Vets, Pets & Students

(Image caption: a closeup of a small tombstone in a sunny green wood. The text reads: "He was only a cat, but he was human enough to be a great comfort in hours of loneliness and pain." End caption)

Is there a sadder but more comforting fact than knowing people have always loved animals almost as much as they love us? More than 100 years after this cat died, a testament remains to how loved they were.

I came across this image on a content farm and have been unable to find who took the photo. I wanted to share because it remains really fitting.

I tried to find where the image is from, and it's apparently from Pine Ridge Pet Cemetery, Massachusetts and is real.

(Image caption: a tweet by Sean P Whitely replying to the history memes Twitter account, informing them that they gave a tour if said cemetery. The same tombstone is visible in the image. End caption.)

As a bonus, in trying to find this Dewey, I found out there is another cat called Dewey, a famous and adorable Library cat called Dewey Readmore Books:

(Image is of a screenshot from this second cat's wikipedia entry. It features a cute linghaired cat with orange fur and eyes).

The diagram:

@velvetdemon I'm doing a full reply because I want to give this question the time and space it deserves, and I really do appreciate your curiosity about this.

The short answer: It is deeply unethical. There are nowhere near enough willing patients in the world to be able to do this, and it would be criminal to put them through this.

The long answer: The one side of the equation you're focusing on is: how much of a drug is too much, to the point where it will cause negative side effects or even death? And this is crucial to know. But it's not just a matter of finding out the lethal dosage of a heart cholesterol medication, you need to know that it can actually lower the cholesterol of any living thing. There is no way to know this without giving it first to...a living thing.

But beyond this, I need to emphasize: The goal of a drug trial is to effectively cure people who are already suffering from disease, who are living on limited time.

Drug trials don't just happen on any member of the public, they need to happen specifically on people affected by the disease you're trying to treat. There is at any time a very limited and very marginalized population of the world affected by early onset, familial Parkinson's disease. Because you cannot ethically induce disease in a human being, you are working with, speaking with, and helping patients and their families who are hopeful and desperate for a cure.

If you were to jump straight to human trials from petri dishes, not knowing absolutely anything about how the drug functions in a living, breathing animal body, it would look like this:

We didn't know that minute quantities of the drug interact lethally with x, y, z medication that people are commonly also taking. X number of patients have died as a result.

We didn't know that the drug is fatal to people with [common variant] in their genetics. X more patients have died.

We didn't know the drug exacerbates x, y, z chronic illnesses. X number of people have acquired permanent, lifelong disabilities.

We didn't know the best way to deliver the drug, so we tried multiple ways: the people who received it intravenously are now suffering from a painful, costly, and debilitating condition that did not happen with the ingested form.

I could go on, and on, and on.

The vast majority of these problems can be nearly or almost entirely averted by testing other animals first.

These are all people who possibly could have waited for the normal progression from animal testing to human testing and thus received better outcomes. Some people will pass away in the time it takes to get to that point, and that's heartbreaking, and we all wish science could be faster.

animal research is not the mad scientist wild west that PETA wants you to think it is. there are extremely strict federal laws in place to protect the well being of these animals. animal welfare organizations like AAALAC ensure that lab animals are treated with dignity & respect and are given enough specialized care & enrichment to be happy and content in captivity, just like AZA accreditation with zoos.

not a single animal from a zebrafish to a mouse to a dog to a macaque goes unaccounted for. if an animal gets moved to a new cage, paired for breeding, has a procedure performed on it, gives birth, gets sick or injured, dies, etc. it is legally required that this information is recorded and kept on file for the US federal government to access. failing to record & retain this information is very much punishable by US federal law.

let me tell you - if you abuse or kill an animal, even a mouse - you are almost certainly getting both fired & blacklisted from the industry. if you abuse or kill a more ‘advanced’ animal, such as a dog or monkey, you will likely face criminal charges. killing a monkey is as serious and disastrous as a nuclear meltdown. you are expected to reasonably explain every illness, injury, or death of an animal under your care. you must record all of this information. animals that are clearly suffering with low QOL are required to be euthanized according to AVMA guidelines.

research animals are highly expensive. yes, even the "lesser" animals like mice. the cheapest mice will run you a few hundred $ per individual, with some of the most expensive mice i've cared for being $25,000 per individual. in research we have the "three Rs" - reduction (reduce amount of necessary animals to a minimum), refinement (refine processes to ensure research is accurate and animals feel no pain or distress), and replacement (replace animals with non-living research models as they become available). i can assure you no proper research team is wasting animals (*do not* say "b-b-but elon musk--" his research team is actively being investigated for animal abuse by the government).

research methods that do not require live animals are currently being looked into & efforts spearheaded by - you guessed it - the animal research industry itself (notice how the animal rights people are strangely silent & unhelpful when it comes to this?) but current technology is rudimentary and does not compare to live animal models.

some research animal fun facts (US edition):

all species of animals are only allowed to have one single major surgery performed on them in their entire lifetime.

institutions with nonhuman primates must have a behavior program in place (run by knowledgeable primate specialists) to ensure that they are happy and receiving enough daily enrichment and social interaction.

institutions with dogs are required to have physical exercise programs in place. this means every individual dog gets a substantial amount of leashed AND free-roaming exercise daily, including playgroups with other dogs.

a majority of nonhuman primates get to retire to sanctuaries like peaceable primate sanctuary, and almost all dogs get retired and adopted out by organizations like homes for animal heroes. some institutions will also adopt out unneeded young rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, etc.

some strains of mice glow neon green (or orange or blue) under UV light. this is not harmful to them and is commonly seen in cancer research.

I've seen this post floating around many Facebook groups for the last few months, and I cannot stress how angry it makes me. Because it is 100% bullshit.

The topic of owners who don't feel able to stay with their pets at the end of their lives for whatever reason is a hot one, and some people will insist there is no excuse for not being present - but there are many reason, not least trauma, phobia, PTSD from previous losses, etc. It is no one's place to judge someone's personal capabilities. And I absolutely reject the suggestion that 90% of owners do not stay with their pet - that is absolutely false.

What upsets me most about this post is the suggestion that animals are "frantic" during their last moments, and that us as veterinary staff would allow this to be the case. Yes, some animals are distressed to be apart from their owners. But those animals are never briskly put down in a state of panic. My colleagues and I go to great lengths to make all of our patients as comfortable and peaceful as possible at the end. Animals without owners are given as many hugs, treats, kind words, love and care as any other. I cannot count how many dogs and cats I have held in my arms and spoken calming words to as they passed. I have had a dog collapse on me because I held him up so he could bury his nose in a treat jar as the drugs were injected. To suggest that we would EVER allow an animal to pass whilst "frantically looking around" is deeply insulting.

Please, if you read any posts like this, do not believe them. Veterinary staff have enough problems with mental health and abuse without this untrue bullshit being floated around.

Her name is Pigeon and she gets excited when it’s time to put on her chair 

Bruh

An owner called the other day and gave us abuse down the phone because we didn’t know if the obscure human med their dog had eaten off their nightstand was toxic or not, or what any of its side effects were.

(We advised them to call the veterinary poisons line as it was cheaper for them to ring than us, and they could advise on whether they needed to come down to us or not)

And it was literally a “I can’t believe you don’t know what this medicine could do to my dog? Didn’t you train for this? How could you not know about drugs?”

Cleaning and tidying day on the farm. Thanks for the help small goat child!