massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

There has been a great deal of emphasis on the value of research in moving the massage profession forward. One of the things that is rarely discussed in massage circles in relation to research is where we stand on the use of animals in medical research (much of which may benefit our profession directly). Recently I wrote a blog post about animal research. You can view it at:
http://www.omeri.com/blog/an-end-to-animal-research/

I would be curious to hear what other massage therapists think about the use of animals in medical research-- in particular, how it relates to things that may directly benefit our profession. Is it OK to engage in animal research if there is some "benefit" for the health care fields such as massage?

Views: 292

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

FWIW, I think determination of terrorism is always a political judgment, because it relies on someone's determination of what terrorism is. Anything that relies on judgment of that kind must be political. That judgment can change, or depend on perspective.

Further, it may not be especially meaningful to rank order those things. Animal rights "terrorism" is probably much easier to commit than most other forms of "terrorism." Your average rabblerouser is probably much more willing to disrupt a laboratory than (s)he is willing to circumvent the security at an airport. The scale of penalties is likely to be much different, too.

I wonder if I can take us in a slightly different direction? Consider the world you live in right now, and consider a hypothetical world that *would* exist right now if ALL forms of animal exploitation had always been forbidden. Which world would you choose to live in? How different would those worlds be?

-CM


Noel Norwick said:
Thanks for your considered response.
1. FYI - Animal Right Activists currently being ranked # 2 is not a political judgement, it's based on police/FBI statistical reporting of violent acts committed. Prior to our current President's election they were #1.

2. Re healthy animals subjected to traumatic/fatal experiments for the potential future benefit of humans and other other animals. My perspective is based on several propositions:
a. Humans appear genetically programmed with a bias for survival in the moment rather than to seek constantly more accuracy and efficiency in any task we undertake
b. Because we don't know what we don't know, those humans motivated to consider making the world a better place in the foreseeable future must pursue their curiosity. Thus, it seems to me that wide ranging research is not voluntary (at least if we truly want to benefit from progress/advancements in knowledge) and that research methodologies have commonly/historically troubled the roughly 85% of humanity who are firmly focused on the present (and among those with religious concerns, the after life).

3. While you perceive food processing as a completely different issue, having worked in the industry, I simply cannot separate the two. Humane treatment of all of our sources of food (indeed our entire universe as well) seems to me to be just as worthy an ideal as humane treatment of research subjects. Should you consider learning more about humane treatment of livestock, I suggest a book by Temple Grandin & Catherine Johnson entitled "Animals in Translation, Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior." Ms. Grandin (who is both autistic and a PhD) is one of the leading authorities on raising autistic human children and on designing humane feedlots, slaughter houses, etc.
.

Whitney Lowe said:
Noel:
I understand that veterinary medicine certainly has to deal with animals in a different way. There is a great deal that may be learned from working with animals who are ill and this information can certainly be applied to working with others. The issue that I am bringing up is related to whether we choose to take healthy animals and subject them to research (for either our benefit or for veterinary medicine as you mention). The question you bring up about pruning plants is also interesting. As Christopher mentions, plants don't have a nervous system as we know it but I don't know that I feel comfortable saying they are aren't sentient. If I remember correctly there are some research studies that have shown plants to be able to respond to certain human emotions/energies, so I honestly don't know if that would be the same. I think this is an interesting idea to pursue as well.

You mentioned food processing and to me that is a completely different subject. We all have to eat and we will either eat plant material, animal material, or both. So organisms will be killed for all of us to eat. We do have to look at how to do this in a humane way, but that is a different issue than research which is a voluntary effort to subject animals to certain experiences. Research is not a direct part of our momentary survival (as is eating), so to me there is a substantial difference.

The issue of animal rights activists being labeled as the "second most active terrorist group" is much more of a political issue that is separate from this discussion. You have to look at who it is that has labeled them a "terrorist group". This has a lot more to do with preventing harm to corporate profits of agribusiness than it does in protecting the public. I realize that animal rights activists engage in many destructive practices that I don't necessarily condone, but I honestly can't get behind the idea that this is a "dangerous" group of terrorists.


