You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.

PETA to deliver 100,000 signatures asking U-M to stop using animals in Survival Flight training

By Juliana Keeping

University of Michigan students and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are delivering a petition with 100,000 signatures today to U-M President Mary Sue Coleman’s office.

PETA is waging a months-long campaign against the use of pigs and cats in U-M’s survival flight training for nurses. PETA wants U-M to use human simulators, which it claims are more modern and effective, instead of animals.

The use of live tissue trains nurses to do procedures such as insert tubes down patients’ throats in difficult conditions. There is no substitute, the school says, for these and other lifesaving techniques taught in the course.

PETA-protest.jpg

PETA organized a protest in February to pressure U-M President Mary Sue Coleman to stop use of cats and pigs in survival flight training for nurses. The school says there is no substitute for lifesaving techniques taught, and the animals are humanely treated.

PETA photo

Animals are anesthetized during procedures and feel no pain, U-M says. Cats used for training are adopted out while pigs are euthanized after the procedures.

The group will arrive at the Fleming Administration Building at 1 p.m., along with a protester dressed as a cat.

Juliana Keeping covers general assignment and health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter

Comments

fear_of_machines

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.

"Cats used for training are adopted out while pigs are euthanized after the procedures. " Doesn't sound like a bad deal if you're a cat... can't they at least turn the pigs into some delicious pulled pork or yummy bacon? All kidding aside, Marie Crandall's endorsement of these new methods sounds very valid. If improved training can be done without the use of animals, then by golly, why not do it???

alan

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

Why does this cause such vehemence? My wife is a board certified veterinarian of 20 years and my concern is that neither cats nor pigs are in any way anatomically or physiologically representative of human beings. She has fixed many animals belonging to physicians who thought they could save a vet bill and do something themselves. Cats are so unique that feline medicine is a board recognized specialty. Passing a tube or hitting a vein on an anesthetized cat does not prepare one for survival flight training with a critically injured human. The National Flight Nurses Assn. has issued a statement that simulators are superior to animals. U of M has themselves issued a statement that simulators are superior to animals as a training aid yet they are one of the very last programs to still use animals. Instead of just jumping on PETA, I would like some reasoned answers as to why U of M disagrees with everyone else.

amlive

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.

If PETA really wants to stop use of animals in testing, they should look toward funding scholarships for those who want to go in to developing better medical research and testing equipment and procedures. Yes, with the methods and tools we have today, some of the money will inevitably have to go toward slicing open a few pigs and bunnies in research toward developing a better simulated substitute, but with their financial help, perhaps in 10-20 years we may actually have simulators suitable to cover all the bases in training. We can do most of this work on y right now, but whether they choose to believe the professionals or not, there still seems to be that last 1% of training where simulators just don't quite match work with live tissue. Until the people who train and do this work in the field feel 100% certain that simulators meet or exceed the experience with real live tissue, I'm sorry PETA, I feel my life or that of my wife or daughter is worth more than that of a thousand pigs or bunnies. If the teachers and researchers still feel that in 1.5 out of 160 hours of training, simulators can't quite substitute for real flesh, I feel that's a small price to pay. So quit complaining, get some of your people in to the field, and fund research to better meet your goals in the future.

Agogwe

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.

If you read Justin Goodman's statement above, especially the links he provides, you'll see that the research is firmly in favor of simulators, to the point where the folks in the field fully endorse its use. The fact that U of M is still using animals is more due to the outdated practices of a faculty member.

redwingshero

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.

PETA believes that animals have the same worth as human beings. Fundamentally wrong. (Especially those in PETA that claim to believe the Bible) If they ever stop doing this becuase of the PETA people, I hope the next 1,000 people that need survival flight are PETA members. Good luck getting saved without the best and finest training. PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals. Aren't these animal subjects bred specifically for research and training at UM?

Jared Angle

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.

Silly PETA. You and your silly views.

Ignatz

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.

Why not practice on humans? Wouldn't they be even better than animals?

bobs

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.

let the peta protesters take the place of the animals, I for one like the very skilled medical professionals we have in this area.

InsideTheHall

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.

This is folly! Who is John Galt?

Justin Goodman

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:54 p.m.

@Ian Demsky and Kurtis S-- The University of Michigan's Graduate Medical Education Committee already determined in 2009 that simulators were superior to the use of animals to teach the trauma training skills covered in ATLS, which are the exact same skills pigs are still used for in the Survival Flight course: <a href="http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057" rel='nofollow'>http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057</a> UM now likes to ignore this. And UM's claim that simulators aren't suitable for flight nurses in particular is preposterous, especially in light of the fact that the Air and Surface Transport Nurses Association--the national organization representing flight nurses--approves the use of simulators to replace animals for this training and confirmed last fall that most facilities offering this training use simulators instead of animals: <a href="http://pcrm.org/resch/atls/documents/LetterfromKyleMadigan92210.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://pcrm.org/resch/atls/documents/LetterfromKyleMadigan92210.pdf</a> A trauma surgeon from Northwestern University wrote an excellent letter addressing these issues in yesterday's Detroit News, too: <a href="http://detnews.com/article/20110428/OPINION01/104280337/1008/OPINION01/Letter--Medical-training-without-animals" rel='nofollow'>http://detnews.com/article/20110428/OPINION01/104280337/1008/OPINION01/Letter--Medical-training-without-animals</a> UM's Survival Flight course uses animals because of one faculty members' personal biases that are rooted in archaic tradition, not because its the most effective way to train nurses. People can read more at <a href="http://www.peta.org/umich" rel='nofollow'>www.peta.org/umich</a> Justin Goodman PETA

xmo

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.

Why would People who Eat Tasting Animals (PETA) be protesting?

Ignatz

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.

Is that what the stands for? That doesn't really make any sense for them to call thermselves that.

Ian Demsky

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.

Here are some facts at glance about U-M's use of animals in our Survival Flight training program: *The Survival Flight training program's mission is to ensure flight nurses are fully prepared to provide the highest level of life-saving care to patients during a medical emergency. *Out of 160 hours of training for each nurse, 158.5 hours are conducted using simulators, while only 1.5 hours in the surgical skills lab require the use of animals. *Though we look forward to the day when we can phase out animal use completely in our Survival Flight training course, we don't believe mechanical simulators are adequate for ensuring our nurses develop the level of surgical skill required to perform their duties effectively. *Until simulators improve, we will continue to train our nurses using animals so that the first time one of our professionals employs one of these life-saving techniques it isn't on someone's spouse, parent or child during a medical emergency. *The training uses a small number of animals - 3 cats and 12 pigs in 2010. *The animals are fully anesthetized during the procedures and feel no pain. *The cats are not harmed and are adopted out afterward. The pigs are euthanized while still under anesthesia - which is not the case for millions of pigs raised for food each year in the United States. *The plastic breathing tubes used to intubate the cats are the same flexible tubes vets commonly use for household pets undergoing spaying, neutering or other surgical procedures. They are also the same type of tubes used to intubate infants whether in an emergency or while undergoing routine surgery. A more detailed statement can be found here: <a href="http://animal.research.umich.edu/teaching/2011-3-8-response-peta.html" rel='nofollow'>http://animal.research.umich.edu/teaching/2011-3-8-response-peta.html</a> Ian Demsky, University of Michigan Public Relations

Justin Goodman

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.

@Ian Demsky-- The University of Michigan's Graduate Medical Education Committee already determined in 2009 that simulators were superior to the use of animals to teach the trauma training skills covered in ATLS, which are the exact same skills pigs are still used for in the Survival Flight course: <a href="http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057" rel='nofollow'>http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057</a> UM now likes to ignore this. And UM's claim that simulators aren't suitable for flight nurses in particular is preposterous, especially in light of the fact that the Air and Surface Transport Nurses Association--the national organization representing flight nurses--approves the use of simulators to replace animals for this training and confirmed last fall that most facilities offering this training use simulators instead of animals: <a href="http://pcrm.org/resch/atls/documents/LetterfromKyleMadigan92210.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://pcrm.org/resch/atls/documents/LetterfromKyleMadigan92210.pdf</a> A trauma surgeon from Northwestern University wrote an excellent letter addressing these issues in yesterday's Detroit News, too: <a href="http://detnews.com/article/20110428/OPINION01/104280337/1008/OPINION01/Letter--Medical-training-without-animals" rel='nofollow'>http://detnews.com/article/20110428/OPINION01/104280337/1008/OPINION01/Letter--Medical-training-without-animals</a> UM's Survival Flight course uses animals because of one faculty members' personal biases that are rooted in archaic tradition, not because its the most effective way to train nurses. People can read more at <a href="http://www.peta.org/umich" rel='nofollow'>www.peta.org/umich</a> Justin Goodman PETA

rsa221

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.

Like.

Kurtis S

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.

&quot;PETA wants U-M to use human simulators, which it claims are more modern and effective, instead of animals&quot; ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? I've worked in the medical simulation industry for over 5 years now, and there has not been anything close to replacing live tissue!!!! Please stop in your stubborn ignorance just to have it your way.