoever the bombs fall on next) don't deserve to live because we choose to kill them.
  • A couple of things from a latecomer: I'm not fond of posting phone numbers on a public site. Provided these are publicly-given numbers (not home phone numbers pulled from the White Pages, but their official public office numbers), I guess it's okay. I can't help but think of how easy it is for someone to find my phone number just by looking up a couple of websites, and so it bothers me to think we'd allow it to happen to someone else. HuronBob, if these are their public office numbers, I'll leave them up. And this is unrelated to the actual post, but jb is right: if done properly, seal-clubbing is humane. And those that perform that job as their source of income generally know what they're doing. I know, I know, it's the "generally" that does it. I firmly agree with jb's stance on it. Lastly, I've dissected dead animals, including, once, a fetal lamb, many times, and a few humans and helped with a gorilla. They were all dead. Vivisection freaks me out. Yes, it's okay to dissect animals. Yes, it's good when they're killed humanely. I can't personally support live dissection in a high school classroom when I refuse to support vivisection of animals in cosmetic-factory labs.
  • But my real problem with the demonstration is this: The act (and some of the comments in this thread) promotes a viewpoint that I find repugnant and dangerous. Namely, that we humans have decided that "lower" orders of life (ie: everything besides ourselves) neither have dignity of their own, nor do they deserve to be treated with dignity. They exist to serve us in any capacity that we see fit, whether as food, entertainment, or "education". This viewpoint is, plain and simple, Dominionism, where people see every aspect of the world as a resource to be exploited with no mind to such exploitations' effect on anything or anyone but themselves. This viewpoint leads us to subject our food animals to torturous, depraved condtions, to destroy ecosystems with little thought to worldwide consequences, and to slaughter people who we think of as other (due to the colors of their skin, or the country they live in) in order to save a few bucks on gasoline. That's quite the slippery slope you've constructed. Using doomed dogs for educational purposes leading all the way to killing brown people for the oil under their feet. Most humans do treat animals - especially dogs and cats - with respect and dignity, and that's why this was done humanely. Dignity, however, is purely a human invention. No other animals give it or expect it, or even understand it, for that matter. Does the wolf consider the dignity of the caribou? Does the lion consider the dignity of the antelope? They only value their own lives and those of their pack. Humans are the only ones weeping over those lower in the food/power chain.
  • "Clubbing baby seals is the most humane way to kill them.." Anyone who seriously thinks this is a fucking moron.
  • I've followed this thread on and off for most of the day, and have thought about it quite a bit. Here's my 2 cents on the matter: 1) On Cruelty: rocket88 makes the most compelling point regarding the important caveat that the dog was completely anesthetized and completely insensate while the dissection took place, and was euthanized thereafter. Provided that there was no conscious awareness of the dog throughout the period, I don't see where this can be considered cruel. 2) On Necessity/Appropriateness: I also agree with the many people who have commented that this demonstration was completely unnecessary for the audience. I believe that dissection of dead animals is a useful way for an advanced High School-aged student to learn biological principles/anatomy/etc. In my experience, diagrams and videos are poor substitutes for in-person experience. I think that dissection of a live dog is more appropriate for advanced studies of college students and graduate-level students. The reason for this is because college/grad students have a much more deep underpinning of their knowledge with regards to structure and function than High School students, and thereby stand to be able to take more away from their experience, as far as intellectual growth and assimilation is concerned. 3. On Dignity/Sanctity: Considering the issue somewhat philosophically, I think that, the first issue of "awareness" being taken care of, there is a powerful sense in most people to not analyze a living creature while it is alive, perhaps because there is an inherent revulsion to the notion that a creature can be pierced, cut, and portions removed and still be living. Most people generally see the "self" as a unitary object, and examining the living viscera of an animal triggers a powerful vicarious sense of our own fragility and mortality: it's easier not to look, and not to know. Personally, if I knew my imminent death were inevitable, and had the utmost confidence that my consciousness and senses were completely and totally shut off from the experience, I would not be troubled by being dissected before my death, provided that it served a useful educational purpose. Showing a crowd of doctors and medical students the behavior of a part of my anatomy in the last few minutes of my life seems to serve that purpose. Showing a bunch of High Schoolers that my bowels contract and move the food and crap through me without any conscious or intentional effort of will does not.
  • rocket: I would say that as humans we have the ability to reason and consider issues of morality. To merely say that animals are slaves to their instincts in no way disculpates us from doing the same when doing so would not be morally justifiable. To make an argument that we have no obligations to animals save that which they give each other cheapans us and leaves us smaller. To those of us who dismiss the issue because it's "only a dog", would you argue the same if it were a human being? If you prick it, does it not bleed? If you wrong it, does it not revenge?* Nickdanger: Thank you for articulating what I was thinking of when I read that article. On the subject of the morality of vivisection, here's an article which examines the question and argues much more effectively than I can. * - my apologies. At least I wasn't paraphrasing doggerel
  • Clubbing baby seals is the most humane way to kill them.." Anyone who seriously thinks this is a fucking moron. So instant unconciousness from a blow to the head is more painful than being your guts being ripped open by a bullet? Or having your throat sliced when concious and danging from one leg, as cattle are killed in the US? Right, so if we're ever both up for execution, you can have either of latter, I'm looking for a nice big club - right on the temple would be nice. It's a hunt like any other - the only "bad" thing is that an animal was killed for its meat and its skin (at least most get to be free, as opposed to cattle). If you're a vegan who never wears leather (just as bad as fur), then you get to be superior. Nickdanger - I really don't think that being around animals being killed is what has caused the industry to become as it is. I am seriously worried about a lot of our farming practices, but I think it's distance from the production, distance on behalf of the consumers from the blood and guts of their own food, which has allowed things to get as bad as it has. Interestingly, in the early modern heyday of the Great Chain of Being, when it was just a matter of fact that humans were better than animals, farming practices were much more humane to animals. The more we get up in arms about animals, the more we seem willing to destroy their habitat or raise them in cages. Words do not always match action. Dissection is essential to learning, as clf pointed out. In my one time dissecting a frog, I found that the bits of the real body did not look like the books at all. I was actually very bad at biology because of that - trust me, you would never have wanted me to be a biologist or vet or doctor without lots of real dissection. Vivisection is a different issue - there assisting in surgery (whether human or animal) can substitute. But you really do need dissection to understand what bodies really look like.
  • jb, humanely raised food animals is catching on in a big way, at least here in CA. I think it's the coolest thing in the world that even though I won't eat any meat that doesn't specifically say "humanely treated" somewhere on the package or in a brochure, I still have four or five local restaurants I can get a steak at, and can go to just about any grocery store for chicken (or whatever).
  • I totally agree JB. People harp on seals because it is a popular cause, owing to their cute and fluffy nature. But sheep and chickens are also cute when they're young and you don't hear as much about them. When people have suggested to me that clubbing seals is inhumane, I have found that they are often unable to come up with a "more humane" alternative.
  • Tracy, the phone number I posted is to the high school, the e/mail addresses are school related. All of this info was available on the school web site... I wouldn't have posted a private phone number. I saw this information as a way for people to truly express the way they felt to the people that were in a position to make a decision (either way) regarding this issue. I hope people took advantage of the ability to communicate. And, to all... for the most part an interesting discussion, thank you to those that took the time to express their viewpoints in an intelligent and thoughtful way (which, is more than I managed in a couple of the posts)... ya'll go find a kitten or something, or a puppy, did wonders for me after I left this discussion earlier today... :) Bob
  • Good grief. I can't spell.
  • Just wanted to chip in again to echo HuronBob's thanks for the civilised discussion of an emotionally charged issue. Horray for everybody who kept their heads.
  • I vote euthanasia for the careers of Bjerregaard and Anderson.
  • MonkeyFilter: I don't think I'd want a bunch of Utah school-kids operating on my rampant piles, but then again I have private cover. This really should close this thread. I'm sure it won't, but it will be a hard act to follow.