Noel Norwick said:
Whitney: I'm curious what you would have veterinary medicine base its research activities on. Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about botanists and casual gardeners who prune and uproot living flora.

Having lived on farms and ranches and worked in the food processing industry, this issue causes me to wonder what the typical city dwelling American thinks is the source of their daily "bread" and how it's processed on the way to their table. Can reasonable people disagree regarding what is both humane and necessary research/slaughter? Given that after "White Supremacists" it has been reported that "Animal Rights Activists" are the second most active terrorist group in the USA today, I look forward to your response regarding this highly emotional issue.
Never. Would we be so willing to "test" and "torture" humans so that veterinarians can find treatments and cures for their animal clients? I think not. Why then are we "worthy" of their torture?
Alright Christopher, great questions! I love talking in “hypotheticals” cuz it’s much harder to be labeled “wrong” when what we are discussing isn’t real. :)

I know I’d choose the world we live in right now. (Hypothetically) I don’t think I’d want to live in a place that was devoid of all the health/comfort/lifestyle benefits that have come from the subservience of animals. My guess is that we would all be extinct in the forbidden exploitation of animals place. We likely would have starved if we didn’t eat them, or harness them to plow fields. We would have likely frozen to death if we didn’t use their skins for protection. We never would have lived long enough to invent cars and trucks if we hadn’t forced horses, elephants, etc.(dependent on geography, of course) to provide us with transportation and the back-breaking efforts to move stone, logs and such to build our shelters.

I’m OK with the food chain as it is. And while I can’t see myself causing gratuitous discomfort to any animal, and specifically taught my kids when they were young that is not OK to kick the dog, I have no real issue with training animals to “work” for us. Your use of the term “animal exploitation” seems to me to be a pejorative term to what I might call “animal utilization.” I like living in a world with seeing-eye dogs, Clydesdales pulling Budweiser wagons, cats and dogs as companions, and fish in tanks just cuz they are interesting and look pretty. These animals did not choose to be manipulated in such a manner, but we still subject them to these situations because, in the end, we feel it is our right to dominate animals. We breed them for our pleasure and profit, and whether bred to eat, to sell in a pet store, to protect our feet, to run in circles around a track, to make us feel safer in our homes, to sniff for illegal materials, or to study functional change given specific stimuli, it is we who choose – not the animal. I may be missing something, but these all sound like good things to me!

Gratuitous pain and death is another matter! If it’s done without thought or purpose, that is, at minimum, mean. But if “greater good” is the goal then sometimes we just have to deal with some things we wish just weren’t so. Surgery has risks and complications, lifesaving pharmaceuticals have side effects, and even effective massage therapy can cause momentary discomfort and next morning soreness.
Christopher: I too suspect we agree more than we disagree. On that note, my response to your questions:

1. Where to draw the line: While reasonable people may and often do disagree about where to draw the line, we are all too often ignorant (or in denial) of the consequences of our actions (until it's too late). This is often referred to as the "Law of Unintended Consequences" or occassionally as making decisions based on spurious correlations.

2. Do I have qualms about disinfecting my kitchen: Yes. That said, I rationalize that I'm, with premeditations, killing other life forms who if left alone would likely cause me to experience morbidity and possibly even a premature death.

3. As someone who worked in the food processing industry, values a clean environment and who prefers to eat fresh picked flora and slaughtered fauna, I can all too easily project for myself the perspective of any living thing about to be prematurely killed at the will of another. Life does not appear to value "fairness" over "Force", but it does offers innumerable choices.

4. Re consciousness. I agree with you that there is likely a disconnect been anatomy/physiology and consciousness. I suspect that from a human perspective, you may find Explain Pain by David Butler & Lorimer Moseley, 2003, an easier and more pragmatically useful read.

Christopher A. Moyer said:
Well, as long as we are discussing this, where would you draw the line? Do you have qualms about disinfecting your kitchen countertop, because of the thousands of microorganisms you will kill? About taking antibiotics? Sex for other than procreational purposes? Et cetera. "Life" and "sentience" are not one and the same, and all of us are in the habit of killing thousands of things a day. But only some of the things we kill have nervous systems.

