In Biology/Anatomy classes: Killing live animals

I've had to dissect many things in high school biology classes-- worms, fish, grasshoppers, cats, and various and sundry porcine parts. I've never had any qualms about dissecting; in fact, I usually enjoy it.

But I've got to kill a mouse today. I don't think I can do it. I don't think I'll be able to dissect, either. For gonk's sake, it will still have fur!

Does anyone else have this problem?

Edit: Just for clarification, since you couldn't kill a dead animal, do you need the "live"? Ah well.

 

I'd have a problem killing the thing since I also have problems dissecting animals...

 

well
**this is really gross**

but back in hs our health teacher told us when he was in collage that this dead guy donated his body to the department and they would cut off his leg and pass it around the room....

bad memories.....

have a buddy kill it for u

 

I'd just refuse to dissect it, but I'd assume that's not an option.

 

I've disected a few animals back in high school(frog, worm, cat[complete with kittens]), but I've never had to kill the animals myself.

I'm sure that I would do it, but it seems like something that I wouldn't be looking forward to. Hope that everything goes well with it. Good luck.

 

Well, the policy of the Biology department is that if a student does not wish to kill or dissect an animal, the TA can do it for him/her, no questions asked. (Well, maybe some.)


I'm just looking for a show of solidarity, I suppose.


My partner doesn't want to kill it either. But who knows, maybe I'll get brave?

 

In the bio classes I took, they offered optional assignments if you didn't want to participate.

 

Nope, no problem. I've been cutting up dead animals, feeding live animals to other live animals, and anaesthetizing live animals for several years now.

 

I got friends to do that kind of thing for me.

 

Honestly, as long as it is done in a humane way, I wouldn't make too much fuss about dissecting a mouse. That mouse was bred for just this purpose. However, that being said, the moment anything done while sacrificing the mouse smacks of cruelty to animals, I wouls seriously take it up with the school superintendant. For example, how is the mouse being put out for the dissection ? Is there any way that its lower (or higher for that matter, depending on how its done) nervous functions may still be intact (this is something you really have to worry about with amphibians, they can still 'feel' and 'move' somewhat after being killed).

Let me know the exact procedure your teacher uses to sacrifice the mice and I should be able to let you know if there are any ethical no no's there.

 

graphic warning....





the most humane way to sacrifice mice or rats is to hold the head at the neck and pull back the body. This instantly kills them. I couldn't do it in college for a lab, but my lab partner had no problem. My biggest problem was because I had pet rats at that time.

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I have always been taught that killing is wrong. There is no such thing a killing in a humane way, that my friends, is an oxymoron. It won't benefit you are anyone else to kill the defenseless animal. Just because it has been bred to be tested on does NOT make it right. White slave owners used that pathetic argument to justify slavery.

Cherish your compassion and your humanity. You are more intelligent than the animal, you just have to use your brain to make the right choice. You do have a choice. That animal doesn't.

 

You make several points:

Well, I don't know about you, but I have always been taught that killing is wrong.

I've always been taught that murder is wrong, not killing.

There is no such thing a killing in a humane way, that my friends, is an oxymoron.

No it's not. If something has to be killed, it's a lot more humane to do it quickly and painlessly. It's a lot more humane to slit a cow's thoat in the kosher fashion than it would be to, say, smash its legs with a hammer and skin it alive.

It won't benefit you are anyone else to kill the defenseless animal.

Yes it will. In many, many cases it will. If you are wanting to become a vet, or a doctor, or anything along those lines, you need to see how things work together. Illustrations in a textbook just aren't the same thing. Working with an already-dead animal is one thing, but to actually see the organs interacting how they're supposed to is a necessity. And what about all those defenseless animals that end up on my dinner plate? They certainly benefit me. . .

Just because it has been bred to be tested on does NOT make it right.

I absolutely agree with you.

 

I had to disect a perch in Grade 10, I didn't want too, but I did not feel too bad becuase it was already dead and came out of a big bucket already full of dead fish.

*Feels sick just thinking about it*

I did the excerise as we were told, and that was that, but If I had seen this fish alive and swimming around, it would have made the entire thing way harder.

 

you have to kill the animal first?

i never got to dicept any animal, just a cows heart. but i don't know if anyone in the UK has...although i think my sister did. i cant remeber what it was if she did.

 

Mastadge,

I wasn't intending on engaging in a debate with anyone. I am merely replying to the original posters question. It is clear that we have differing opinions, but I do not feel that this particular thread or forum would be the place to get into a discussion of this nature. I respect your opinion and let's leave it at that.