  • I will try to be civilized; this saddens me immensely. These are children. They are supposed to learn from us what is acceptable and appropriate. I do not believe for a fraction of a second that these children gained any single useful, poignant, life-changing lesson from this experiment. I agree with one of the many comments above, that the underlying lesson of the day was that animals are disposable toys for our entertainment. I do not share this point of view. Animal experimentation may be a necessity, but it should be a tool of absolute need only. There is a distinction between studies which will help to develop perhaps a vaccine or cancer therapy, and this titillation of children who wouldn't know a glomerulus from a homunculus, who have never heard of acid-base balance or the RAA system, and wouldn't know what acute renal failure actually meant if it smacked them on the head. What ridiculous legislation allows such practices to take place? I knew that dogs are little more than chattel property in the US but I would have hoped that welfare legislation controlling animal experimentation would prevent such an event from taking place, as I believe it does in the UK. (The UK was the first country in the world to introduce animal welfare legislation, and is still years ahead of everyone else. And no, I don't live there.) Humans certainly the most destructive species on the globe; we still haven't learned that we have a responsibility towards the other species. Education of the younger generations is usually the best way to move forward: these kids are the future. Look what they'r being taught. Sheesh. And one more comment from above that I must reply to: yes, we anaesthetise animals to perform surgery on them. We do so after discussing the pros and cons with their owners, many of whom include their pets as family members when asked. Whether it's a preventative healthcare procedure, an exploratory surgery, or a definitive (or palliative) treatment - the aim is to improve the animal's wellbeing, either long term, or at least over the lifetime they have left. That's veterinary medicine.
  • Boy, that was long winded. Sorry, monkeys... should have included a few bananas ... or maybe I already am bananas...
  • To those of us who dismiss the issue because it's "only a dog", would you argue the same if it were a human being? I would argue the same of it was me. Dignity is a social construct, not an innate property. If the same consideration was given me as was given the dog, then I would have no objection whatsoever. Bring it on. If you prick it, does it not bleed? If you wrong it, does it not revenge? Well, no; it's a dead dog. Oh, and those of you trying to take some kind of moral high road on this: stick it! Go hit someone on the head with your Bible.
  • we still haven't learned that we have a responsibility towards the other species We have? How self-centered of us to think that! We have decided that we have some kind of responsibility for the whole planet, but what it amounts to is preservation of our species, at the expense of everything else, if necessary. We are a part of the natural world, and we live our lives in accordance with our nature, no matter how we like to think we are above that kind of thing. We are animals.
  • minda25......I always prefer buying 'organically' raised produce (for flavour as well as the animal treatment issue). It's a bit of a shame that free-range eggs/chickens etc cost a lot more than the mass produced variety.
  • We are animals. Animals don't contribute to weblogs. Animals don't use money. They don't slog the whole day, every day, to get money to buy things that are entirely useless to their survival (music, books, artwork). If only we were animals; we would not be half as cruel.
  • Yo Skrik, what up? Why you be frontin'? Sheeit, bro, it ain't no thang. If it be just a dawg then it be a dawg, yo. But wha'm sayin' izzat in da innerest of bein' humayne we don' need to be cuttin' up no dawgs, yo. Even if dey be doped up an' shit. Cuz' dere ain't no big bennies to doin' dat shit for kids, dawg. If dat dawg be dead, dose kids sho ain't gonna know two bits o' difference, yo. But this shit ain't nuthin' we ain't all said already, so peace out.
  • If we're not animals, then what are we, Alnedra? And if we are animals, then animals do indeed contribute to weblogs, invent money, etc., etc. And again, cruelty is a social contruct. It doesn't exist without us standing around saying "fie!". And Ooga, do I repeat myself? Very well, then; I repeat myself.
  • ....and yet, here we are, standing around and saying, "fie." what do you make of that?
  • Does the wolf consider the dignity of the caribou? Does the lion consider the dignity of the antelope? They only value their own lives and those of their pack. Humans are the only ones weeping over those lower in the food/power chain. Eloquent, but so fucking what?
  • Maybe "fucking what" is that we ARE indeed different from animals.....
  • I contend that because we are able to conceive of concepts of compassion, justice, cruelty and fairness, that we are both animal and more than animal. And because we are able to imagine the highest virtues, we are also able to think of the deepest depravities. Some species of predators (hyenas, cats etc...) may play with their food, or kill more than they can consume. But they do not enforce generations of incest on another species for their own amusement and sense of aesthetics, for instance. If there are things that humans do, and only humans do, does that not indicate that there is a difference between humans and animals? If you say that there is absolutely no difference from humans and animals, then pray tell, what is "difference" as a concept at all? How are humans different from plants? Or do you feel that the excuse that "humans are animals" gives us laissez faire to be selfish, destructive, cruel and immoral?
  • I thought Skrik just felt that your statement "humans are not animals" was technically incorrect, Al - as it seems do you.