To date, there is little evidence to suggest that plants have consciousness. As you and Whitney correctly point out, it has been demonstrated that plants respond to their environment and to stressors like damage, temperature fluctuations, etc. But that does not mean they are sentient. Is it possible they could be? I guess so, but where does that logic end?

The best available evidence suggests that sentience depends on a complex nervous system. Until some different evidence comes along, that's what I'm going with. :) That still leaves open the issue of "how complex" does it need to be, and there are related issues that are interesting - i.e., how much loss of nervous system functioning must there be before a person is no longer "in there."

One of the hardest books I have tried to read in recent months is a book by Daniel Dennett entitled "Consciousness Explained". I do think this is the first book that I have started twice without finishing! I will finish it, eventually, but even without finishing it, I was able to learn a lot from it. One of the key points, which is very convincing, is that our experience of consciousness is probably very different from the structure of consciousness. Where am I going with this? I guess what I am trying to say is that it is very difficult to say, with any precision, just what "consciousness" is and what/who has it.

And, as long as we are discussing this, let me add that in most respects I think we are similar and agree on this issue. Apart from being carnivorous, which I have some qualms about (but not too many qualms, I guess!), I do almost anything I can to spare living creatures from harm. For example, I will take considerable effort to capture an insect and set it outside, rather than kill it, if it is in the house when it shouldn't be.

But I eat plants with impunity. :)

-CM

Noel Norwick said:
I'm curious about everyone's opinion, so yours is most welcome. For what it's worth, based on my 62 years of life experience, I disagree with your belief that there is no reason to believe that flora are not sentient.

I believe that all life is sentient and "should" be treated with respect at all times. The belief that invertebrate, flora, bacteria, viruses, etc are to be viewed as "not sentient" calls into question how one one who lives within a "system" and survives/thrives by consuming other life forms within it can, without the appearance of "conflict of interest" define sentience to justify indiscriminate slaughter/research.

Christopher A. Moyer said:
I know you asked for Whitney's response, but I hope it's O.K. to add mine. Regarding botany and gardening, there is no reason to believe plants are sentient. They do not have a nervous system.

I'm not well acquainted with IRB standards for animal research, but I do know that generally a distinction is made between vertebrates and invertebrates. Presumably, the idea is that vertebrates, as a category, are likely to have richer conscious experience.

-CM

Noel Norwick said:
Whitney: I'm curious what you would have veterinary medicine base its research activities on. Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about botanists and casual gardeners who prune and uproot living flora.

Having lived on farms and ranches and worked in the food processing industry, this issue causes me to wonder what the typical city dwelling American thinks is the source of their daily "bread" and how it's processed on the way to their table. Can reasonable people disagree regarding what is both humane and necessary research/slaughter?

Given that after "White Supremacists" it has been reported that "Animal Rights Activists" are the second most active terrorist group in the USA today, I look forward to your response regarding this highly emotional issue.
1. I understand why you think that terrorism, possibly like racism or sexual harassment, is relative and dependent on each individual's judgement, I do not. It's simply not a matter of personal judgement when "violence" results in injury and/or death. Terror is the feeling that results from violence perpetrated to intimidate and thereby coerce a person or group into acting in a manner that is not freely chosen. FWIW - I believe that reasonable people may disagree when terror/violence is justified/necessary.

2. I agree that opportunity and degree of consequences plays a part some people's propensity to commit acts of terror. However, to paraphrase a folk saying; Those who live by the sword should consider the probability that they will die by the sword.

3. Re imagining what kind of world it would be without exploitation of animals: What you refer to as "exploitation" of animals, in my opinion, should be expanded to include humans (all life). My imagining is that all forms of life that don't "exploit' their opportunities, would die young, being unable to help those they care for, prosper and "feel" good.

