The Establishment of an
Educational Memorial Program:
A Submission to the Virginia-MarylandRegionalCollege of Veterinary Medicine
[date, 2002]
[This submission could be re-used, with a new cover letter, at any veterinary school lacking an Educational Memorial Program.
Persistent follow-up over a prolonged period would most likely be essential to success, as is commonly the case in humane education campaigns.]
[This is an example of anactual cover letter. A new cover letter would need to be written appropriate to every case.]
[date, 2002]
Dean Peter Eyre
Virginia-MarylandRegionalCollege of Veterinary Medicine
BlacksburgVA24061
Dear Dean Eyre,
Establishment of an Educational Memorial Program at the Virginia-MarylandRegionalCollege of Veterinary Medicine
We the undersigned are present students and alumni of the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine (VMRCVM), representatives of national and local animal protection organizations, and members of the New RiverValley community. We are writing to express our ethical concerns about the present sourcing of living and deceased animals for use in the VMRCVM veterinary curriculum, and to respectfully request the serious consideration of the VMRCVM for the establishment of an Educational Memorial Program (EMP) as an alternative source of cadavers.
We understand from information provided at the meeting of August 26th 2002 between yourself, Dr. Moore (VMRCVM Assistant Vice Provost for Research Compliance), Mr. Steve Coxon of Christiansburg, VA, and Dr. Andrew Knight of Animalearn, PA, that invasive or terminal use of animals occurs in VMRCVM's anatomy, surgery, and clinical and diagnostic skills courses. We understand that dogs obtained from local animal control agencies are primarily used, with a small number also being obtained from Virginia Tech research projects. We understand that a small number of cow and horse cadavers are also obtained, primarily purchased from barns or sale-yards.
We appreciate that the Educational Memorial concept whereby clients donate the remains of animals euthanized primarily for medical reasons towards veterinary education is not new to you, and we commend your efforts in utilizing a number of such ethically-sourced cadavers, sourced primarily from local veterinary practices, to date. However, we understand that the number of cadavers successfully sourced from local practices in this way has unfortunately been small. We understand that most VMRCVM students unwilling to participate in terminal surgical laboratories are not provided with them, for example, and instead are required to perform surgeries on cadavers sourced primarily from animal control agencies, a practice many of them find ethically uncomfortable, or are required to locate cadavers themselves.
We believe that the establishment of a formal EMP within the VMRCVM teaching hospital would facilitate obtaining cadavers from animals euthanized for medical reasons. These ethically-sourced cadavers could then be used in anatomy, clinical and diagnostic skills, and surgical instruction, particularly for the use of students with ethical concerns about the use of animals obtained from more traditional sources. We also draw your attention to the potential economic benefits of such a program.
In the following submission we have provided detailed information regarding EMPs, drawn primarily from the experiences of anatomy instructors and other faculty at the TexasA&MCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, and the University of Sydney Faculty of Veterinary Science, where EMPs have already been successfully established. These schools have set a valuable, instructive precedent for others to follow.
We respectfully urge the serious and positive consideration of this important issue by the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine.
We respectfully request and would appreciate your timely response in relation to this issue. We can be contacted care of:
Mr. Steve Coxon
403 Park St.
ChristiansburgVA24073
540-230-3216
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Steve Coxon
403 Park St.
ChristiansburgVA24073
Co-Signatories
[The presence of co-signatories including national animal rights groups is intended to make the school aware that numerous groups and individuals have an interest in the situation, and that they should consequently expect widespread exposure through the animal rights movement if they are unwilling to make reasonable progress within a reasonable timeframe. Examples of appropriate co-signatories follow.]
Organizations
Director of Education
Animalearn [a division of AAVS; included to increase the apparent number of groups co-signing]
Executive Director
American Anti-Vivisection Society [AAVS]
Executive Director
Doctors Against Dog Labs
Executive Director [a division of NAEVS; included to increase the apparent number of groups co-signing]
ESEC
Executive Director
HSUS
Executive Director
NAVS
Executive Director
NEAVS
Executive Director
PETA
Individuals
[students and alumni of the VMRCVM and others]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The primary information source for this submission was reproduced with permission of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). We gratefully acknowledge the HSUS, and the primary authors of this website:
Dr. Lori Donley, D.V.M.