  • Though your further explication is obviously more informative of your position is this matter! :)
  • "in", not "is" :(
  • Skrik, Albert Camus wrote a book called 'The Rebel'. In it he described a slave being told by his master to do something that struck the slave as 'wrong'. Wrong in the way that goes to the bone, may be it was murder, or torture or just something that the slave would not do because it was a thing that would remove his humanity. The slave said no. Even if he hadn't been to a college ethics course. Empathy for a victim, or something as basic as a need for that shred of dignity that sometimes we have to cling to to exist without becoming some kind of robotic puppet made him/her to rebel against the only athority that he had known. We can't be robots anyways, we have minds, we are born with them. No choice. Even Al didn't really know, but I doubt many people could take him on in an argument like that. By the way, Mr. Camus really seemed to like people. That is not a weakness. Follow the logic, or illogic of his argument. We see things that we vehmenently disagree with and it is NOT because mommy or the church told us it was wrong. Gut reactions should be followed sometimes. If pure intelligence is your criteria look to experiments apon the retarded. Horses, I've heard, can be as smart as three year old humans, some parrots as intelligent as 5 year olds[with the emotional level of 2 year olds]. Smarter than some of the handicapped I've come across. Species then? Shit son, we white boys liked to sport hunt aborigonals on Tazmainia. Differn't species, right? H-Bob is talking about the human race growing up some more. Thats all. Aside from his revulsion at the vivisection, he is hoping some folks are taking some intellectual steps as the human species. Look into it. We really are not islands.
  • That first one should link to wikipedia. Now excuse me while I push this large rock uphill in punishment.
  • Sissyphus! Sorry, Skrik, if I came across to strong.
  • Also notice that Camus wrote a novel in which he was puppet master. In reality, slaves will do everything their master tells them, and more.
  • No harm done. I'm still not sure if I am playing devil's advocate or not, though.
  • and let's end this post with a fuzzy kitten, shall we?
  • Excellent timing, Sidey. Just as the DayQuil is kicking in, you post a fluffy kitten picture to get my mammalian nurturing instinct all up in arms. What a cute kitty!
  • That kitten looks like it's about to vivisect a baby bird.
  • Oh, and those of you trying to take some kind of moral high road on this: stick it! Go hit someone on the head with your Bible. This is why I don't comment here very often. It's not enough to be in the minority politically and religiously, you have to prick us with little jabs of sarcasm every chance you get. Now I ask, is there anything about this FPP to indicate that Christians or "bible-thumping" is behind the "high road" mentality you're perceiving here? Not mad, just discouraged by these kinds of comments...
  • I hope that those of you who are advocating a morality based solely, or in large part, on intuition and emotion would just as easily accept the rationale of religious fundamentalists who offer no reasons, except their faith, for their points of view. Because that really is what your view forces you to accept. If morality is ruled by feelings, then there is no objective reason why, say, racism is wrong. It's all just a matter of emotion. So when you say, "Racism is wrong," you aren't really saying that it's objectively wrong; instead, you're saying that you don't like it. Well, that's fine, but it's awfully arbitrary, not to mention unpersuasive. Is that really a position you want to accept? Isn't it more plausible to suggest that morality is not grounded on feelings and emotions but instead on reasons? If you have some, please offer them up, because I haven't seen any in this thread that are especially persuasive. Wikipedia has a decent article on the debate over emotivism in ethics.
  • Or do you feel that the excuse that "humans are animals" gives us laissez faire to be selfish, destructive, cruel and immoral? This seems to be the main argument in the thread against the practice. It isn't valid, unfortunately. No one has argued that humans have the moral right to do whatever they want to animals. I can't believe that anyone would argue such a position today. Instead, people are arguing that because this dog suffered no additional pain as a result of the vivisection, there is nothing wrong with the act itself. In a pleasure/pain calculus, then, there was no harm in doing it. It's perfectly possible to argue that morality exists outside of a strict pleasure/pain calculus, of course, but in that case you need a good argument to show that vivisection is wrong. A slippery slope is not a good argument.
  • Dignity and death... Is there such a thing or is this just a rosy concept to numb the inevitable? My high school health class took a mandatory trip to the local nursing college to view the dissection cadavers. I'll never forget the head professor of the "cadaver course" as he pulled up the top layer of skin from the chest of the female cadaver and streched it like putty in his hands - - exclaiming, "see, human skin is like stretchy leather!" And yes, these "cadavers" were people who chose to "donate" their bodies for such studies [I say "donate" because they actually had to pay a $250 fee prior to their death for the processing of their body] It was rather fascinating - - and disturbing at the same time. I think several students quit smoking after that trip (the male cadaver was a smoker, his lungs looked like a big lump of coal). Having known the professor personally, he clued me in on how he chose the two cadavers each year. There was a scientific supply company which had a central location for human cadavers in North Dakota (USA). He would make the day-long journey in his station wagon. Upon arrival, there was a large building with a "swimming pool" of cadavers just floating around. They would provide you with a long wooden pole with a metal hook at one end, and you basically "fished" for the cadavers of your choice. Dignified? There are much crueler things being done to living beings every day in every country of the world that go unheard, unknown, and uncared for. We all have differing views on death & sanctity of life... as we should. Quite a thought-provoking thread to say the least. Perhaps this dog was meant to go the way he did?