You might consider this topic in terms of the historic and endless debates regarding what should be one's
Mission (Goal oriented/purposeful actions)
Values (emotional/rational constraints on one's actions)
Vision (Idealized description of the future one is purposefully striving to manifest in reality)

Christopher A. Moyer said:
FWIW, I think determination of terrorism is always a political judgment, because it relies on someone's determination of what terrorism is. Anything that relies on judgment of that kind must be political. That judgment can change, or depend on perspective.

Further, it may not be especially meaningful to rank order those things. Animal rights "terrorism" is probably much easier to commit than most other forms of "terrorism." Your average rabblerouser is probably much more willing to disrupt a laboratory than (s)he is willing to circumvent the security at an airport. The scale of penalties is likely to be much different, too.

I wonder if I can take us in a slightly different direction? Consider the world you live in right now, and consider a hypothetical world that *would* exist right now if ALL forms of animal exploitation had always been forbidden. Which world would you choose to live in? How different would those worlds be?

-CM


Noel Norwick said:
Thanks for your considered response.
1. FYI - Animal Right Activists currently being ranked # 2 is not a political judgement, it's based on police/FBI statistical reporting of violent acts committed. Prior to our current President's election they were #1.

2. Re healthy animals subjected to traumatic/fatal experiments for the potential future benefit of humans and other other animals. My perspective is based on several propositions:
a. Humans appear genetically programmed with a bias for survival in the moment rather than to seek constantly more accuracy and efficiency in any task we undertake
b. Because we don't know what we don't know, those humans motivated to consider making the world a better place in the foreseeable future must pursue their curiosity. Thus, it seems to me that wide ranging research is not voluntary (at least if we truly want to benefit from progress/advancements in knowledge) and that research methodologies have commonly/historically troubled the roughly 85% of humanity who are firmly focused on the present (and among those with religious concerns, the after life).

3. While you perceive food processing as a completely different issue, having worked in the industry, I simply cannot separate the two. Humane treatment of all of our sources of food (indeed our entire universe as well) seems to me to be just as worthy an ideal as humane treatment of research subjects. Should you consider learning more about humane treatment of livestock, I suggest a book by Temple Grandin & Catherine Johnson entitled "Animals in Translation, Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior." Ms. Grandin (who is both autistic and a PhD) is one of the leading authorities on raising autistic human children and on designing humane feedlots, slaughter houses, etc.
.

Whitney Lowe said:
Noel:
I understand that veterinary medicine certainly has to deal with animals in a different way. There is a great deal that may be learned from working with animals who are ill and this information can certainly be applied to working with others. The issue that I am bringing up is related to whether we choose to take healthy animals and subject them to research (for either our benefit or for veterinary medicine as you mention). The question you bring up about pruning plants is also interesting. As Christopher mentions, plants don't have a nervous system as we know it but I don't know that I feel comfortable saying they are aren't sentient. If I remember correctly there are some research studies that have shown plants to be able to respond to certain human emotions/energies, so I honestly don't know if that would be the same. I think this is an interesting idea to pursue as well.

You mentioned food processing and to me that is a completely different subject. We all have to eat and we will either eat plant material, animal material, or both. So organisms will be killed for all of us to eat. We do have to look at how to do this in a humane way, but that is a different issue than research which is a voluntary effort to subject animals to certain experiences. Research is not a direct part of our momentary survival (as is eating), so to me there is a substantial difference.

The issue of animal rights activists being labeled as the "second most active terrorist group" is much more of a political issue that is separate from this discussion. You have to look at who it is that has labeled them a "terrorist group". This has a lot more to do with preventing harm to corporate profits of agribusiness than it does in protecting the public. I realize that animal rights activists engage in many destructive practices that I don't necessarily condone, but I honestly can't get behind the idea that this is a "dangerous" group of terrorists.


Noel Norwick said:
Whitney: I'm curious what you would have veterinary medicine base its research activities on. Additionally, I'm curious how you feel about botanists and casual gardeners who prune and uproot living flora.

