PETA calls for investigation into animal use in University of Michigan Survival Flight training
Animal rights advocates say a University of Michigan Survival Flight course that trains nurses in human life-saving techniques is cruel to animals, The Detroit News reports.
The organization filed a formal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture Tuesday, calling for an investigation into the course, The News said.
In the helicopter training course, students put plastic tubes down cats' throats and into pigs' hearts, Justin Goodman, associate director of PETA's Laboratory Investigations, told The News. Goodman called the procedures egregious because U-M has three other courses that teach the same skills using simulators.
University of Michigan officials said simulators can't always stand in for live tissue. The News quoted a prepared statement from U-M: "Despite the availability of simulators and other teaching aids, the unique environment that Survival Flight is forced to practice in requires these procedures to be performed on live tissue.There is no substitute for this type of training."
Comments
Speechless
Sat, Sep 11, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.
"... Really @speachless & AAMom, you are putting animals above a human life...." "... What about life-saving medicatons that were tested on lab animals?..." By intention I've mostly taken a pass on expressing direct opinions as to the social and ethical "value" of using animal test subjects in medical training and research. Instead, I prefer to call attention to the highly flexible nature of the moral judgments that are made regarding which living beings our society deems worthy of becoming involuntary subjects for testing, and which ones we opt to categorize as off-limits and protect from such a fate. At a given moment in time within a particular country or culture, the lines drawn in the sand on this question appear immutable and rock-solid, easily creating a false impression that things have always been this way. At times religion is called upon to dress up culturally specific moral convictions with the superficial trappings of universality and timeless permanence. In reality, such ethical decisions have been very arbitrary and fungible. Over time, these seemingly immutable lines move around quite a lot. Clearly, as humans we make this up as we go along, with currently popular ethical rationalizations subject to constant challenge, debate and revision. Groups like Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and PETA have sought to move arbitrary lines further in their direction, achieving a degree of success. Historically, we've also gone in the opposite direction, moving the lines steadily closer to ourselves until a point is reached where disenfranchised human subgroups are selected against their will, as seen in the infamous Tuskegee studies and in the "experiments" of Dr. Josef Mengele. The reality is that the ethical decisions we make at any given time will fall somewhere along a broad continuum of possible choices, with Mengele's practices on one end and a complete ban on all animal-based research at the other. In making choices, we get to play god over other living species and also, at times, over less fortunate members of our own societies.
tracyann
Sat, Sep 11, 2010 : 1:18 p.m.
So, interested, can I assume that should you need any kind of medical treatment, emergency or otherwise, you would refuse if it was practiced on animals? What about life-saving medicatons that were tested on lab animals? Would you make the same choice if you stood to lose someone you love? Also, you make yourself sound to be a caring, compassionate person while at the same time making broad assumptions about certain people and saying their lives are "pointless". Kind of hypocritical, if you ask me.
interested
Sat, Sep 11, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
I am appalled that the university is using cats and dogs as "human substitutes" for their continued training in survival flight skills. I cannot even get my head around this human elitist idea that human lives are more important than those of other living creatures on Earth. Every living being has only ONE chance at life. We should respect that, and allow them a chance without inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, just because we feel we have some "god-given" right to. Humans are generally selfish creatures, who will inevitably lead to the demise of this beautiful, magnificent world we live in. This will be done based on the continued insensitivity and selfishness that people possess. Continue to drive your ridiculously large vehicles, test on all the innocent beautiful creatures you want, with the ultimate goal to keep you and your family members alive. Just so you can extend your pointless life working, eating, participating in silly hobbies, sleeping, and spending money on useless material objects that create a false sense of happiness. I can only hope that people could look at their lives from the eyes of an animal to see that what they do on any given day appears foolish and pointless as well. Unfortunately, the eyes of furry, beautiful creatures seem to continuously see horrific sights of large, two-legged creatures performing tasks on them that only a sociopath would perform on a human.
Mitch
Fri, Sep 10, 2010 : 8:17 a.m.
Really @speachless & AAMom, you are putting animals above a human life and I find that appalling. I do not want an undertrained medic or doctor working on my loved one on the way to the hospital EVER. BTW I am comfortable with what I am and the eye teeth in my mouth. I know what they are for and use them daily. If you really want to save animals take a look at public record for PETA.
Speechless
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.
