There's No Justification for Using Live Animals

By DONALD L. FEINSILVER
This opinion piece was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on December 4, 2006.

Man's best friend deserves better. This spring, in what has become an annual event, 60 dogs will serve as experimental subjects and be killed during a first-year physiology course at the Medical College of Wisconsin. This is inhumane and unnecessary.

The college is a noble, well-reputed institution. The college serves a mission of education of physicians and other health care personnel and of providing service. The physiology lab is not in keeping with the mission.

Medical students must learn physiology. All would agree that the Medical College should turn out well-trained physicians, as it does. Some 20 years ago, medical students commonly had to experiment on live animals, such as pigs, goats or dogs. That is no longer the case. Now, there are computer patient simulators, and the Medical College is fortunate to have some of these expensive machines.

More than 85% of the country's medical schools no longer use live animals for student training. The Wisconsin Humane Society opposes the actions of the Medical College.

Students and physicians are increasingly taught about evidence-based medicine. Understanding scientific principles and evaluation of data are an integral part of medical education.

What data suggests graduates of the schools that do not use live dogs turn out inferior physicians? The answer: None.

Some Medical College students, for ethical reasons, opt out of the lab. No evidence exists that they, somehow, become poorer physicians.

The college has found itself at odds with an inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the dog use. The source of the dogs also has been called into question, with some of the animals coming from what is called a "class B dealer."

Why has the college continued with the live dog laboratory? The answer is probably tradition (read inertia). There likely has not been an extensive discussion among faculty members beyond those involved in the course itself. Rather, there has been a perpetuation of a longstanding, but now archaic, status quo.

Let all be treated fairly. Let the dogs be treated humanely. Let the medical students not be put in an ethical bind. Let donors to the college not fear that their contribution goes to a class B dog dealer. Give medical students training based on scientific evidence, rather than faith or tradition.

These are not novel suggestions. This is simply a request that the Medical College be in the mainstream of American medical colleges.

The Medical College is generally a benevolent institution, drawing on the wisdom and judgment of its faculty. The college, working in tandem with institutions such as the Wisconsin Humane Society, can be a powerful force.

Recognize that the issue here is not the larger question of animal experimentation but, rather, a very narrow issue of a physiology course requiring some modification.

This is not some sort of surgical training. There is no credential that the students obtain from this laboratory participation. This modification would not cause any degradation in the quality of medical education received by Medical College students or the quality of care received by patients.

Medical College of Wisconsin, do the right thing.

Donald L. Feinsilver is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Wisconsin and a member of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine.