changed my mind about michael vick, slap on wrist only

[ZeroPointMachine]

So, how do you suggest that vascular surgical staples are tested and demonstrated? How are surgeons supposed learn how to use them and gain confidence in them?

Dogs were anesthetized and operated on to demonstrate the staples. Arteries were cut and then stapled back together to show the effectiveness of the staples. Blood flow seems necessary for this. The dogs were euthanised after the procedure. I assume, because far more cuts/repairs were made than the dogs could feesibly heal from.

This was not some Mad Doctor, with a staple gun, stapling live dogs to the floor for his amusement.

This is not even close to the same thing as fighting/torturing dogs.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how do you suggest that vascular surgical staples are tested and demonstrated? How are surgeons supposed learn how to use them and gain confidence in them?

Dogs were anesthetized and operated on to demonstrate the staples. Arteries were cut and then stapled back together to show the effectiveness of the staples. Blood flow seems necessary for this. The dogs were euthanised after the procedure. I assume, because far more cuts/repairs were made than the dogs could feesibly heal from.

This was not some Mad Doctor, with a staple gun, stapling live dogs to the floor for his amusement.

This is not even close to the same thing as fighting/torturing dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree that there is no moral equivalence between dog fighting and legitimate medical use, I would think that demonstrations could have been done on models of humans at least as effectively as live dogs

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, how do you suggest that vascular surgical staples are tested and demonstrated? How are surgeons supposed learn how to use them and gain confidence in them?

Dogs were anesthetized and operated on to demonstrate the staples. Arteries were cut and then stapled back together to show the effectiveness of the staples. Blood flow seems necessary for this. The dogs were euthanised after the procedure. I assume, because far more cuts/repairs were made than the dogs could feesibly heal from.

This was not some Mad Doctor, with a staple gun, stapling live dogs to the floor for his amusement.

This is not even close to the same thing as fighting/torturing dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree that there is no moral equivalence between dog fighting and legitimate medical use, I would think that demonstrations could have been done on models of humans at least as effectively as live dogs

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that given the cost of dragging dogs all over the country that if an equivalent option existed it would have been cheaper and the company would have selected it.

[RebelRebel]

That's not the point of the question, and I hope you had the intelligence to realize that. The point of my question is simple. Do you value your life over the life of a dog.

You may weasel around the issue anyway you sit fit, but at the end of the day, If a burglar broke into your home, and told you he's either going to kill you, or the dog, you'd tell him to shoot the dog.

Furthermore, I take particular offense to this line:

[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer the doctors be trained on people like you instead of on dogs. I would trade your life and the lives of thousands like you if it would save my dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

First point: You don't know me. I care deeply about dogs, but I'm not some asinine emo who can't handle life in the real world. Dogs die. People die. I'd prefer dogs dying to people dying.

Humans are animals you see, and recent changes due mostly to P.C politics have made the human species the only species walking the planet to feel that the survival of some lower form of animal was more paramount than their own.

I own two dogs, they mean the world to me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go down PeTA road and sell my soul. Michael Vick needlessly slaughtered animals. His punishment should be being handcuffed and thrown into a ring with 3 or 4 raging pitbulls.

What happened here was for the purpose of medical training.

BTW: I wouldn't put too much thought into the OP's article, I see little more than a big glass of blue kool-aid.

Furthermore, I hardly consider this Priscilla Feral an unbiased opinion, just the rantings of a lunatic who believes that her life is more important than an animals, but no one else's is.

Did it not strike anyone as odd as to why on April 2, 2007, a writer for the NY Post would decide to write an article about events that transpired concerning the job of a Republican Presidential hopeful's wife, beginning 32 years prior to publication and ending 28 years prior to publication? I don't know about you, but 30 year old news isn't news to me.



Me, I'm going to take this opportunity to call BS on this whole story.

[StumpyJoe]

[ QUOTE ]
First point: You don't know me. I care deeply about dogs, but I'm not some asinine emo who can't handle life in the real world. Dogs die. People die. I'd prefer dogs dying to people dying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what an "emo" is so I'll ignore that. You're right, dogs die. I've had a few die on me in my time but none of them died from a sales pitch.

Killing animals for medical research is wrong. It might be accepted but it's still wrong. What gives us the right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the point of the question, and I hope you had the intelligence to realize that. The point of my question is simple. Do you value your life over the life of a dog.

