Years ago, when John J. Pippin, MD, was in medical school, live animals were routinely used for teaching human physiology. Despite the normalcy of the practice, Pippin took a stand against it and helped convince the University of Massachusetts medical program to end the use of animals for physiology training. Fast forward to today, and pediatric residencies in the U.S. and Canada have eliminated the practice of using animals for training. However, 3% of emergency medicine residencies and some surgical residencies, especially those still utilizing pigs, continue to use live animals as practice patients.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), known for its advocacy surrounding animal testing, fast food, and dietary guidelines, is leading the charge to end the use of live animals in surgical training. PCRM has focused its efforts on programs like the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) surgical residency, one of 60 remaining programs that still use live animals for training purposes. PCRM argues that simulators and cadavers offer equivalent or even superior training opportunities compared to live animals.
The Alternatives to Live Animals
PCRM has pointed out the advances in technology that have resulted in the development of simulators based on human anatomy, which replicate human organs, skin, blood, and allow for realistic tissue handling and practice of procedures. OHSU claims that they only resort to live animal models when non-animal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants. However, PCRM disputes this claim, stating that simulators and cadavers are effective alternatives for teaching surgical skills.
The Cost Factor
One argument against implementing non-animal training methods is the perceived cost associated with transitioning away from live animals. However, PCRM offered to pay for a demonstration of a perfused cadaver model known as EnvivoPC, which replicates human anatomy remarkably well. Despite having simulation centers already in place, OHSU, along with other programs like Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Johns Hopkins University, and Kaiser Permanente Southern California, continue to use live animals for training.
While PCRM has successfully convinced over 120 programs to move away from animal models, some surgical residencies remain resistant to change. Pippin acknowledges that there is no law mandating a shift away from live animals, but he emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the best training methods over traditional practices. The debate surrounding the use of live animals in surgical training continues to be a contentious issue among medical programs, with ethical, educational, and cost considerations at the forefront.
Leave a Reply