Neurosugeon MURDERS dog...

Question:
 This is so terrible :(
(NewsTarget) A Cleveland Clinic neurosurgeon is under investigation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture after deliberately causing a brain aneurysm in a dog to demonstrate a medical device to salespeople Wednesday.
Clinic officials say the procedure was not authorized, and that it was reported to the USDA as soon as it was discovered. A letter from the clinic to the USDA -- obtained by the Associated Press -- stated that the aneurism had been approved, but the use of a dog and the use of the device on the animal had not. The USDA would not comment on whether the hospital would face penalties for any Animal Welfare Act violations, said USDA spokesperson Darby Holladay.
"This horrifying staged event further demonstrates the cruelty of conventional medicine and the utter lack of respect for life among surgeons," charged Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and advocate for stronger medical ethics. "To deliberately cause a fatal brain injury to a live dog in order to promote the sales of a medical product is, in my opinion, a criminal act. The medical community's response to this incident will clearly demonstrate where conventional medicine stands on the issue of respecting life."
The as-yet-unnamed neurosurgeon was demonstrating a medical device that fills a brain aneurysm -- defined as an abnormal bulge in a blood vessel -- with a coil to stop bleeding. There were 20 to 25 salespeople present, according to reports, and the dog had to be destroyed due to damage from the aneurysm.
Currently, the hospital has refused to release the name of the surgeon, or whether or not he is facing any disciplinary action. The hospital did say that neither it nor the surgeon had a financial stake in the device.
"This neurosurgeon should have his licensed revoked and be charged with violating the Animal Welfare Act," Adams said. "The Cleveland Clinic should be heavily fined by government regulators and boycotted by patients."
According to documents from the USDA, the Cleveland Clinic used 340 canines for medical education and research in 2005.

Answer:
That's just sick.....so sad. But I don't think it's right, fair or logical to lump all of convential medicine into that box.

Answer:
oh of course not!!! Just the fact that someone so well educated could be so cruel (ok, please take that comment lightly...im not trying to make implications at all...just imagine finding out that your doctor, someone you trust and respect did something like that)

Answer:
That is really sad and disgusting :(

Answer:
Every drug, over the counter or prescription, that you have ever taken was at one time or another tested on dogs.
A price has to be paid for certain scientific advancements. Unfortunately, in this case, it was the life of the dog. Better the dog than your brother, sister, daughter, or spouse.
These sales people pitch the device to medical professionals--the doctors that YOU see when you are ill. If the doctors aren't thoroughly convinced of the effectiveness of the device, they aren't going to employ the technology. In the case of a brain aneurysm, this new technology could just be the thing that saves your life.
How can you fault the surgeon for demonstrating a device that could some day save your child's life?

Answer:
i very, very rarely take drugs of any kind :p
i understand that dogs die every day from these kind of things...but the fact is, it was not authorized. Had it been authorized, we would have never even known it happened.
THAT is where i fault the surgeon.

Answer:
I dont like the idea of testing on animals. I also dont think that we should extend our lives at the cost of another creatures, except for eating them. As bad as this sounds I bet it is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether some government organization says that its ok or not makes no difference to me.
Why does it have to be authorized? Who says this surgeon is less responsible than the authorizing agent? Would you do your job less ethically if someone from the government wasnt watching?

Answer:
Animal testing in medicine is a MUST. There isn't another way to test drugs. People pitch ideas, and believe me, I've heard them all, but there simply is no ethical alternative. To me, it's either test it on the animals or risk giving a dangerous drug to a human which is someone's loved one. That said, he should have authorized it, but yes, it happens all the time and until we know everything about the human system, it'll have to keep happening.

Answer:
Every drug, over the counter or prescription, that you have ever taken was at one time or another tested on dogs.
A price has to be paid for certain scientific advancements. Unfortunately, in this case, it was the life of the dog. Better the dog than your brother, sister, daughter, or spouse.
These sales people pitch the device to medical professionals--the doctors that YOU see when you are ill. If the doctors aren't thoroughly convinced of the effectiveness of the device, they aren't going to employ the technology. In the case of a brain aneurysm, this new technology could just be the thing that saves your life.
How can you fault the surgeon for demonstrating a device that could some day save your child's life?
This is not new technology, not a case of animal testing, it was a sales pitch. If he had asked, I imagine my bil could have sent him before and after scans of his brain aneurysm. There might even be shots of the coil going in.

Answer:
Every drug, over the counter or prescription, that you have ever taken was at one time or another tested on dogs.
A price has to be paid for certain scientific advancements. Unfortunately, in this case, it was the life of the dog. Better the dog than your brother, sister, daughter, or spouse.
These sales people pitch the device to medical professionals--the doctors that YOU see when you are ill. If the doctors aren't thoroughly convinced of the effectiveness of the device, they aren't going to employ the technology. In the case of a brain aneurysm, this new technology could just be the thing that saves your life.
How can you fault the surgeon for demonstrating a device that could some day save your child's life?
Here's how: The doctor was DEMONSTRATING the equipment during a SALES pitch. There was no REAL reason to sacrifice the dog. That's what DATA is for.

Answer:
i very, very rarely take drugs of any kind :p
Have you or your children ever received any vaccines?
i understand that dogs die every day from these kind of things...but the fact is, it was not authorized. Had it been authorized, we would have never even known it happened.
THAT is where i fault the surgeon.
So this is an ethical issue and has nothing to due with the fact that a dog was used. I highly doubt the Neurosurgeon went out and found a dog on the street and used it for his procedure. It may not have been approved, but a Neurosurgeon at the Cleveland Clinic surely has other people supply his animal subjects and prepare his operating room.
Let's wait for more information from the Cleveland Clinic before we proclaim the brutality of this man and ask for his license to be revoked!

Answer:
I dont like the idea of testing on animals. I also dont think that we should extend our lives at the cost of another creatures, except for eating them.Why does it have to be authorized? Who says this surgeon is less responsible than the authorizing agent? Would you do your job less ethically if someone from the government wasnt watching?
Why do we need to eat them? For some reason, testing the efficacy of a vaccine on a mouse seems much more useful than eating a bucket of chicken wings.

Answer:
Have you or your children ever received any vaccines?
So this is an ethical issue and has nothing to due with the fact that a dog was used. I highly doubt the Neurosurgeon went out and found a dog on the street and used it for his procedure. It may not have been approved, but a Neurosurgeon at the Cleveland Clinic surely has other people supply his animal subjects and prepare his operating room.
Let's wait for more information from the Cleveland Clinic before we proclaim the brutality of this man and ask for his license to be revoked!
haha yes, i have received vaccines and what not. But like that HPV vaccine that is out, i refuse to get it. I just recently educated myself on what some drugs can do to your body, and have stopped taking them since then. No, i am not completely against them...if nothing else is working, ill take them.
And yes, you are right, we should wait for more info.
Im gonna have to agree with you on the "why do we need to eat animals" thing...yes i do eat meat occasionally, but its just cause its so available....i definately do not see any kind of necessity in eating animals though.

Answer:
This is not new technology, not a case of animal testing, it was a sales pitch. If he had asked, I imagine my bil could have sent him before and after scans of his brain aneurysm. There might even be shots of the coil going in.
Meggie, what is the name of the device in question? Was the operation different? Does the specific device use have any benefits from conventional coils? Your brother-in-law's procedure could have been vastly different than the one in question. How do you know that this isn't new technology, and based on what expertise?
Here's how: The doctor was DEMONSTRATING the equipment during a SALES pitch. There was no REAL reason to sacrifice the dog. That's what DATA is for.
Mamasobuco, these salespeople are the ones that pitch the product to other physicians. How else could a doctor learn about new products if not from a salesperson? Doctors learn about pharmaceutical drugs from representatives from the pharmaceutical companies, and medical devices from representatives from the device manufacturer. Yes, physicians should read basic, translational, and clinical journals to be completely on top of the latest advancements, but that doesn't give them exposure to new equipment by private companies. These sales people play an integral role in the incorporation of new technologies and treatments in hospital practice.

Answer:
haha yes, i have received vaccines and what not. But like that HPV vaccine that is out, i refuse to get it. I just recently educated myself on what some drugs can do to your body, and have stopped taking them since then. No, i am not completely against them...if nothing else is working, ill take them.
And yes, you are right, we should wait for more info.
Im gonna have to agree with you on the "why do we need to eat animals" thing...yes i do eat meat occasionally, but its just cause its so available....i definately do not see any kind of necessity in eating animals though.
Vegetables are pretty available, too, you know. :)
How is the prevention of cervical cancer bad? http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm
http://www.nccc-online.org/

Answer:
Vegetables are pretty available, too, you know. :)
How is the prevention of cervical cancer bad? http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm
http://www.nccc-online.org/
haha i know! I eat lots of 'em. But when i go home and my mom makes meat, i cant refuse...it hurts her feelings, and it just smells too good. I dont think i have made meat up here at school in months...
its not BAD. Its just that i only have one partner, and btwn us, we are good to go. Vaccines just contain all this chemical crap that i dont want in my body unless absolutely necessary. If i wasnt with my bf, i probably would get it :p

Answer:
By the time a vaccine is absolutely necessary, it is probably too late. Just my opinion.

Answer:
Mamasobuco, these salespeople are the ones that pitch the product to other physicians. How else could a doctor learn about new products if not from a salesperson? Doctors learn about pharmaceutical drugs from representatives from the pharmaceutical companies, and medical devices from representatives from the device manufacturer. Yes, physicians should read basic, translational, and clinical journals to be completely on top of the latest advancements, but that doesn't give them exposure to new equipment by private companies. These sales people play an integral role in the incorporation of new technologies and treatments in hospital practice.
The doctor put in a request to do this procedure and went ahead with it even though he never got the approval. It is not the Cleveland Clinic's policy to use live animals for sales demonstrations. The doctor acted unethically in more than one way. I stand by my statement that there is no reason to use animals for sales demonstrations.

Answer:
Have you or your children ever received any vaccines?
So this is an ethical issue and has nothing to due with the fact that a dog was used. I highly doubt the Neurosurgeon went out and found a dog on the street and used it for his procedure. It may not have been approved, but a Neurosurgeon at the Cleveland Clinic surely has other people supply his animal subjects and prepare his operating room.
Let's wait for more information from the Cleveland Clinic before we proclaim the brutality of this man and ask for his license to be revoked!
You're absolutely right. The doctor did get the dog from a breeder who breeds for experimental use only.

Answer:
You're absolutely right. The doctor did get the dog from a breeder who breeds for experimental use only.
That's not necessarily true. The dog came from an undisclosed dealer, but the Cleveland Clinic routinely uses dogs from shelters.
"Documents from the Cleveland Clinic clearly discuss the use of 'mongrel' dogs," Michael Budkie, executive director for the Cincinnati-based Stop Animal Exploitation Now, said in a written statement Sunday.
"Very often this term is a euphemism for dogs that have come from animal shelters."
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1168853789183361.xml&coll=2

Answer:
That's not necessarily true. The dog came from an undisclosed dealer, but the Cleveland Clinic routinely uses dogs from shelters.
"Documents from the Cleveland Clinic clearly discuss the use of 'mongrel' dogs," Michael Budkie, executive director for the Cincinnati-based Stop Animal Exploitation Now, said in a written statement Sunday.
"Very often this term is a euphemism for dogs that have come from animal shelters."
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1168853789183361.xml&coll=2
I apologize. The first thing that I read said that they get their dogs from a breeder.

Answer:
Meggie, what is the name of the device in question? Was the operation different? Does the specific device use have any benefits from conventional coils? Your brother-in-law's procedure could have been vastly different than the one in question. How do you know that this isn't new technology, and based on what expertise?
I'm speaking of the technology of the coil itself, not the device used to insert it. Really, don't you think that could have been demonstrated without using a live subject? The end result is the same, coil is inserted into the aneurysm.
No expertise, just personal experience. Unless meeting briefly with Dr Drake (shameless name-dropping alert) in 1988 counts? Long enough for him to tell us there was nothing he could do to help my father but still I found him to be a very nice man, really compassionate. I did quite a bit of research back then (had a bit of time, my Dad was in a coma for a week) but the coil was never mentioned as an option. Not sure if it was because it wasn't available yet, or because it would have been useless in my Dad's case.
When my bil was found to have an aneurysm a few years ago he was a candidate for the the coil procedure. At that time the Dr's explained very well and thoroughly what the operation entailed. Fascinating. But even a layperson could understand without having to watch it demonstrated on a live subject. The "device" (and you're right, I have no clue what the darned thing is called) stays outside of the body.
Honestly, I really and truly don't understand the necessity of using the dog, no matter where it came from, and artificially creating an aneurysm to "treat". All to sell a "device". I don't imagine the procedure differs any between the device and aneurysm, the coil is inserted and they know what happens after that. It was simply the mechanics of inserting it, right? Seriously, am I missing something?