You may weasel around the issue anyway you sit fit, but at the end of the day, If a burglar broke into your home, and told you he's either going to kill you, or the dog, you'd tell him to shoot the dog.

Furthermore, I take particular offense to this line:

[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer the doctors be trained on people like you instead of on dogs. I would trade your life and the lives of thousands like you if it would save my dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

First point: You don't know me. I care deeply about dogs, but I'm not some asinine emo who can't handle life in the real world. Dogs die. People die. I'd prefer dogs dying to people dying.

Humans are animals you see, and recent changes due mostly to P.C politics have made the human species the only species walking the planet to feel that the survival of some lower form of animal was more paramount than their own.

I own two dogs, they mean the world to me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go down PeTA road and sell my soul. Michael Vick needlessly slaughtered animals. His punishment should be being handcuffed and thrown into a ring with 3 or 4 raging pitbulls.

What happened here was for the purpose of medical training.

BTW: I wouldn't put too much thought into the OP's article, I see little more than a big glass of blue kool-aid.

Furthermore, I hardly consider this Priscilla Feral an unbiased opinion, just the rantings of a lunatic who believes that her life is more important than an animals, but no one else's is.

Did it not strike anyone as odd as to why on April 2, 2007, a writer for the NY Post would decide to write an article about events that transpired concerning the job of a Republican Presidential hopeful's wife, beginning 32 years prior to publication and ending 28 years prior to publication? I don't know about you, but 30 year old news isn't news to me.



Me, I'm going to take this opportunity to call BS on this whole story.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can keep saying over and over again that what happened here was for the purposes of medical training all you want, but that doesn't make it true. What happened here was for the purpose of selling vacuum cleaners or eye makeup or medical supplies, not for medical training. I personally don't care, since I've got nothing against making a little money, but the fact that you keep trying to paint it as "medical training" is exactly the point the OP is trying to make. Why can't you just admit these people stapled some dogs and then killed them when they were done with them, to make a profit? Oh, its because if you admit it was "to make a profit" then thats not that far from "to gamble on" or "to watch for fun" and all of a sudden we start losing the moral high ground.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how do you suggest that vascular surgical staples are tested and demonstrated? How are surgeons supposed learn how to use them and gain confidence in them?

[/ QUOTE ]

well you know this thread is mostly a thought experiment thread social commentary type thing.

but

from reading the article the point of the dog stitching killing was *only* to *sell* the stitches or whatever. there was no medical learning or anything like that.

THEY STITCHED AND KILLED DOGS TO SELL PRODUCT, TO MAKE MONEY, that was teh only reason.

I think the parallel to dogfighting is pretty obvious.

the only difference I can see is that medical sales are regulated and permiteted, and dog gambling is unlicensed and unregulated and therefore illegal (to reduce compettition with state lotteries and such)(

[Copernicus]

it isnt "unlicensed and unregulated and therefore illegal, its illegal, period.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
it isnt "unlicensed and unregulated and therefore illegal, its illegal, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

what I mean is that not all gambling is illegal. if it were state lotteries wouldn't exist, etc.

[RebelRebel]

[ QUOTE ]
THEY STITCHED AND KILLED DOGS TO SELL PRODUCT, TO MAKE MONEY, that was teh only reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say "To make money" as though there is some evil in that.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the parallel to dogfighting is pretty obvious.

the only difference I can see is that medical sales are regulated and permiteted, and dog gambling is unlicensed and unregulated and therefore illegal (to reduce compettition with state lotteries and such)(

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT? That is the worst reason I've ever heard as an explaination of why dogfighting is illegal.

Do you honestly believe that a large portion of the general public would hop from buying quick-piks at the 7-11 to watching DOG FIGHTS, if only it were legal?

Dog fighting is against the law because it is cruel, senseless and barbaric. It is also a useless endevour, A point you seem to have missed. Research on dogs does provide a positive end result.

Whether you agree with animal research or not, the statistics are right in front of your face to show you that it is effective. It simply becomes a question you must answer in your own mind as to whether the ends justify the means.

In a dogfight, however, no one wins. It's not like medical research, where a dog dies, but a human lives. In fact, their is alot of research in the pyschological and criminal justice community that shows that people who participate in dogfighting/[censored]-fighting, etc have a much higher probability of killing or committing a serious violent act on another human.