National Antivisection Society
Royal College of Surgeons proposes to roll back animal protection 100 Years
22nd March 2004
The National Anti-Vivisection Society is appalled that the Royal College of Surgeons propose to roll back over a hundred years of animal protection, as well as surgical progress, by calling for the use of live animals to practice surgery.
For over 100 years, from 1876 to 1986, British legislation banned surgeons from practicing their techniques on living animals. During this period, British surgical techniques were considered to be amongst the best in the world.
This pace of progress was because surgeons were compelled to study humans instead of other animals working closely with other surgeons and examining cadavers. They were not mislead by the dramatic differences between between humans and other species for example, the blood clotting mechanisms of dogs are different from those of humans and a dog’s reaction to shock is different. A human might not necessarily survive surgery that was successful on a dog a or pig.
It is not just in practice of surgery that animals are not needed but also in the development of new techniques. There is a strong history of progress in surgery without animal experimentation including for: cataracts; cardiac aneurysm; appendicitis; bladder and gall stones; ovariootomy; blue baby technique; and brain tumour.
In 1986, new legislation in the UK allowed, under special circumstances, the use of animals to practice micro surgery. But even then, a non-animal model, using discarded human placenta, had already been developed to enable microsurgeons to practice without using animals. The Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research, a department of the NAVS funded the development of this model, confirming that we are committed to progress in surgery.
The Royal College of Surgeons have a less than exemplary record on animal welfare some years ago they were exposed for tattooing the word “Crap” on the forehead of a small monkey in their laboratory.
It would be a sad and retrograde step for people and animals if they were to be indulged in this latest request, which appears to be ill-judged and ill-thought-out.