By what criteria do we deem another species as worthy of suffering great pain and discomfort for our medical benefit? Is every non-human species fair game for needy UM medical trainers and researchers? Do we rule out dolphins or pandas or bonobos? Are some types of critters spared due to the cuteness factor? Which four-legged ones get to be a pampered house pets, and which go off to a short career in research, never to return? We eat cows and keep dogs, while just the opposite might happen someplace else on the globe. Along these lines, I'm thinking now of the "rabbit woman" in Michael Moore's Roger and Me who displayed a crude — but very to-the-point — business sign outside that plainly declared, "Pets or Food." How to decide? In the future, should advanced genetic modification techniques produce species mixes that are literally part human, what percentage of the genetic makeup must be from human source material before we consider a synthetic species variant to be off-limits for research purposes or the slaughterhouse? 25%? 50%? 75%? if you are 75% human, can you vote and sign contracts, or are you a restrained UM lab creature with no rights and a sore trachea? Looking into the not very distant past, lines were drawn as to which human cultural subgroups were "worthy" of being experimented upon against their will and/or without their knowledge. This took place during World War II, of course, but not all of it happened in Nazi-occupied Europe. For example, such "research" projects occurred mere hundreds miles south of Michigan: http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1207598
bedrog
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.
speechless...PETA is so obnoxious in its tactics that whatever it's arguments ( and some are worthy of civil discussion if not total agreement) it's members have disqualified themselves as participants in such discussion. The same is true of certain other groups, on other issues, locally, nationally and internationally. i too took courses in logic, and labeling something as 'fallacious' by virtue of being 'ad hominem' is itself an error in empirical reality and minimal commonsense. Some people are simply so problematic that they should not be taken seriously as interlocutors....and PETAites are among them.
Matt Cooper
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 3:28 p.m.
I'm wondering how many of you experts on endotracheal intubation have ever performed one. In any environment. Ever tried placing an ET tube at 5,000 feet doing 140 knots or more? No? Okay. What about in an ambulance on I-94 doing about 80? I never have either, but working in critical care medicine I have personally witnessed hundreds of intubations, and I can tell you from my experience, intubating a patient is never easy, even under the best of settings/circumstances. If it takes a cat or pig being made somewhat uncomfortable in order to learn the skills necessary to save a human life, I'm all for it.
demistify
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
"Many times the decision to test on live animals, rather than use simulation or paid human subjects, is largely financial." If I read this right, it says that it is more ethical to exploit humans that are so desperately poor that they agree to serve as guinea pigs for money than it is to use real guinea pigs. In New York City politics, they called that "limousine liberalism".
JSA
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.
Let's just use PETA members for all testing currently or formerly conducted on animals. Their hypocrisy never fails to irritate me.
rrt911
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.
OK, now they are sedated...guess they aren't squirming Sailer67. AA Medic--Ok, now they only wake up with a sore throat? I have been at probably one thousand intubations and have seen incredible damage done, not to mention the bodies response when food has been eaten. I'll bet they want to make it more real by having them aspirate during intubation (into their lungs). Maybe they could also practice emergency tracehotomies and put them on little ventilators? Sorry, I'm not buying into any of this. You practice on humans, be it neonate or senior. If you want to intubate animals that have already died--you can take a nice long look at their anatomy. I cannot be convinced that this is helpful in any way, and therfore, unnecessary period.
jcj
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.
AAMedic very good post. Sergeant Joe Friday would be proud. "Just the facts mam" If some of the A2 staff would spend more time researching their stories and less time playing post police the posters would not have to tell "the rest of the story"
Rasputin
Thu, Sep 9, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
The pig has been called the 'horizontal' human. Use pigs, spare cats and dogs.
Speechless
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 11:09 p.m.
People who champion painful or lethal research using animals are notorious for cognitive dissonance. The sacrifice of animals is seen as both wonderful and necessary for the advancement of medicine, until it's politely suggested that they donate the family pet to a life-ending research project for the greater benefit of humanity. At that point objections are suddenly raised, although I don't understand the motivation for making them. Ethically speaking, if that kind of fate is deemed worthy enough for lab cats and pigs, then it's plenty good for Fifi and Fido, too. Many times the decision to test on live animals, rather than use simulation or paid human subjects, is largely financial. Afterward, lab officials will dress up their justification with practical-sounding, quasi-ethical rationalizations. Also, it's an indulgence in ad hominem reasoning to argue that the rampant sexism found in PETA's promotional campaigns, or the group's controversial stands on various other topics and questions, automatically absolves research labs from assertions of animal cruelty by the organization. That's the kind of callous non-logic one expects from Newt Gingrich or Faux News. It's fair for the group to prod UM researchers to publicly justify their actions. PETA is not alone, either, in challenging the university's procedures. Here's a noteworthy line from near the end of the linked Detroit News report: "PETA's move follows a similar one in 2009, when the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine asked the USDA to investigate a U-M course that used shelter dogs in its Advanced Trauma and Life Support courses for surgeons. About a month later, the university announced it had discontinued the use of dogs in favor of simulators."
obviouscomment
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.
i don't have any medical experience and even i knew that these animals had to be sedated somehow...come on, use common sense...next time you go to the doctor and receive any kind of treatment, know that it was probably tested on an animal first...chill out
Kara Gavin
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 7 p.m.
Very interesting to read the discussion! I'd like to add to it by pointing everyone to two Web pages on behalf of the University: http://animal.research.umich.edu/ is a website about the use of animals in research and education across the University of Michigan and http://www.animal.research.umich.edu/teaching/survivalflight.html is the specific page we've created to address the Survival Flight training question. We hope these will be useful. Kara Gavin U-M Health System Public Relations (posted on behalf of U-M)
AAMedic
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.
..and before anyone yells at me, I am sorry for the multiple misspellings in my post. Typing in a hurry!!
AAMedic
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.
The cats are used for live simulation of a neonatal or infant child. They critical care transport program that I used to be employed with used ferrets instead of cats. The cats are sedated and still breathing and suffer no ill effects afterwards (maybe a sore throat just as a human would following intubation). As for the pigs, they are sedated under full anesthesia and a multitude of skills are performed on them including placement of arterial and venous central catheters as well as insertion of infusion devices into their leg bones. Other skills include insertion of chest tubes to relieve blood and air from the chest cavity and pericardialcenthesis (or removal of blood from arounf the heart thats held withing the pericardial (heart) sac which occurs in humans following blunt chest trauma. Unfortunately, the pigs are utimately killed and then sent for slaughter for use in non-human food consumption i.e dog food. Theses pigs would have went there anyhow and all the testing and skils are again done under full anesthesia and they do not feel any pain nor suffer (similar to a human operation.) Hope this clears up the articles vague misconceptions and answers many questions. This training does save lives as there is no life like replication of live tissue. Rubber and silcone just dont cut it for me.
Urban Sombrero
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 5:46 p.m.
@Luke---how do you know that those of us calling PETA out don't have medical training? Just because we haven't posted our resumes online doesn't mean we're totally uneducated in this type of matter.
whodat
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 5:09 p.m.
Maybe I'm missing something? Testing on cats and pigs simulates a real live human being? Is this the same University that was "adopting" dogs from the humane society, running over them with cars, and then testing on them to simulate a human in the same situation? And after testing on the dog, killing them?
Luke
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.
I find it disturbing that people comment in favor of animal cruelty and don't even have any training or education in human anatomy & physiology, and think you can teach intubation properly practicing on a cat thinking it's the same as a human being - you have no idea how much different they are, and using cats for practice can do a LOT of damage on a real human. I for one would not want some Nurse Ratchet working on my kid who has no problem torturing animals.
Luke
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 4:24 p.m.
I have advanced degrees in human anatomy & physiology and I can state for a fact that using cats is not only foolish and outdated, but does NOT teach proper intubation techniques. The issue of animal cruelty is also significant when you have alleged health care workers without any compassion for animals-and has no problem torturing animals-I would not want them anywhere near me or my children. What people do to animals they would do to children.
C. S. Gass
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.
I love animals too. But, saving human life is more important. You do not know how you're going to perform until you are up to your elbows in gore trying to save a life. Stress inoculation is one of the best ways to increase performance in critical incidents. It may not be pretty, but it's better, by far.
Walt
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 3:27 p.m.
Since PETA members hold animal rights in such high regard perhaps they could volunteer to provide this valuable training.
Mitch
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.
Sorry Ed, that you feel I am off topic. PETA calling for an investigation of the UofM with this much hypocrocy going on in their own building. I stating that PETA has no business with this much blood on their hands. The UofM has a positive outcome with their training. PETA might as well be running a slaughter house.
robyn
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:46 p.m.
EDIT: Should read: We really should NOT use animals because they are cheaper and easier...
robyn
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.