Answer:
What I don't understand is.....if they wanted to sell the product and prove that it worked, why would they not use it on the dog? Would that not have been the best sales pitch anyways? Proving that it was effective?

Answer:
Why do we need to eat them? For some reason, testing the efficacy of a vaccine on a mouse seems much more useful than eating a bucket of chicken wings.
Because all of us arent vegetarians. Wouldnt you prefer people die 30 years younger? Just think how many animals that would save right there.

Answer:
Because all of us arent vegetarians. Wouldnt you prefer people die 30 years younger? Just think how many animals that would save right there.
More animals die by people eating them for 60-70 year lives than the number that aren't eaten because they don't live to 90. And a lot of them do live to 90.
If animals have to die, and we all have our causes, I think the advancement of medicine is a pretty decent cause. I'm still not convinced that killing chickens for a bucket of chicken wings is the best cause, though.

Answer:
guess his "product" didn't work. Wonder if he felt bad when he was finished.:mad: :(

Answer:
I'm speaking of the technology of the coil itself, not the device used to insert it. Really, don't you think that could have been demonstrated without using a live subject? The end result is the same, coil is inserted into the aneurysm.
No expertise, just personal experience. Unless meeting briefly with Dr Drake (shameless name-dropping alert) in 1988 counts? Long enough for him to tell us there was nothing he could do to help my father but still I found him to be a very nice man, really compassionate. I did quite a bit of research back then (had a bit of time, my Dad was in a coma for a week) but the coil was never mentioned as an option. Not sure if it was because it wasn't available yet, or because it would have been useless in my Dad's case.
When my bil was found to have an aneurysm a few years ago he was a candidate for the the coil procedure. At that time the Dr's explained very well and thoroughly what the operation entailed. Fascinating. But even a layperson could understand without having to watch it demonstrated on a live subject. The "device" (and you're right, I have no clue what the darned thing is called) stays outside of the body.
Honestly, I really and truly don't understand the necessity of using the dog, no matter where it came from, and artificially creating an aneurysm to "treat". All to sell a "device". I don't imagine the procedure differs any between the device and aneurysm, the coil is inserted and they know what happens after that. It was simply the mechanics of inserting it, right? Seriously, am I missing something?
Meggie, thank you so much for your post. It perfectly illustrates my defense of the surgeon and the procedure.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the device could have been properly demonstrated without a live subject. In terms of an aneurysm, blood flow is everything and it is tough to have physiological blood flow (with clotting, etc.) in a dead animal. Nevertheless, we still don't know exactly which device was being demonstrated.
"The first endovascular coil, known as the Guglielmi Detachable Coil (GDC) was invented at UCLA in the late 1980s by Guido Guglielmi, M.D., Ph.D. The first cases were performed using the GDC at UCLA in 1991; since that time, UCLA interventional neuroradiologists have performed the procedure in over 1,200 cases."
If Dr. Drake had the right information and your father had seen the right doctors, the coil might have been used. This is the benefit of the procedure in question--the sales people are the ones that pitch the device to hospitals and doctors. Sorry, but when I'm a practicing surgeon I'm going to have a really hard time listening to a sales pitch from a person that has never actually seen the device in action.
I don't imagine the procedure differs any between the device and aneurysm, the coil is inserted and they know what happens after that. It was simply the mechanics of inserting it, right? Seriously, am I missing something?
I guarantee you that everything about this device was completely different, even if the procedure was a coil embolization. The way that the coil is inserted, the thickness of the coil, the material that the coil is made out of, the way that the coil is shaped, the way that blood flows through the coil, etc. etc. etc.--there are so many variables that could have been different with this device. So yes, you are missing something!
By the way, are you familiar with the Cleveland Clinic? http://www.clevelandclinic.org/
Hospital Ranks 3rd in Nation
11 Specialties Rank Among Top 10
Heart Services Earn No. 1 Spot for 12th Consecutive Year
Neurosurgery ranks 5th
This is the 5th best Neurosurgery department in the country. This doctor isn't some clown trying to make money from showing off this device. He has no financial ties to the device maker or the sales of the device. I'm also fairly certain that he doesn't have loads of free time to go find dogs to kill for fun.