Having lived on farms and ranches and worked in the food processing industry, this issue causes me to wonder what the typical city dwelling American thinks is the source of their daily "bread" and how it's processed on the way to their table. Can reasonable people disagree regarding what is both humane and necessary research/slaughter? Given that after "White Supremacists" it has been reported that "Animal Rights Activists" are the second most active terrorist group in the USA today, I look forward to your response regarding this highly emotional issue.
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures. Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.

Terri Sloan, PhD, DD, NCMT, LMT said:
Never. Would we be so willing to "test" and "torture" humans so that veterinarians can find treatments and cures for their animal clients? I think not. Why then are we "worthy" of their torture?
I think a great deal of this, though, goes back to choice. In this country we aren't supposed to subject humans to medical experimentation without their consent (although we do-- such as the Tuskegee experiment). I think in many situations where people have been used for medical experimentation against their will it would be considered torture. This is much different than the use of experimental treatments in medicine where a person may realize that the treatment is experimental. They are still making a choice to have or not to have the treatment. We don't get the opportunity to ask animals if they are willing to be used for experimentation and that is where the difference lies.

Noel Norwick said:
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures.Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.
Replying to Noel and Whitney -

Examples such as the Tuskegee experiment are clearly unethical. No reasonable person could argue otherwise.

As for "experimental" treatments, we must use our terminology carefully. Noel refers to some things as experimental when I think he means to say something like "highly variable." An experimental treatment would be one where we do not even know if it works at all. Chemotherapy is not experimental; we know, from empirical study, that it works. But that does not mean that it isn't highly variable in how it works for different individuals, or that it is something that is easy or painless or not anxiety-provoking. But on average, chemotherapy will extend the life of someone who has cancer (assuming, of course, that diagnosis is correct and dosage is correct, etc. - I know all that counts, of course).

Also, I think we are becoming imprecise if we start throwing the word "torture" around. Unless we are using our words loosely, I don't think treatment can be torture. Torture is not something that has the recipient's best interest in mind, whereas treatment, even very unpleasant treatment, does. The goal of torture, as I understand it, is to extract something from the tortured, to hurt the tortured, or to somehow gratify the torturer. The goal of treatment is to promote health, healing, or wellness in the recipient, even in cases where that necessitates creating pain or discomfort in the pursuit of those goals.



Whitney Lowe said:
I think a great deal of this, though, goes back to choice. In this country we aren't supposed to subject humans to medical experimentation without their consent (although we do-- such as the Tuskegee experiment). I think in many situations where people have been used for medical experimentation against their will it would be considered torture. This is much different than the use of experimental treatments in medicine where a person may realize that the treatment is experimental. They are still making a choice to have or not to have the treatment. We don't get the opportunity to ask animals if they are willing to be used for experimentation and that is where the difference lies.

Noel Norwick said:
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures.Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.
Christopher:

Thanks for the good points of clarification on the terminology. I think in most of these cases the medical procedures would certainly not be considered torture. However, when speaking about medical experiments with humans I was also thinking of some of the medical experiments carried out in Nazi Germany, and these would still fit in with the definition of torture as there was an intent to cause harm to the individuals in addition to deriving medical information.

Christopher A. Moyer said:
Replying to Noel and Whitney -


Also, I think we are becoming imprecise if we start throwing the word "torture" around. Unless we are using our words loosely, I don't think treatment can be torture. Torture is not something that has the recipient's best interest in mind, whereas treatment, even very unpleasant treatment, does. The goal of torture, as I understand it, is to extract something from the tortured, to hurt the tortured, or to somehow gratify the torturer. The goal of treatment is to promote health, healing, or wellness in the recipient, even in cases where that necessitates creating pain or discomfort in the pursuit of those goals.



Christopher:
1. Since you state that "chemotherapy is not experimental", I must ask if you think that there is no longer a need to seek safer, less painful and more effective medical treatments for cancer?
2. Re use of the word "torture"; "The goal of treatment is to promote health, healing, or wellness in the recipient, even in cases where that necessitates creating pain or discomfort in the pursuit of those goals." I consider your statement contentious. Medical providers claim specialist knowledge and those who suffer pain/discomfort at their hands often suffer in silence because they feel powerless to question its necessity and the practitioner's authority. Simply put, those who suffer will often and rightly describe what they experience very differently from how it is described by those (regardless their motivation) who cause the suffering.



