Posted on Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 10 a.m.
USDA clears University of Michigan's use of animals in Survival Flight training
By Cindy Heflin
Federal officials have cleared the University of Michigan's use of animals in Survival Flight training exercises, according to an article in The Ann Arbor Journal.
The clearance from the Department of Agriculture comes after the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals complained in September about the use of cats and pigs in the training of Survival Flight nurses.
Comments
DBH
Thu, Oct 21, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.
Sbbuilder, the only reason proffered by University officials (not by the UM trainer himself, Dr. Mark Lowell, as the University apparently spoke on his behalf) was that it was invaluable in non-traditional settings, such as roadsides during inclement weather. I fail to see how such non-traditional settings make any difference, as human anatomy is significantly different from that of cats and pigs, particularly as it relates to intubation. The anatomy does not change when the weather is inclement or when at a roadside. Secondly, if the use of such animals is so invaluable, why is Dr. Lowell the only remaining Survival Flight physician/trainer at The University of Michigan using live animals? Not only at The University of Michigan, but also around the country, medical schools and trauma teams are switching to human simulators. While I guess I can admire the loyalty of the University to one of its employees in defending him in this complaint by PETA to the USDA, it seems misplaced as evidenced by the abandonment of such animal use elsewhere, including (apparently) at The University of Michigan itself. I maintain that continuing to train with inferior representations (non-human animals, such as cats and pigs) of human patients, when superior training materials (simulators) are available, is what is not fair to the future victims of trauma.
sbbuilder
Thu, Oct 21, 2010 : 8:56 a.m.
DBH I am not qualified to speak for the medical community, obviously. However, the choice to use animals in this instance was made by the trainer at the UM. This person had specific reasons why using animals was superior to using simulators. Hopefully, one day, we can do away with animal testing. I think most of the medical community is certainly moving in that direction. To prematurely do away with a certain type of training before an adequate replacement it viable would not be fair to the people being worked on.
Speechless
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 10:48 p.m.
Testing on animals has been an alternative to testing directly on people. As the practice of using human test subjects grew less acceptable and more restricted over time, researchers gravitated more toward other species as proxies for experimental purposes. During the last few decades, a steady increase in restrictions has begun to apply to animal test subjects as well. This is all part of an ever-so-gradual evolution for behavioral ethics within academia and society in general. In this instance, according the linked A2 Journal article, a U-M researcher received a favorable decision from the USDA and thus won the skirmish with PETA. The article goes on to note, however, that the Survival Flight course instructor in question is the only one who still uses animals in place of modern human simulators. As a result, this particular USDA decision appears to be mainly a rear guard victory for proponents of animal testing.
DBH
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 5:04 p.m.
Sbbuilder, I responded to your initial posting because your comment was more general about PETA, and not specific about the Survival Flight training itself. Having said that, there are Human Simulators (basically, high-tech mannequins of which two are SimMan and TraumaMan) which can be, and are, used for all types of medical and surgical/trauma training. As such, given their deliberate similarity (anatomically speaking) to humans (vs. dogs, cats, simians), I really WOULD prefer someone trained on a human simulator than on an animal, irrespective of the consideration of humaneness, if I or my family were involved in an accident. Not only are the simulators anatomically more similar to humans, they can be programmed (as part of the trainee's emergency skill training) to exhibit medical emergency situations, such as arrhythmias, difficult to do in animals. For more information from a different organization (though a vegan-based physician organization), see http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm10autumn/crandall.html Whether you agree with PETA or not, I hope that you would agree that animal suffering should be minimized as much as possible. These simulators eliminate much of the supposed benefit of training on live animals. Simulators are not only a reasonable substitute for live animals, they are a BETTER substitute.
sbbuilder
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 4:25 p.m.
Thankyou, DBH The main difference, as I see it, is that the Survival Flight does not get sent out after smoking victims. Learning intubation techniques from live animals does help significantly in performing on humans. (You can reference the original article to read comments by UM staff.) If you were a crash victim on I75, with kids in the back of a smashed up van, would you rather have medics trained using live animals, or those who were trained using substitutes? To get a flavor of what PETA stands for, peruse their site. To be fair to them, they do appear a compassionate bunch. I just don't agree with being on equal footing with critters.
DBH
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.
Sbbuilder, in your first quote from PETA, I think your conclusion that PETA is "not interested in the lives saved by using animals for research" is unjustified. PETA may be (and probably is, though I cannot speak for them [can you, really?] since I am not a member of PETA) interested in human lives saved, though they dispute the use of animals to accomplish it. From what I know of PETA, basically they feel that the ends (improving or saving human lives) does not justify the means (experimenting on animals, with their resultant suffering and deaths). If you know much about the real causes of most human illness, you would know and acknowledge that much of it is caused by known, ill-advised and changeable behavior on the part of the populace, such as smoking, being overweight or obese, not exercising, and substance abuse. If people would act more responsibly regarding their own (and their children's) health, I agree with PETA that many more lives would be saved from premature death than the likely return on any discoveries involving the suffering or deaths of laboratory animals. Taking charge of one's own personal health is the "low-hanging fruit," so to speak. Regarding your second posting, I agree that most people probably would not put animals and humans on equal footing. PETA appears to do so. It is an ethical stance with which many would disagree, but it has a significant minority of adherents.
snoper
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
Wow, I'm suprised their little paws can fit around the steering wheel. Toonces the flying cat?
s
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 11:32 a.m.
The USDA is also cool with all of the horrifying things that happen at CAFO operations, so this is not surprising.
sbbuilder
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.
Had to throw one more quote in here: "Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests." That puts them on equal footing with human beings. Somehow I don't think most people would agree with that statement. Just thought you may want to know where PETA is coming from. The above quotes are from: http://www.peta.org/
sbbuilder
Wed, Oct 20, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.
From the PETA web site: "More lives could be saved and suffering stopped by educating people on the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, the dangers of smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world." So there you have it. They are not interested in the lives saved by using animals for research. You'll just have to give up smoking and hope for the best.