  • F8x is correct. I see no correlation between religious conviction and moral or ethical posture. And even after reviewing this great thread, I still have to say I am ambivalent about the dog issue. Still, lots of good thinking here.
  • Most of the arguments here citing respect for all life, and not treating animals as lower forms of life, seem to apply to the euthanasia of the dog, more than the vivisection. If that's the case, then you have a valid point, but the wrong thread. The dog in question was doomed to die. That's a fact that wasn't changed by the teacher's lesson. The dog was anaesthetized. At that moment it's conscious life was over. Essentially it was already dead, save the autonomic systems. An opportunity for a biology lesson was taken advantage of, without any physical harm to the dog. You may question the educational merits of the lesson, but ultimately that's up to the teacher, the principal, and the school board.
  • I think you are beating a dead dog, as it were.
  • Thanks for the valuable input.
  • So rocket88, it's the same as dissecting a person in a vegetative state? I'm sorry, I know that sounds like a troll but that's the connection I'm making in my head. Am I oversimplifying?
  • Mr> rocket. You are clearly a bad and mysterious person. Because this whole argument is based on an imaginary construct: i.e.: the universe.
  • Just kidding. I actually agree with you. You're just offensive.
  • tracicle: Not really. I'm one of those who believe people should be treated better than animals (not that I would mistreat an animal or cause it suffering). But if a person had a living will specifying that they wanted to be a vivisection subject for educational purposes, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
  • Mr> rocket. You are clearly a bad and mysterious person...You're just offensive. You've got me nailed. Dead on.
  • But if a person had a living will specifying that they wanted to be a vivisection subject for educational purposes, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Neither would I. I would find it more offensive if people tried to impose their beliefs on the person in question to try to prevent it. The difference, I think, is that in this case you're respecting someone's wishes in doing the vivisection (or not). Ultimately, I think this is where "dignity in death" and other similar ideas come from -- our own wishes. And, for people, I think their beliefs on these matters ought to be respected. But animals don't have these kinds of wishes. They don't care, and I think that arguments that ask us to "put ourselves in their place" miss the point; it's rather like when the pro-lifers exclaim: "How would you like it if your mom aborted you." My answer to this is always the same, "I wouldn't care because I wouldn't be capable of caring. In a very real sense, I wouldn't exist." The animal I -- its identity -- is not the same as the human one. That's what makes the difference, IMO.
  • *When I say identity, I mean its ability to construct ideas about itself and others, its ability to construct concepts, and the like.
  • I suppose it all comes down to one question: of what gain was the performance of this act? After all, I think we can all agree that it would be wrong to vivisect a dog (or a person or a fish) purely for entertainment, right? Very few of us would state that killing dogs for fun is okay (though there are such people in the world, and if any are on MoFi speak now so I may apply the killfile.) So then, of what value is the specific act of vivisecting a dog for a high school audience? Is there knowledge to be gained through this presentation that cannot be gained elsewhere, and is the audience of sufficient development to gain from it? My thought is no, there is nothing to be gained from this demonstration that could not be conveyed through alternative means. Perhaps some of these children will go on to medical or veterinary school where a similar demonstration will be presented for them. In that case, for those people at that age in that particular field, that *may* be appropriate (though it still seems to me that there must be alternative means of demonstrating the same principles.) A final question: wouldn't it have been better to take these kids to see a veterinarian in the act of saving an animal's life? Performing surgery of neccesity rather than extending an dog's life in an unnatural way solely to give kids information that they could easily get from film or simulation or books? Hell, they perform surgeries all the time at the pound, the kids could have gotten a front row seat without even worrying that the dog's owner may take offense. And for cripe's sake skrik , find something better for me to hit you over the head with.
  • "He feels no pain" Said the good doctor. Come closer and see For yourself. We all leaned closer. And looked into it's eyes And were forever changed.