Christopher A. Moyer said:
Replying to Noel and Whitney -
Examples such as the Tuskegee experiment are clearly unethical. No reasonable person could argue otherwise.
As for "experimental" treatments, we must use our terminology carefully. Noel refers to some things as experimental when I think he means to say something like "highly variable." An experimental treatment would be one where we do not even know if it works at all. Chemotherapy is not experimental; we know, from empirical study, that it works. But that does not mean that it isn't highly variable in how it works for different individuals, or that it is something that is easy or painless or not anxiety-provoking. But on average, chemotherapy will extend the life of someone who has cancer (assuming, of course, that diagnosis is correct and dosage is correct, etc. - I know all that counts, of course).

Also, I think we are becoming imprecise if we start throwing the word "torture" around. Unless we are using our words loosely, I don't think treatment can be torture. Torture is not something that has the recipient's best interest in mind, whereas treatment, even very unpleasant treatment, does. The goal of torture, as I understand it, is to extract something from the tortured, to hurt the tortured, or to somehow gratify the torturer. The goal of treatment is to promote health, healing, or wellness in the recipient, even in cases where that necessitates creating pain or discomfort in the pursuit of those goals.



Whitney Lowe said:
I think a great deal of this, though, goes back to choice. In this country we aren't supposed to subject humans to medical experimentation without their consent (although we do-- such as the Tuskegee experiment). I think in many situations where people have been used for medical experimentation against their will it would be considered torture. This is much different than the use of experimental treatments in medicine where a person may realize that the treatment is experimental. They are still making a choice to have or not to have the treatment. We don't get the opportunity to ask animals if they are willing to be used for experimentation and that is where the difference lies.

Noel Norwick said:
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures.Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.
Whitney: With regard to humans, attorneys are still arguing about what constitutes "informed consent". As yet, there is no unequivocal legal "safe harbor" standard. Such a standard appears based on ethical/moral/religious beliefs of the times given that those who conducted the Nazi medical experiments, Tuskegee experiment and the Spanish Inquisition all appear to have felt that their actions were justified.

Whitney Lowe said:
I think a great deal of this, though, goes back to choice. In this country we aren't supposed to subject humans to medical experimentation without their consent (although we do-- such as the Tuskegee experiment). I think in many situations where people have been used for medical experimentation against their will it would be considered torture. This is much different than the use of experimental treatments in medicine where a person may realize that the treatment is experimental. They are still making a choice to have or not to have the treatment. We don't get the opportunity to ask animals if they are willing to be used for experimentation and that is where the difference lies.

Noel Norwick said:
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures.Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.
I agree with you Whitney that animals do not have a choice in medical experimentation. I think my point is that animals don't have choice in any of the ways we interact with them. The puppy isn't asked if he wants to come home to be your pet. He is purchased and brought home at the will of the human. That same puppy isn't asked if he'd rather pee outside, but is trained to do so for the convenience of the human. It is we humans who decide what is "humane" treatment for animals whether as pets, livestock, etc. They don't get to choose.

Whitney Lowe said:
I think a great deal of this, though, goes back to choice. In this country we aren't supposed to subject humans to medical experimentation without their consent (although we do-- such as the Tuskegee experiment). I think in many situations where people have been used for medical experimentation against their will it would be considered torture. This is much different than the use of experimental treatments in medicine where a person may realize that the treatment is experimental. They are still making a choice to have or not to have the treatment. We don't get the opportunity to ask animals if they are willing to be used for experimentation and that is where the difference lies.

Noel Norwick said:
FWIW - I believe we do "test" and "torture" humans so that M.D.s and veterinarians may in future find cures.Medicine is referred to as a "practice" for this very reason. Given what I have observed when several close friends were diagnosed with cancer, I can state unequivocally that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery are experimental procedures, often excruiatingly painful and do not necessarily prevent "premature" death.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service