Dr. Linnaea Stull, D.V.M.
We also wish to acknowledge the following individuals who provided invaluable assistance with the preparation of this website:
Gina Alvino
Dr. Jonathan Balcombe
Tamara Hamilton
Dr. Anton Hoffman
Dr. Andrew Knight
Dr. A.M. Kumar
Dr. Gary Patronek
Dr. Andrew Rowan
Dr. Martin Stephens
Dr. Norman Wilsman
Drs. Hoffman, Kumar, Patronek, and Wilsman have worked extensively on the development of an educational memorial program at their respective colleges.
We are grateful to the numerous other veterinarians and veterinary students who contributed to this website, and to Dr. Geraldine Hunt of the University of Sydney Faculty of Veterinary Science for providing the report Working Party on the Use of Animals for Teaching Applied Anatomy, Small Animal Surgery and Anaesthesia – Final Report describing, among other innovations, the establishment of an EMP at the University of Sydney.
CONTENTS
Educational Memorial Programs (EMPs) ………………………………………………… 1.
Ethical concerns about traditional sources of cadavers for veterinary education ……… 1.
Existing EMPs ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1.
TheU.S. …………………………………………………………………………….. 4.
University of Sydney Faculty of Veterinary Science …………………………….. 5.
MurdochUniversity Division of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences,
Western Australia ………………………………………………………… 7.
Educational benefits of cadavers ……………………………………………………………. 7.
Uses of cadavers …………………………………………………………………….. 7.
Undergraduate anatomy laboratories…………………………………………….... 7.
Veterinary anatomy laboratories………………………………………………….. 7.
Surgical laboratories ………………………………………………………………... 8.
Competition with pathology teaching requirements …………………………….... 9.
Student endorsements of EMPs …………………………………………………….. 9.
Veterinary endorsements of EMPs ……………………………………………….. 12.
Client relations ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14.
Discussing EMPs with clients ……………………………………………………… 14.
Euthanasia information brochures ………………………………………………… 16.
TuftsUniversitySchool of Veterinary Medicine ………………………... 16.
TexasA&MCollege of Veterinary Medicine …………………………… 18.
UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine ………………………………... 19.
Client consent forms and patient records …………………………………………. 19.
Client consent forms ………………………………………………………………… 21.
TuftsUniversitySchool of Veterinary Medicine ………………………… 21.
TexasA&MCollege of Veterinary Medicine ……………………………. 22.
Memorializing donated animals ………………………………………………….… 23.
Additional precautions and considerations ………………………………………… 23.
Cadaver procurement ……………………………………………………………………….… 23.
Quantity and variety of cadavers obtained ………………………………………… 23.
Participation of private veterinary clinics ……………………………………….…. 24.
Sourcing of large animals ……………………………………………………………. 24.
Use of animals that have died from natural causes ……………………………...… 25.
Establishment of an EMP…………………………………………………………………...... 25.
A model plan ……………………………………………………………………….… 25.
TuftsUniversitySchool of Veterinary Medicine ………………………………...… 26.
Staff requirements ………………………………………………………….……...… 26.
Cost savings ……………………………………………………………….………..… 27.
Embalming protocols ………………………………………………………………………..… 27.
TuftsUniversitySchool of Veterinary Medicine………………….……………..… 28.
TexasA&MCollege of Veterinary Medicine…………………….……………..…. 28.
Quality of donated cadavers ……………………………………..………………..… 29.
Colored latex infusions of arteries and veins ……………………………………..… 30.
Further information ……………………………………………………………………..…..… 31.
References ……………………………………………………………………..…………..…… 32.
Educational Memorial Programs (EMPs)
Educational Memorial Programs, also known as 'Willed Body Programs,' 'Client Donation Programs,' and 'Body Donation Programs,' are becoming increasingly popular in veterinary medical education. For over a century, medical doctors have learned anatomy by using donated cadavers of deceased human beings. By contrast, almost all North American veterinary colleges obtain their cat and dog cadavers from animal dealers (including biological supply companies), breeders, the greyhound racing industry (retired animals), and animal shelters (unadopted animals).
