i couldn't make it up

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/save-people-not-pets/

By Jim Hanson

7:03 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2010

    By Jim Hanson

7:03 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2010

   

   
A choice between animal lives and human lives is pretty simple for most people, but there are some groups that would equate the two. Right now, there is an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would cost the lives of some of our troops in order to save the lives of some animals. One of the groups pushing this agenda is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which posts this on its website
"On Dec. 10, 2009, Rep. Bob Filner, California Democrat, chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, introduced H.R. 4269, the BEST Practices Act, which would phase in human-based training methods and replace the current use of live animals in military medical training courses."

The euphemistically named BEST Practices Act is anything but that. The best practice for a new combat medic is treating a living being. That is a harsh reality, but it is the truth. Currently, the military conducts what is called live-tissue training with goats and pigs. The animals are anesthetized and then given wounds the medics and doctors are likely to see in combat, and the medics perform the appropriate procedures to treat them. The animals are not a perfect analogue to a human casualty, but they provide one thing no simulation or dummy can: the visceral reaction each medic must face when a life is in danger.

Most medics would go to combat never having experienced treating a traumatic injury were it not for this program. The bill envisions expanded use of simulations to replace this training, but those can never re-create the reality of a wounded living creature. I experienced this firsthand while cross-training as a member of a Special Forces team. I had done a full emergency medical-technician course and all of the simulations with fake-wound makeup on people. When I was actually faced with a gunshot wound on a live animal, I was shaken deeply, and there was a hurdle I overcame in my mind. I have spoken to a number of Special Forces medics who credit this training with saving the lives of their teammates who were wounded in combat.

We also use vervet monkeys to conduct training on how to save victims of chemical attacks. The monkeys are given a nonlethal dose of a drug that mimics the symptoms of a chemical weapon and then are given appropriate treatment. A military expert in the field says:

"We have fortunately very few such casualties, meaning training doesn't support tutelage by experienced personnel. It must support getting it right the first time. In a real situation, medics must not "freeze." They must understand immediately what is needed, how to deliver, recognize how to proceed, and have confidence they are doing the right thing."

This is not callous disregard of animals. It is careful and thoughtful regard for the survivability of the men and women we send to war. We have made tremendous strides in body and vehicle armor, but the single factor most likely to save a wounded soldier is a well-trained, confident combat medic. We owe it to them to give them all the tools and training we can to help them save lives. I urge readers to contact their representatives in Congress and let them know that they oppose putting the lives of animals above those of our troops.

Jim Hanson served in 1st Special Forces Group and writes for the military website blackfive.ne

[makattak]

 



I wish I didn't believe this.

[Leatherneck]

We face a similar issue in live-fire testing of weapon systems. Even though we have some very advanced instrumented "dummies" there is really no way to duplicate the reaction of living vertebrates to the combined effects of blast, shock, flash and noise of an explosive event.

Gives a new perspective to pulled pork, believe me.

TC

[Tallpine]

We face a similar issue in live-fire testing of weapon systems. Even though we have some very advanced instrumented "dummies" there is really no way to duplicate the reaction of living vertebrates to the combined effects of blast, shock, flash and noise of an explosive event.

Pirate hunting...?   

[Perd Hapley]

If they're not going to run tests on the animals, can I eat them? 

[Fly320s]

If they're not going to run tests on the animals, can I eat them? 

Yes, but don't touch the animals.

[Perd Hapley]

 

[PTK]

....wait, this isn't from the Onion? :(

[coppertales]

Can we use illegal aliens for this training?  chris3

[BrokenPaw]

This is not as clear-cut for me as it seems to be for many of you. 

If an alien race showed up in the skies and began taking humans to use for experiments of this type, we would be outraged that a species existed that used another species for such experimentation. 

The argument can be made that humans are more advanced than the other species on earth, and therefore have some rightful dominion over them.  But if an alien ship showed up in orbit, we would have de facto evidence that they were a species superior (or, at the very least, more advanced) than our own, yet we would still object to being used for their medical experiments.  So the mere fact that we are more advanced than these animals is not in and of itself justification.

One could argue that self-awareness is the deciding factor; the idea being that it's ok to use an animal that is not self-aware for this sort of thing, but not OK to use a human for it because the human is self-aware.  However, there is mounting evidence that some animals are, in fact, self-aware to some greater or lesser extent.  Since we do not have any reliable means of communicating with them, we're not able to gauge any given species' level of individual self-awareness, but experimentation has shown that some higher animals, and even some birds, have intelligence and self-awareness on a level higher than we imagined before.

One could argue that the presence of an eternal "soul" or "spirit" in humans, which is absent in animals, is justification.  But the "soul" is a religious construct, and the fact that some people believe that the soul is intrinsic only to humans and not to animals does not make it so.  So unless we can quantify and measure the "soul", and show that it is in fact present in humans and not in animals, then ensoulment is not a justification for the distinction.

The only justification that seems to bear any weight at all is the fact that we, as humans, are able (through our greater intelligence) to force animals into doing whatever we like.  However, "might makes right" is a dangerous path to tread, and it leads us back to "what if someone more powerful than us comes along?  Is it ok for them to do things to us against our will, because they're able to?"

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that the answer is not "we should be able to because we're human and they're not".

Just some thoughts to consider.

[Desertdog]

I have heard news reports that some of the best, advanced training for military medics is for them to spend a couple of weeks in a large city trauma center.  Lots of wounds that are duplicated on the battle field.

[Viking]

Heard this from a guy at work yesterday. Some animal rights activists had "infiltrated" (broken into) a large pig farm somewhere in Southern. Pictures where taken. They were all up in arms, screaming about how the pigs all had huge abscesses on their asses. The pigs were all boars. Uncastrated.

[vaskidmark]

Broken Paw,

My perspective is that it is necessary for combat medics to train, and that the training they participate in should be the most realistic that can possibly be provided, so that they can provide the best possible aid and care to the wounded troops.

Were it possible to take combat medic trainees and their teachers out on ambulance calls to get their training, I would consider doing so.  But there just aren't enough gunshot wounds happening with predictability to make that worthwhile as a training technique.

There are competing necessities and a dearth of absolutes.  Most of my world is filled with events that require me to make not a perfect decision but the best one I can within a limited time and with limited alternatives.  That being the case, in my world we agree, even if reluctantly, to sacrifice - yes, that was a carefully chosen word - lesser animals for the greater good doing so can provide.  That being the case, we try to be as "humane" as possible and anesthetize the animals to reduce the pain and suffering to the absolute minimum.  I do not think it is being done "because we're human and they're not" but because there is not another alternative that meets the necessity as well.

What I would like to add, but cannot figure out how to accomplish, is a formal ceremony of thanks, for the help it has given to us, to the animal before/after imposing our will on it .  In the meantime, I hope that those involved in the event will do so in their own way.

stay safe.

[Balog]

BP: wouldn't those same arguments apply equally to eating animals for food?

[BrokenPaw]

Balog, I do see your points.  And for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to condemn the practice, merely trying to point out that it's a practice that should not be taken lightly.

As you say, killing is part of the life cycle, and killing animals for food is necessary.  More directly necessary than killing/injuring them for medical training.

When killing is necessary, it should be done with respect and thanks.  Your post suggests that we agree on that point.

My objection is to gratuitous harm; I don't think I classify this sort of training as gratuitous, but it is harm, the taking of another life, and I hope (as you do) that the ones doing it are fully cognizant of what has been given up so that they may learn.

[Tallpine]

But there just aren't enough gunshot wounds happening with predictability to make that worthwhile as a training technique.

What about all those "kids" being shot by guns every day? 

[BrokenPaw]

What about all those "kids" being shot by guns every day? 

Well, if the press is to be believed, the Teflon Coated Unobtanium Cop Killer Bullets don't leave enough for the combat medics to work with. 

Even the best-trained combat medic can't make a steer out of a pot of stew.

[Balog]

I don't disagree that it should be done thoughtfully. However, many of my brothers in the Corps have had their lives saved by corpsmen who benefited from this type of training. I consider it's benefits to far outweigh it's costs. And given that their death is generally far more peaceful and pleasant (from the animal's perspective) than in a slaughterhouse...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I consider it's benefits to far outweigh it's costs.


qft


and they do put em under first
no substitute for real practice and i'd rather they learn on goats and pigs than my grand kids

[RevDisk]

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that the answer is not "we should be able to because we're human and they're not".

Just some thoughts to consider.

Being sentient/human is not a free pass from being killed.  Just morally bad for being eaten, used in medical experiments and used for spare parts.  Folks do still do all of those other humans.  Not on an infrequent basis either...  It is often, but not always, considered morally "bad" but occurs on a daily basis.  

[Tallpine]

has some concept of mathematics, then it's sentient

That would include my horses.

They can count the number of treats that we have given them, and know that they always need one more.

 

[Perd Hapley]

One could argue that the presence of an eternal "soul" or "spirit" in humans, which is absent in animals, is justification.  But the "soul" is a religious construct, and the fact that some people believe that the soul is intrinsic only to humans and not to animals does not make it so.  So unless we can quantify and measure the "soul", and show that it is in fact present in humans and not in animals, then ensoulment is not a justification for the distinction.

Why are "religious constructs" invalid?    When asking basic moral questions, we don't have much else to go on.

Heard this from a guy at work yesterday. Some animal rights activists had "infiltrated" (broken into) a large pig farm somewhere in Southern. Pictures where taken. They were all up in arms, screaming about how the pigs all had huge abscesses on their asses. The pigs were all boars. Uncastrated.

   

[Hawkmoon]

My objection is to gratuitous harm; I don't think I classify this sort of training as gratuitous, but it is harm, the taking of another life, and I hope (as you do) that the ones doing it are fully cognizant of what has been given up so that they may learn.

Where did the article say the animals die? If the purpose of the exercise is to teach the medics how to patch up the victims to save their lives, it would seem that if the animal dies the medic failed the exercise.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the goats at usuhs die peracefully

[BrokenPaw]

Why are "religious constructs" invalid?    When asking basic moral questions, we don't have much else to go on.

Sorry.  I should have said "invalid as a basis upon which to have this debate", because different people, with different religions, have different beliefs about what sort of living things (if any) have souls.  And since the presence/absence of a soul or spirit cannot be proven, it has to remain in the realm of faith, and it's not possible to have a logical debate about a moral issue between two or more people who have different moral frameworks, because the basis of those frameworks is not in itself logical.