 

And, many times mice used in the uni are then put to good use. For example, at the bird hospital we can go through a hundred mice or more a day in the summer. We wouldn't be able to afford all of them, but various unis around bag 'em and send 'em to us when they're done with them, and we can then use them to feed the birds and keep the birds alive. And I'll tell you, "rodent bagging" is one of the smelliest jobs imaginable.

 

"the most humane way to sacrifice mice or rats is to hold the head at the neck and pull back the body. This instantly kills them. I couldn't do it in college for a lab, but my lab partner had no problem. My biggest problem was because I had pet rats at that time."

Abso-freaking positively NOT, there is way too much there that could go wrong with that, and I am quite frankly shocked that your colleges ethics board allowed that lab to get away with doing that. The most humane way would be to put them out with Ketamine and then sever the brain stem.

And Ohbehave and everyone else who doesn't agree that its right to use animals specifically bred for scientific research, come talk to me when you don't eat animals specifically bred for your dinner plate. And then when that occurs, come talk to me when you stop the self righteous slaughter of innocent plants bred for food purposes as well. Then, after that, you can come tell me that it is not safer and more humane to use animals specifically bred for research, rather than someones pet some unscrupulous dealer picked up off the street.

 

I've always wondered, how did they test viagra? Did they give mice viagra and timed their er... stamina?

 

Padawan Eden,

I'm a vegetarian, vegan if you want to be technical. As far as plants are concerned, I think it may be fair to say that their is a rather large difference between killing a sentient being and a plant. You see plants lack brains and central nervous systems. To compare a fig with that of a rat is outrightly ludicrous. Not to mention that plants propogate by spreading their seeds which often times are meant to be eaten.

Before you attempt to chastize someone, maybe you could attempt to gleen a little imformation before hand. I don't like it when people justify their cruelty by assuming that I lack compassion.

EDIT: By the way, I wonder if you even realize where the vast majority of the agriculturally grown US crops end up. Do you think that Vegetarians consume it? Hmmm.

I apologize for taking this off topic. If anyone would like to reprimand me for my ideals, please do so via PM. Thanks.

 

hey folks

Padawan Eden
Abso-freaking positively NOT, there is way too much there that could go wrong with that, and I am quite frankly shocked that your colleges ethics board allowed that lab to get away with doing that. The most humane way would be to put them out with Ketamine and then sever the brain stem.

1) its a waste of ketamine, but more importantly
2) if you are studying the brain, or any nervous tissue, the last thing you want to be putting into an experimental animal is ketamine.

IMO the poster is correct in identifying cervical dislocation as the most efficent way of sacrificing an animal.

The alternative is the use of carbon dioxide which will put the animal gently to sleep.

JangoFettClone
I've always wondered, how did they test viagra?

thats a funny one Viagra was developed as a vasodilator (a drug that will relax blood vessels of the heart), designed for reducing blood pressure. The would have originally measured it as a product of heart function. However, when on clinical trials, a reported side effect was more sustained erection, and hence the drug is now used for people with penial dysfunction (which I'm sure you know).

Many drugs are found by accident.

M

 

I'm a vegetarian, vegan if you want to be technical.

Good for you, eating lower on the food chain is always a bonus. I'm not vegan or veggie, but I eat as little red meat as I can, simply because I don't like the taste.

"As far as plants are concerned, I think it may be fair to say that their is a rather large difference between killing a sentient being and a plant. You see plants lack brains and central nervous systems. To compare a fig with that of a rat is outrightly ludicrous. Not to mention that plants propogate by spreading their seeds which often times are meant to be eaten."

No, actually not as ludicrous as you might first assume. Plants DO have something akin to a nervous system, they send messages thourghout tissue using hormones constantly, but naturally your right it is nothing compared to a rats. Plants have actually been shown to communicate with other plants (not through hormones as you would first assume, but through electrical signals), plants move in response to stimulus, sun touch etc (ever heard of a touch-me-not plant ? Very cool, they'll curl their leaves up instantly when you touch them, and its still not entirely clear how or why they do it) and there is a growing acceptance of viewing plants as much more complex and sentient than we first thought. Its all a sliding scale however, with plants at the far end of it. True some plants fruits are meant to be eaten, but in that case your just murdering the plants babies, because I can guarantee that after the seeds have passed through your digestive system, and our sewage system that fruit won't do what the plant intended it to do. Yet, if another animal had eaten that fruit, it would most likely spread the plants seeds around.

"Before you attempt to chastize someone, maybe you could attempt to gleen a little imformation before hand. I don't like it when people justify their cruelty by assuming that I lack compassion."