In recent years, some veterinary faculty, students and owners of companion animals have begun to wonder if it is possible to donate a deceased pet's remains towards veterinary education, in a similar fashion to the use of human cadavers in medical education. This questioning stems in part from ethical concerns and legislative developments relating to the traditional sourcing of cadavers (e.g., some states have barred the use of shelter animals).
In response to these developments, several U.S. veterinary schools have established EMPs utilising the cadavers of animals donated by clients of their veterinary teaching hospitals. Donated animals are those which: 1) have been euthanized due to medically untreatable illness, 2) have been euthanized because of clients' inability to pay for expensive treatments, and 3) have died of natural causes.
Such programs provide these veterinary colleges with an alternative source of cadavers for teaching purposes, and offer animal owners a special opportunity to participate in the training of future veterinarians. As stated in the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine euthanasia brochure (see following), "Donating your pet's remains to the veterinary school can be a way of letting the spirit of your pet live through the education of future veterinarians, who are being trained to heal other animals. In addition, your willingness to participate in the program supports a humane approach to obtaining resources for this training. Animal cadavers are invaluable in teaching veterinary students about animal anatomy and the skills they need to master to become competent veterinarians."32
In their euthanasia brochure, the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine notes, "This most honorable type of donation helps teach surgical skills to the next generation of veterinarians. Your deceased pet makes a tremendous contribution to learning by becoming a noble part of the educational process in this way. The veterinary students benefiting from medical memorial donations are deeply grateful for this type of learning. People who make such thoughtful, personal contributions by donating their pet's remains can be assured that the body of their deceased animal will be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Providing an educational memorial is truly a profound donation, for even after death, your pet can make a lifetime contribution to the education of a future skilled and compassionate veterinarian."7
Tufts' veterinarian Dr. Gary Patronek says that clients have "the satisfaction of making a contribution to veterinary medical training and eliminating the need to take the life of an otherwise healthy dog for this training."37
Ethical concerns about traditional sources of cadavers for veterinary education
A growing number of veterinary students and faculty are balking at the traditional sources of both small and large animals used in anatomy and surgical laboratory classes. The general public is also increasingly voicing ethical concerns about the euthanizing healthy animals for these purposes, and an increasing number of states and municipalities have passed legislation barring acquisition of shelter animals for these purposes.
Issues of concern fall into the following categories:
1.Class A dealers
2.Class B dealers
3.Use of retired greyhounds
4.Use of shelter animals
5.Desensitization of veterinary students
EMPs positively address these ethical concerns.
1. Class A dealers
As defined in the Animal Welfare Act, Class A dealers derive income "from the sale of animals to research facilities, dealers, exhibitors, retail pet stores, and persons for use as pets, directly or through an auction sale." Animals raised in Class A facilities are 'purpose-bred': the animals are born and raised on the premises of the facility for the sole purpose of being sold to research facilities, universities, and establishments.1 Class A dealers who sell directly to research facilities (including universities) commonly charge $500 or more per dog.16
For many years, the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine utilized only Class A animals for their gross anatomy laboratories (Massachusetts state law prohibited the use of shelter animals for this purpose). Students and faculty alike found the killing of healthy animals for a veterinary education wholly unacceptable, and the Tufts EMP was established as an alternative.
2. Class B dealers
In the United States, at least twenty companies supply live and/or dead animals for use in education. These biological supply companies are most often licensed Class B dealers, who supply many of the animals used in veterinary education. Class B dealers are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to purchase animals from animal shelters (unadopted animals), other Class B dealers, auctions or private individuals who have bred and raised the animals themselves. A minority of Class B dealers can then legally resell these animals to research and educational institutions.