  • / '
  • I think we can all agree that it would be wrong to vivisect a dog (or a person or a fish) purely for entertainment, right? I don't know. In this sort of situation, if you have a dog that will die anyway, and you perform a vivisection on it in a humane way (i.e. no pain) before it dies, I don't really think it matters why it's done. Regardless, none of this should be seen as an endorsement of sadism. Taking pleasure in the suffering of others -- be they human or animal -- is wrong, I absolutely agree with that. But there's no suffering involved here, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using animals for our purposes, if it's done humanely. (There may be a concern about the impact this has on the character of the people involved, but I'll get to that.) Besides, there's quite a difference between killing an animal for little or no reason and performing a vivisection on one that's going to die anyway. In the latter case, the vivisection isn't really doing any harm, which is all that matters morally, IMO. So my position is: vivisection, if done properly, will not hurt the animal (which will die). There is therefore no reason to get upset about the procedure. Would a dissection be okay? Does the difference lie in the fact that the dog is technically alive? Because, while technically alive, I think rocket is right to argue that it is effectively dead when the procedure begins. The dog doesn't care, either way. A final question: wouldn't it have been better to take these kids to see a veterinarian in the act of saving an animal's life? I get the worry: that these children will learn to disrespect animals' rights. This is a valid concern. But I think it's misplaced; that is, if the teacher emphasizes the measures that are taken to make sure the procedure is humane. In that case, it might even be a positive lesson in animal rights. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me on these points, and I'm prepared to agree to disagree.
  • That I'm aware of, no vet would allow anyone in to watch a surgery other than licensed vets, vet students, or staff. I used to work at a vet hospital in computer IT, and I wasn't allowed in any of the surgical rooms during surgery. So, expecting an alternative means of educating high school kids about a live dog's digestive or other bodily system, such as showing them a live surgery of someone's pet, is rather unlikely, due to strict sterile procedures in such places. I'm not opposed to finding alternative means of educating kids, but certainly a live exercise has its merits. I wouldn't be where I am today without my hands-on experience cutting up live, gigantic, nuclear earthworms in Honours Biology...
  • Kids have dogs as pets. This whole vivisect-the-dog thing is therefore potentially very disturbing to kids. What's hard to understand about that? (And please don't give me a line like "kids have frogs as pets, and they dissect frogs in biology class" -- for the most part, humans develop closer empathic bonds with animals like dogs, so that argument doesn't fly.)
  • I thought this thread was finished. Sorry to take so long getting back to you, f8x. Not mad, just discouraged by these kinds of comments... It was supposed to be a funny. A joke. A humourous interjection. There was a new thread up at the time, about a woman physically hitting someone on the head with a Bible. That's all. Sheeesh.
  • Skrik, sorry. My sarcasm meter just didn't ping for your comment, so my bad.
  • 'He who makes a beast of himself gets rid the pain of being a man.' Dr Samuel Johnson
  • if you have a dog that will die anyway, and you perform a vivisection on it in a humane way (i.e. no pain) before it dies, I don't really think it matters why it's done. Regardless, none of this should be seen as an endorsement of sadism. An interesting argument, Smo. But aren't some things wrong whether the recipient of the action notices it or not? Permit me to get out of the dog's guts here for a moment, but theft is one example that immediately springs to mind. If the subject doesn't notice, and if they are in a position not to notice in the future, is it okay to steal from them? A lot of the pro argument hinges on the fact that the dog was due to be euthanesed in the near future. What do you think about the euthenasia itself? My thought is that it is a neccessary evil, something that measures should be taken to avoid, but at the present moment there is little alternative. Does accepting this action allow a moral cascade? Ie: The dog is due to be euthanised (wrong but neccessary), so therefore it is okay to vivisect it (wrong and unneccessary). Smo goes further to say that any act perpetrated on the dog is okay as long as a) it is due to die and b) it incurs no *conscious* pain. Do people agree with this? Now here's the slippery slope I forsee: many people argue vehemently that no animal feels pain at all, that what appears to us as pain is mere stimulus response. I also think of the extensive use of "twilight sleep" as an anaesthetic up until the 1970's. It induced violent delirium in the subject, with screaming and moaning and all, but was considered a useful anaesthetic because the subject did not *remember* any of the unpleasant sensations experienced.