I am a grad student in Biology (my specialization is Ecology) for starters, my life for the last five years has been nothing but information on this. I actually figured you were at least a vegetarian too. I am not justifying my so called cruelty by assuming that you lack comapssion, I am saying that your comapssion is slightly out of place in this instance. Research animals are handled with the utmost respect and care, the way they are sacrificed is done humanely as possible. Also there is much debate to determine what exactly the most humane way would be, as the discussion between me and Malkie might illustrate. So the next time you feel sorry for the little rat or cat or dog about to be dissected, try thinking rather of the MD out there saving the lives of your loved ones, and millions of other peoples loved ones around the world.

"EDIT: By the way, I wonder if you even realize where the vast majority of the agriculturally grown US crops end up. Do you think that Vegetarians consume it? Hmmm."

No, cattle and other animals consume them, then we eat the cattle and other animals, thereby loosing about 90% of the original energy stored in the crop in the first place.

I apologize for taking this off topic. If anyone would like to reprimand me for my ideals, please do so via PM. Thanks.

No reprimands here at least. But I do apoligize for quoting the heck out of your post

Malkie, I get nervous when anything is done to an animal without anesthetic of some kind, even carbon dioxide, your right. What if the person screwed up and didn't do it properly ? Then you've got a mouse or rat (I must admit I feel better about it being done on a mouse rather than a rat, just because a mouses cervical vertebrae are easier to dislocate) with a partially dislocated cervical vertebrae, possibly partially paralyzed and twitching, all because you wanted to spare some ketamine (which would hardly be any significant amount at all to put a mouse out), or couldn't be knackered to put the animal out with CO2. From what I understand they wouldn't be doing anything with the nervous system that ketamine would detriment anyway, al

 

In high school, we only had frogs that where dead. In fact, they'd been dead for 20-25 years and floating in formaldehyde. Yep, really poor.

Good luck!

JediFarfy

 

"Research animals are handled with the utmost respect and care, the way they are sacrificed is done humanely as possible. So the next time you feel sorry for the little rat or cat or dog about to be dissected, try thinking rather of the MD out there saving the lives of your loved ones, and millions of other peoples loved ones around the world."


Uhhh, I don't know why I am even going to reply. Then tell me why Birds, Mice, and Rats must be excluded from the Animal Welfare Act? Please explain why they are not afforded the same legal care guidlines as are other animals? Utmost respect and care. That is laughable at best and deplorable at worst. Being a biologist you must understand that their is a rather vast chasm that seperates even the most closely related of animals. A certain chemical that grow hair on a rat may, in fact cause heavy side-effects in humans. Very few long-term animal studies ever reveal anything other than, "More studies are needed to make a conclusive diagnosis". Not to mention that almost all countries sans the United States are pushing to move forward in using non-animal testing and research means as they are far more safe and more accurate.

Here is the conundrum.

Are rats similar enough to us that testing will reveal valid data that scientists can gleen valuable insight into human issues?

If you answered yes, then you agree that rats are very similar to humans in many ways, most importantly, physiologically. Since you seem to be very familiar to testing methods (something I suspected) I wonder if you would feel respected and cared for were they to be applied to you?


EDIT: The American Medical Association (April, 1998) reported that a study had concluded that adverse reactions to medications are the fourth leading killer of Americans. Each year, about 100,000 deaths and 15 percent of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse medication reactions, costing the American public over $136 billion annually.

Does this sound like vivisection is scientifically worthwhile? It's time to come out of the stone age and start using more developed scientific methods. Animals have no place in the laboratory anymore. Any and all information that can be realized through their deaths has already been studied extensively over the last few centuries.?

 

Hold up there Cowboy, I'm not talking about the testing of drugs on animals, which is in different league all together from using animals in dissections and sacrifice labs. I think you'll agree that the next time you take asprin, or your grandma takes her heart medicine, you'll be glad the FDA had a strictly mandated set of both animal and human trials.

Thats right, HUMAN trials, this stuff just isn't tested on animals, that "More research needed to reach a conclusion" statement ? That just means that the study needs to move into the next phase of testing. And trust me, if I had an incurable cancer, I would be scrambling to get any new cancer drugs tested on me, and be a candidate for those trials.

Now, the use of animals for cosmetic testing ans stuff like that, well, thats just delporable really, and last I checked was on the decline.

Alot of adverse reactions to drugs are cuased by mixing meds (something the current systems is not the greatest at testing for I admit), or wrong prescriptions, or wrong dosage, something that has nothing to do with the fact that the medication was tested on animals.

Everyone always says there is 'more advanced methods' but when it comes down to it, there is no more consistent method of testing than the repetitive animal, and then human trials set up by the FDA. YOU HAVE TO PUT THE DRUG IN SOME ORGANISM TO TRUELY MODEL HOW IT WILL BEHAVE WHEN USED. You can't comupter model a humans raction to a new drug, and you can't determine the systemic reaction of a skin creme for instance by simply applying it to skin tissue grown in the lab. There are WAY too many variables to be taken into account.