When John J. Pippin, MD, was in medical school years ago, live animals were a standard part of learning human physiology. Pippin, now the director of academic affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), has been working to advocate against the use of animals in medical training. The PCRM is known for its efforts to end animal testing, fast food consumption, and dietary guidelines that are harmful to both animals and humans.
While some surgical residencies still use live animals for practice, pediatric residencies in the U.S. and Canada have completely transitioned away from using animals in their training programs. Only 3% of emergency medicine residencies continue to incorporate animals in their training methods. The PCRM has been actively pushing for an end to this practice altogether.
PCRM insists that advancements in technology have provided realistic simulators and cadavers that are equivalent or even superior to live animals for teaching surgical skills. Despite claims that certain complex procedures cannot be replicated without live animals, PCRM believes that these methods are outdated and unnecessary.
While some argue that the cost of implementing alternative training methods may be a barrier for surgical residency programs, Pippin from PCRM believes that it is more about tradition and resistance to change. He emphasizes that many other programs have successfully transitioned away from live animals without major cost implications.
News of the Oregon Health & Science University’s (OHSU) use of live animals for surgical training has sparked concerns, particularly in light of the 31 violations of the Animal Welfare Act that OHSU has amassed. While the school claims to only employ animals when non-animal methods are insufficient or unsafe for human participants, PCRM and other advocacy groups are calling for a complete halt to this practice.
Despite resistance from some programs, PCRM has successfully encouraged over 120 programs to move away from using live animals in their medical training. Institutions like the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Johns Hopkins University, and Kaiser Permanente Southern California still rely on live animals, but the tide is turning as more programs recognize the benefits of alternative training methods.
The debate over the use of live animals in surgical training programs continues to be a contentious issue within the medical community. While some argue for the necessity of live animals in teaching specific procedures, advocacy groups like PCRM are pushing for a complete transition to alternative training methods that are more ethical, cost-effective, and in line with modern advancements in medical education. It is essential for institutions to prioritize the well-being of both animals and aspiring healthcare professionals in shaping the future of medical training.
Leave a Reply