Serious concerns have been raised regarding the procurement, transportation, housing, and treatment of animals by Class B dealers. Although notoriously difficult to obtain, there is documented evidence that some Class B dealers have bought or sold stolen family pets, as well as fraudulently answered 'free to good home' ads with the intention of selling the pets to research and educational facilities. For more information on pet theft, see the Animal Welfare Institute's webpage
In 1991, ten charges of violations under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) were brought by the USDA against Carolina Biological Supply Company (CBSC). One of the charges questioned whether or not cats were still sentient at the time of embalming. During the hearing, two USDA veterinarians testified that several cats were still alive, but two veterinarians retained by CBSC testified that all the cats were dead when embalmed. The USDA judge ruled in favor of CBSC on the basis of their experience with and knowledge of embalming animals. CBSC was assessed a fine of $2,500 based on its failures to: maintain complete records of acquired animals, properly sanitize and maintain enclosures, adequately store animal food, and keep its premises clean and free of accumulations of trash.11
In 1994, the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) discovered that, in Mexico, cats were being taken from the streets and killed by putting ten animals into a sack and drowning them or by affixing the sack opening to a car exhaust pipe. The bodies were embalmed then shipped to the United States for use in dissection.49 The man in charge of collecting the cats admitted that many of the cats were probably owned. The company, Preparation of Animals for Material for Scholarly Study (PARMEESA), had been supplying dead cats and other species to several U.S. biological supply companies including Fisher EMD, Delta, Frey Scientific, and Sargent Welch for over 20 years.9
It is not certain to what extent cases such as these are representative of procurement practices in the biological supply trade. However, many observers are concerned about the potential for unethical practices in the supply industry, given the lack of regulatory oversight, the closed-door polices of the suppliers, and the potential for desensitization among animal handlers when living animals are slated to be killed and sold dead.36
3. Use of retired greyhounds
There is growing public concern about the fate of retired racing greyhounds. According to the Greyhound Protection League, approximately 20,000 greyhounds are euthanized each year in the United States alone. The majority of unwanted greyhounds are not placed as pets because there simply are not enough homes for them all. The Greyhound Protection League reports that since 1990, there have been more than 51 media-documented cases of mistreatment of greyhounds, collectively involving thousands of dogs. These cases include greyhounds shot, abandoned, left starving in their crates, sold for medical experimentation, and even electrocuted.
Recently in the Midwest, greyhound owners were shocked to find that Dan Shonka, the trainer they had hired to race their dogs and adopt out poorly performing dogs, was in fact selling their retired greyhounds for $300-$400 each to a Minnesota research lab. One greyhound owner commented, "I feel raped. I came to find out a lot of these dogs I gave for adoption in June were at the research facility in July. I've been in tears all week." A USDA spokeswoman said of this case, "When buying a dog with the intent of reselling, a signature is needed from the owner that states the animal could be resold for research or education at a medical or veterinary school. Shonka did not get that approval."44 Shonka's 'scheme' of selling greyhounds lasted several years, involving hundreds of dogs. Concern about the greyhound racing industry has prompted at least one U.S. veterinary school (ColoradoStateUniversity) to halt the use of greyhounds (living and deceased) in their curricula.
4. Use of shelter animals
a. Transfer of live shelter animals
The majority of the animal welfare community vigorously opposes the acquisition of live shelter animals (unadopted animals scheduled for euthanasia) for research or educational purposes, a practice known as 'pound seizure.' Pound seizure is now illegal in 14 states and some localities. The Massachusetts Pound Seizure law, for example, bars the acquisition of both living and dead shelter animals by universities and research facilities, and, as stated, influenced Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine's decision to establish an EMP.
Transfer of live shelter animals is increasingly becoming banned in the United States for a number of reasons. Shelter personnel argue that, in order to operate effectively, animal shelters must be seen by the public as a safe haven for lost, stray, or abandoned animals in which either a responsible, loving home or a painless and humane death is provided for those animals who are not reclaimed or whose owners can no longer keep them. Animal shelters cannot operate effectively without the confidence of the communities they serve. Giving up unadopted animals for research or teaching "undermines the whole theory of sanctuary, safety, shelter", notes John Snyder, companion animal program director of The HSUS.34 The concern is that people who find lost animals may be reluctant to turn the animals in to shelters, for fear that the animals may be relinquished to research or teaching facilities. This would make it more difficult to reunite pets with owners. Also, individuals who have animals they can no longer keep may avoid relinquishing them to a shelter and risk their being used for research or teaching purposes, and instead, relinquish them through less desirable means, such as 'free to good home' ads, or even abandonment.