The Debate Over Using Live Animals in Surgical Training

In the past, live animals were commonly used in medical education to teach human physiology. However, attitudes have shifted over the years, with more programs moving away from this practice. John J. Pippin, MD, played a role in convincing the University of Massachusetts medical program to stop using animals for physiology training. Today, only a small percentage of emergency medicine residencies continue to use live animals, with pediatric residencies in the U.S. and Canada having already phased out this practice.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has been a vocal advocate against the use of live animals in medical training. The organization has been pushing for an end to this practice, particularly in surgical residencies. PCRM argues that advances in technology have made it possible to create simulators based on human anatomy that are equal to or even superior to using live animals for surgical training.

The Case of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)

One of the institutions that PCRM has targeted in its campaign against live animal use is Oregon Health & Science University. OHSU is among the 60 surgical residency programs that still use live animals for training. Despite claims by OHSU that live animals are necessary for teaching certain procedures, PCRM maintains that alternatives such as simulators and cadavers are just as effective.

Arguments for Alternative Training Methods

PCRM has offered to provide OHSU with a demonstration of a perfused cadaver model known as EnvivoPC, made by Maximum Fidelity Surgical Simulations. This simulator replicates human organs, skin, and blood, allowing for realistic tissue handling and practice of procedures. PCRM argues that the scientific evidence supports the use of simulators and cadavers over live animals for surgical training.

In addition to the ethical considerations of using live animals for training, OHSU has faced criticism for its violations of the Animal Welfare Act. According to Pippin, OHSU has accumulated 31 violations from 2014 to 2022, primarily stemming from its primate research center. The school has agreed to pay fines as part of a settlement agreement with the Department of Agriculture in 2022.

While the majority of surgical residencies surveyed by PCRM do not use live animals, there are still programs that continue to uphold this practice. Institutions such as Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Johns Hopkins University, and Kaiser Permanente Southern California are among those that still use live animals in surgical training. Despite efforts by PCRM to persuade these programs to adopt alternative training methods, some institutions remain resistant to change.

The debate over using live animals in surgical training continues to be a contentious issue in the medical community. Advocates argue that alternatives such as simulators and cadavers are more effective and ethical, while some institutions remain steadfast in their use of live animals. As advancements in technology make it possible to simulate complex surgical procedures without the need for live animals, the pressure to move away from this outdated practice will likely continue to grow.