Answer:
Herschel, thank you for explaining it all so clearly I really do appreciate it.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the device could have been properly demonstrated without a live subject. In terms of an aneurysm, blood flow is everything and it is tough to have physiological blood flow (with clotting, etc.) in a dead animal. Nevertheless, we still don't know exactly which device was being demonstrated.
I do understand where you're coming from but still don't fully agree with the way this case was handled.
Dr Drake (University Hospital in London, Ontario) was the best in his field, I believe he invented the clamp used to treat aneurysms (think Della Reese). From your timeline, no, the coil wasn't available here in 1988. Unfortunately, because of the location of my Dad's aneurysm and time elapsed, the clamp couldn't be used.

Answer:
Because all of us arent vegetarians. Wouldnt you prefer people die 30 years younger? Just think how many animals that would save right there.
OR maybe it would force us to accept the fact that there ISNT a miracle pill for everything, and that there is a reason some people can live to a ripe old age by simply eating right and exercising.
ok, i know, there are many things to argue in my comment...accidents blah, blah. Im not saying erase advancements we have made or anything. Its just something i wanted to throw out there.

Answer:
More animals die by people eating them for 60-70 year lives than the number that aren't eaten because they don't live to 90. And a lot of them do live to 90.
If animals have to die, and we all have our causes, I think the advancement of medicine is a pretty decent cause. I'm still not convinced that killing chickens for a bucket of chicken wings is the best cause, though.
I'm sorry but this situation WAS NOT advancing medicine. It was that surgeon trying to make a buck. I have no problem with testing medical procedures on animals. What I do have a problem with is demonstrating procedures on animals to make a sale. Why kill another animal when there should be data from the original tests?

Answer:
More animals die by people eating them for 60-70 year lives than the number that aren't eaten because they don't live to 90. And a lot of them do live to 90.
If animals have to die, and we all have our causes, I think the advancement of medicine is a pretty decent cause. I'm still not convinced that killing chickens for a bucket of chicken wings is the best cause, though.
The first time you mentioned that it was getting to me, but the second time it was more than I could take. Ill be back later I am going to KFC.

Answer:
How can you fault the surgeon for demonstrating a device that could some day save your child's life?
I see what you're saying, Herschel. But this act was not done for medical benefit. It was not done as research, nor was it done for any other type of medicinal/procedure discovery purpose.
Basically, this dog was killed as part of a moneymaking sales pitch. An infomercial. That's what makes it revolting.

Answer:
I see what you're saying, Herschel. But this act was not done for medical benefit. It was not done as research, nor was it done for any other type of medicinal/procedure discovery purpose.
Basically, this dog was killed as part of a moneymaking sales pitch. An infomercial. That's what makes it revolting.
You should see military tests. So much of this goes on that we dont see.

Answer:
I dont like the idea of testing on animals. I also dont think that we should extend our lives at the cost of another creatures, except for eating them. As bad as this sounds I bet it is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether some government organization says that its ok or not makes no difference to me.

Why does it have to be authorized? Who says this surgeon is less responsible than the authorizing agent? Would you do your job less ethically if someone from the government wasnt watching?

For my money, you hit all the points right there . . .

Answer:
If this would have been done to study something then I'd say fine it was needed research-but it was just to sell something.
I've been to countless drug dinners and I have to admitt if they pulled out a dog instead of an overhead I'd probally take the poor thing away with me and make sure that drug company got some bad publicity for it.
there is no reason this needed done at the clinic. None at all. to say the people needed to see how it works is bull because that is not how it works. they need to see the studies etc not seen it done on one dog. those people are not stupid.

Answer:
i know i learn better by "doing".
i'd be a nervous wreck if some surgeon was about to perform this procedure on one of my loved ones, and upon being asked if he'd done this before he says "no, but i read about it once, in a paper, somewhere."

Answer:
i know i learn better by "doing".
i'd be a nervous wreck if some surgeon was about to perform this procedure on one of my loved ones, and upon being asked if he'd done this before he says "no, but i read about it once, in a paper, somewhere."
Or, so much better, "No, I tried it once on a dog at a sales meeting but the dog died. Quiche they served after was pretty good though."
Somewhere between the hospital buying the thing, and using it on a patient, they DO practice. That would be sancitioned by whoever sanctions these things (forgive me, haven't had a cup of coffee yet so I'm barely lucid).

Answer:
I think one point that seems to have been lost in this discussion is that they did NOT try the device on the dog. They induced the aneurysm and did NOT use the device. How does this help anything? There was no demonstration of the device, just a demonstration on how to induce an aneurysm.

Answer:
I'm sorry but this situation WAS NOT advancing medicine. It was that surgeon trying to make a buck. I have no problem with testing medical procedures on animals. What I do have a problem with is demonstrating procedures on animals to make a sale. Why kill another animal when there should be data from the original tests?
From USDA documents:
"The hospital would not identify the surgeon or whether he has been suspended, but said neither he or the clinic had any financial interest in the device."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rgs7CiAdD7sJ:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_he_me/dog_aneurysm+Cleveland+Clinic+Neurosurgeon+Coil&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=firefox-a
In this fantasy world of yours, did you imagine that the neurosurgeon invented the device and was trying to sell it to make some personal income? :rolleyes:

Answer:
That wasn't ole Bill Frist was it?

Answer:
And in another fantasy world, we believe all press releases to be 100% truthful . . . . :rolleyes:

Answer:
That wasn't ole Bill Frist was it?

ROFL!!!! Now there's one who is a real piece of work!

Answer:
I take it you are not a fan of Jesus Frist?

Answer:
I see what you're saying, Herschel. But this act was not done for medical benefit. It was not done as research, nor was it done for any other type of medicinal/procedure discovery purpose.
Basically, this dog was killed as part of a moneymaking sales pitch. An infomercial. That's what makes it revolting.
Who was making money?

Answer:
I take it you are not a fan of Jesus Frist?

ROFLMAO!!!!! Well, he did do a good job of what he was sent to Washington to do . . . take care of the family business (Columbia Medical) :rolleyes:

And why haven't the Feds bothered to investigate his financial "irregularities?"

Answer:
Obviously he was reformed before he ran and that half billion in medicare fraud fines were far behind him. And of course he LOVED animals. Mostly he loved them under his scalpel.
No kidding, his sycophants were called "Fristians".
See?
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k298/ToscasMom/02frist.jpg

Answer:
I'd forgotten all about that photo, lol! Unfortunately, Frist was the senator from here :rolleyes: The one who took his place is as bad - or worse.

Answer:
Well it's good to know you folks are consistent.:p

Answer:
In this fantasy world of yours, did you imagine that the neurosurgeon invented the device and was trying to sell it to make some personal income? :rolleyes:
Are you ****ing kidding me with your rudeness?!
I'm sure in YOUR REALITY he was not being paid to do this training.

Answer:
It was a sales meeting- that obviously does mean he was doing it to make money.

Answer:
Do I get these facts correctly??......................
1. This was a SALES MEETING..........money was hoped to be made by SOMEONE at SOME POINT
2. The aneurysm was artificially induced to show it's effects ?? :yikes:
3. The device in question was not even used to attempt to save the dog :yikes:
Because if that is all correct then here is my take........
I am sure every person at that meeting could have been made to understand the effects of an aneurysm with a nice power point presentation, or a "dummy"............No LIFE taken.
I cannot clearly see what the point even was if they did not want to demonstrate the device. It makes no sense to me what so ever.
Now, I am sure this goes on in every type of medical teaching facility you could probably name, but the facts of this case (as I understand them) make it a little different for me.
My dogs benefit from medicines,vaccines & procedures, my children benefit from medicines, vaccines & procedures, and so do I.
Probably every person that has typed an opinion has benefited from these things as well.
I don't know if there is a better way to test things or not, But I believe testing things for safety VS watching an animal die for a cause & effect demonstration are two worlds apart!!
For this reason, I believe there should be some punishment dished out to responsable parties.

