Is it wrong to dissect an animal in science..?

Question

um well im a vegetarian but my teacher told me it died naturally (it was a lambs heart) so i did. i feel really guilty for some reason i cant stop thinking about it i feel so bad :'( is this wrong?

Answer 1

Well, it's dead, who cares?  Although I have to admit I would be suspicious of a girl who dissected a cute dead animal and didn't feel bad.  So I think you're only being a cute girl!  Awww...

Answer 2

Well i'm a veg@n and i'm taking Biology next year and I don't think i'll be dissecting anything! Whether it died "Naturally" or whether it was gunned down, i'm not touching it!

Answer 3

No its for science, think it was found dead and used for a good reason.

Answer 4

sorry baby, but it's only wrong if you eat it.

Answer 5

well the animal is already dead. if it feels wrong then dont do it. there is nothing to feel guilty about so give yourself a break.

do you eat animals/ cause then it would be silly to feel bad about cutting one up

Answer 6

You shouldn't feel guilty; the animal was dead and its not like you could do anything about that. You can't raise it from the dead. (Not Jesus) I wouldn't worry about it. What's done is done.

Answer 7

in most cases the animals used to dissect were raised for that purpose. so no i dont think its ok.

Answer 8

Died naturally? That doesn't make sense, how many lambs died of old age to supply enough hearts for your whole school?

Answer 9

It's not wrong because thats how students find out if they want to be doctors when they grow up.

Answer 10

Yes, It Is Very Wrong You Dono If It Was Already Dead Or If They Killed It. I Know I Wouldn't.

Answer 11

How many of you vegans would want a doctor operating on you who has no hands on experience? I don't care what the PETA people say, science isn't to the point where doctors can be trained without animal dissection.

Answer 12

If it died of natural causes then I guess it would be ok.

Answer 13

I had this info recently...

(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.

(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.

(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.

(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.

(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.

(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.

(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.

(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.

(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.

(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.

(11) s*x differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.

(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.

(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.

(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.

(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.

(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.

(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.

(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.

(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.

(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.

(21) A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.

(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.

(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organisation, only 240 are 'essential'.

(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.

(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.

(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.

(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.

(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.

(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.

(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.

(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.

(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.

(33) The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical prgress could have been acheived without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

Answer 14

it was already dead. I'm a vegetarian too and I had to dissect a mink or write a 14 page essay. I just had to realize it was going to be me or someone else and it was already dead so there was no way of saving it.

Answer 15

yes, it's wrong. and the animal didn't die naturally. There are MANY alternatives to animal testing that are better and more efficient.

Answer 16

Well, the lamb was already dead when it got to you, so whether or not you chose to dissect the heart was irrelevant.

Therefore, there is no reasonable way to push the blame onto yourself, so just forget about it.

Answer 17

not if it died naturally and the purpose of the dissection was for educational purposes. the only thing i find wrong w/ it is the smell

Answer 18

It depends on your beliefs i think personally (:

Answer 19

it's wrong

unless it's a rat. then it's ok.

Answer 20

I was supposed to dissect a frog in highschool, I refused. If I'm not going to eat it, then I am not cutting it up.

I was raised by hunters, to kill for food and to not waste it.

My teacher gave me a paper version to learn from. They also have plastic/rubber ones...there is no reason to kill an animal for highschool students to learn. Maybe in college though, if you're going to be  a doctor/scientist and you need to really understand it. That is different.

Answer 21

I believe it is unnecessary to dissect an animal in science. I had to do it to a cat in high school and it was disgusting.

I do not support animals being killed specifically for dissections, but I think that if the animal did in fact die of natural causes and it's corpse had no use, then it can be dissected for educational purposes.

Answer 22

Well, I would be waaaay grossed out!

But, I don't think its that wrong...

I guess its science (or health idk) and so, it wouldn't have made any difference if the heart was still in the lamb and it had already died... or if the lamb had already died and someone took it out so, we could learn!

actually, learning is better than it rotting inside the animal!

SMILE GOD LOVES YOU! =D

MINE?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylc=...

Answer 23

I think dissection in a high school classroom is completely pointless. Having a bunch of teenagers cut apart an animal for supposed educational purposes is ridiculous. Students can learn just as much from virtual dissection or models.

In your case, what is done is already done. Feeling guilty and beating yourself up over it will not change the fact. Give yourself a break, and let it go. Forgive yourself for what you perceived to be a mistake you made, and move on. Learn from the experience and next time politely say "No, I'd rather not participate."

Answer 24

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your teacher LIED to you.  S/he just wanted you to do the assignment.  I wouldn't have done it, even if I was going to get a failing grade.  You've already done the assingment and it's too late now.  Just remember, for the future, you have the RIGHT to refuse to do something you know to be wrong.  If your teacher feeds you more c**p like "it died naturally" tell him/her that it doesn't matter, that you still refuse to.  They legally cannot make you do it.