  • I want to apologize in advance for the length, but you've written some very thought-provoking ideas, and I want to respond to them. First, I want to deal with your theft example, and what I see as the central point of it: But aren't some things wrong whether the recipient of the action notices it or not? I think so, yes. But my reasoning is as important as my conclusion on this. Let's use your example, and to avoid any complications, let's assume that Person A deserves (or is entitled to) a certain share of wealth so there's no disagreement over whether A's wealth is his. Now, Person B steals a small share of A's wealth, a small enough amount that A will never notice. I think this is wrong, and I think it's wrong because it violates A's will. If A does not consent to the theft -- or is not given the oppotunity to decide at all, as is the case here -- then B has violated what I take to be A's fundamental rights: the ability to make decisions that are his to make. (Obviously, if A had consented it would no longer be theft; in such a case, we would probably call it a gift.) The difference between us and the animals is that we are capable of making these sorts of decisions. We have rationality; they have only instinct. As a result, we care about our liberty to make decisions, about maintaining our autonomy. A world in which people routinely violate others' autonomy is not one I'd like to live in, and I have trouble believing any human being would. I deeply dislike unwarranted paternalism. (Incidentally, this is basically a variation of the Golden Rule.) But animals cannot imagine such a rule. They have no rationality, and as a result they don't care about all of the things humans do. Paternalism in itself doesn't bother them. This doesn't mean animals are worthless creatures, or that their desires ought to be shoved aside. It's just that they don't care about the same things we do. To illustrate my point, I think it makes sense to talk about respecting a person's choice (a living will, say), and I think most of us value doing so, but it doesn't make sense to respect a dog's wishes in this respect. Dog's don't have living wills. They don't care. They can't care. They do care about those things that give them pleasure, and they obviously care about avoiding pain. This is enough for us to take their interests into account, but I don't think it means that they get the same status as humans. Humans are the most intelligent species on the planet. We can make animals' lives better than they would be in nature, and I think we have a duty to do so, or at least not to make things worse. We do a terrible job of this, for the most part. Furthermore, there are people who are deliberately cruel to animals; these people are less than human. As for euthanasia, because my morality is chiefly concerned with respecting people's choices and maximizing pleasure over pain, I have no problem with it. Assisted suicide, for me, is perfectly acceptable for people who want it. And it's okay for animals as well. The difference is, animals can't tell us whether they would want it; they can't even imagine the concept. So we have to make these sorts of decisions for them, trying to take into account their best interests. At the same time, we must'nt anthropomorphize them and attribute to them interests they do not have. A dog doesn't care about his "dignity in death" or any other artificial concepts* we have come up with; they are therefore irrelevant to his interests. *Not that what I call "artificial concepts" are themselves worthless. They have worth to people insofar as those people value them. But a dog doesn't.
  • As for your point about people who argue that pain is just stimulus response, I disagree with this. A good summary of my view on this can be found here under the affirmative argument. Basically, I think there is very definitely an experiential component to pain, and people who argue otherwise are denying experience itself. Whether or not animals experience it could be, I suppose, another issue, but I prefer to err on the side of caution -- and common sense. Occam's Razor, basically. As to your point about anaesthetic. Well, whether one remembers a painful experience is a different question than whether one has actually experienced it. I would argue that our advanced medicine prevents us from experiencing pain, rather than simply preventing us from remembering it. The latter case is problematic whereas the former is not.
  • Err, forget about that link. That wasn't what I meant to point to (although it is related). I meant to point to this. Kripke's argument is well worth a read, if you're interested in this stuff. Basically, I'm with him and John Searle on the viability of an identity view of the mind.
  • Recent studies indicate that as many as 1-2% of human beings undergoing anesthesia retain/regain consciousness during their surgery. Some of them experience pain and other discomfort. Some studies indicate children are more likely to experience unpleasantness during anesthesia than adults. So I would be very cautious in assuming that a given animal/person does or doesn't experience pain once an anesthetic is asministered. In the US, where death by lethal injection has come to the fore, humane objections centring on this very problem are being raised now.
  • And I'd like to point out that humans are the third most intelligent species on the planet, not the first, as has been claimed by Smo.
  • pain is just stimulus response If it's so in a dog, it's so in a human. We are animals, and it's hard to argue for a clear dividing line between their "instinct" and our "rationality" (w/o bringing in religion)
  • Let me just say that I appreciate the tone of the discussion in this thread (well, for the most part,) I'm still not taken with your position Smo, but you've given me food for thought. Thank you.
  • I totally agree with fox. For what it's worth.