I do not support PETA - I do not like how they operate or how they put out their message. If anything - I do think they are detrimental to the cause of animal abuse. That said, I don't agree with animals being used as 'practice dummies' when there are other means to teach. I don't believe in animal experimentation for anything but medical purposes that cannot be simulated or otherwise tested on humans. When animals are used for testing - those animals should be treated with respect and dignity... They are fulfilling a purpose that is helping mankind and should be treated as such. We really should use animals because they're cheaper, easier to procure and they can't complain.
Mitch
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." -Ingrid Newkirk, President & Co-Founder of PETA Did you know PETA is using your contributions for a campaign to boycott the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (Race for the Cure). Why? Because these charities may use animals in their medical research.
Lokalisierung
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.
PETA can get a bit wacky. I believe they are against ANY animal helpers, including seeing eye dogs.
sailor67
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
The answer is very simple, tracheal intubations (and similar invasive procedures) are relatively easy in a hospital setting. Paramedics and flight nurses received their initial training in the hospital setting, but their actual work place is a much-less controlled environment. Weather, topography, darkness, noise, moving vehicles, less-than-cooperative patients, hostile crowds, etc. all effect these caregivers ability to perform these life-saving, emergency procedures. No offense to the RT, but you have no idea how difficult it is to intubate a squirming patient, in the middle of the night, raining like hell, in the median of an expressway... until you've done it. Sorry, but you can't perfect those skills on a simulators or in a comfy, air-conditioned labs. If this type of training saves one life... I say, here kitty kitty!!!
Rasputin
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
I'm just curious why the University of Michigan can't use robots or dummies? Seems more humane and ETHICAL.
laurie in ypsi
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
Not a huge fan of PETA because of their questionable tactics but sometimes they get it right and this one I think might just be a valid complaint. This sounds like unnecessary cruelty to animals for little to no human gain. I'm pretty sure my throat doesnt resemble the throat of my cat given our noticeable size and anatomical differences. Not sure I feel any better having someone stuff a tube down my throat just because they did it once on a CAT! Might as well have never done it if you ask me!
dading dont delete me bro
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.
i'm not a doctor, but i play one on tv. can't be more realistic than the real thing.
AlwaysLate
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
Let me get this straight, they put tubes down the throats of live cats??? Now that's what I call a Survival Flight!
rrt911
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
I am a respiratory therapist and even I object to this. Many of us have trained with actual people alongside anethesia. In case of emergency, we have to intubate a patient, we've had practice by going to the O.R. and doing it old school. I cannot imagine a situation where they need animals for this purpose. Disgusting.
golfer
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.
maybe they should take the some of their members and take the place of the rats.
Jay Allen
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
PETA must be bored as this is ludicrous. A2JetGuy, dude you nailed it. Let'em stand in line and let the training be performed on them.
Urban Sombrero
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 11:48 a.m.
PETA has no problem with the exploitation of women (Ahem, their "I'd rather go naked than wear Fur" campaign). Yet, medical use of animals, which could ultimately result in saving a human's life, is verboten. Yeah, nice priorities. I love animals. We have several (extremely spoiled) pets. Yet, you will never convince me that an animal's life is worth a human's. Never.
tdw
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.
@A2Jetguy Thanks,I was close
dading dont delete me bro
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 10:49 a.m.
so are the PETA people standing in line to volunteer? People Eating Tasty Animals bowhunting opener is only 3 weeks away...
Gwams76
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
Oh A2JetGuy, I was thinking the very same thing!! And when it's their turn to take a ride on LifeFlight, they'll be the first to protest that they didn't get adequate care. Maybe LifeFlight should employ a veterinarian to assist PETA members on LifeFlight?
A2JetGuy
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 10:12 a.m.
When PETA says that, what most people hear them say is that a boy's life is equal to a rat's. In stead of simply whining about it, perhaps a few righteous PETA folks would like to volunteer to stand in for these animals during the training exercises. That would certainly give some credibility to their cause.
DFSmith
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.
PETA would rather see humans suffer and die. I hope the u-M dosent cave to the demands of the PETA extremists.
tdw
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 10 a.m.
Doesn't PETA say a rats life is equal to a boy's life?
Ignatz
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.
Be careful what you say, bunnyabbot. They may use you next.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Sep 8, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.
I hope the U of M stands their ground, I cannot stand PETA and their tactics