Answer:
[QUOTE=ACooper;593932]Do I get these facts correctly??......................
1. This was a SALES MEETING..........money was hoped to be made by SOMEONE at SOME POINT
2. The aneurysm was artificially induced to show it's effects ?? :yikes:
3. The device in question was not even used to attempt to save the dog :yikes: QUOTE]
Correct, therein lies my objection as well. If they had used the device in the demo to save the animal, it would not have bothered me as much, plus, what better proof that a device works than to see it work?

Answer:
From USDA documents:
"The hospital would not identify the surgeon or whether he has been suspended, but said neither he or the clinic had any financial interest in the device."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rgs7CiAdD7sJ:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_he_me/dog_aneurysm+Cleveland+Clinic+Neurosurgeon+Coil&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=firefox-a
In this fantasy world of yours, did you imagine that the neurosurgeon invented the device and was trying to sell it to make some personal income? :rolleyes:
Somehow that makes it even more sick... if he wasn't motivated by greed, what was he even motivated by?
I am okay (but certainly not thrilled) with animal testing when it is done as humanely as possible, for a medication or device that holds a lot of promise. This case doesn't sound at all humane, or necessary. The device is already made, it must have made it through clinical trials. If the device is worth a ****, the data should speak for itself.

Answer:
I don't like animal testing but its needed untill someone comes up a new way to test our devices and drugs . The whole thing here is that he didn't get it authorized first if he had got it authorized first we would never have read about it we don't even want to know how many die from testing everyday the lives that are taken so we can live and how many lives are wasted everyday in shelters because some stupid owner didn't care about them any more . I don't even want to know how many died from the testing of cemo before it was used on humans . But alot of these things are what are keeping our parents , grandparents and in some cases even our kids alive so whose live do you want to risk I know I don't want my kids to be tested on but on the other hand I do think that this was useless when he didn't even try the device hey if it worked that good so good that he was willing to stand by it, he could have saved the dog . :rolleyes:

Answer:
You know,
I really dont know where I stand on this subject. I can see both sides, where as one side you want these new medicines/tests to be perfect when used on a human, and animal testing lets you see the weak points are or what needs improvement. On the other hand, some can say its cruel and inhumane to do animal testing on the poor animals.
I am torn, because if I had a loved one that was dieing in the hospital and there was this procedure that could save them, I **** well would want it tested to the 10th degree to make sure that it was effective and sucessful. On the other hand, I dont beleive in ANY kind of animal abuse/neglect/cruelty and lets be honest, I am sure that happens with test animals.

Answer:
There are two different topics here, animal testing in general and the issue of whether this guy deliberately induced an aneurysm in an animal for the purpose of making a sales pitch.
If it was the second one (which it sounds like), then the guy is IMO a fool in addition to being cruel, because he would have to know that even if he sees nothing unethical in it, many others would.
As far as the topic of animal testing goes, it helps to be aware that it is not the pharmaceutical companies who insist on it. In the US, it is the FDA. Trust me, I do FDA approvals for medical devices so I am not blowing this out of my hat. The pharma companies would LOVE to market new drugs with as little testing as possible because the testing takes time and costs money. (Heck one even fudged a little with the Vioxx results). Usually when you submit an application for a new drug or device you have to prove that it does what you claim (efficacy) and that it is safe when used as directed (safety). The way you prove that ultimately is with clinical trials on humans with their informed consent. However, no practicing physician will do the clinical trials unless there is reasonable certainty that the drug is safe and effective. The only way to do that is with animal testing. Laboratory tests on cells don't cut it, biological systems are far more complicated and we cannot mimic them in an agar jar.
And to those of you who say you do not take drugs, well, neither do I. But that is because I have the extremely good fortune to be healthy. Many people have horrible diseases which can only be treated or managed with complex drugs.
Again, if this was a sales pitch then I am all for hitting everyone involved with the maximum they can get in animal cruelty charges. This is NOT how animal studies are normally conducted.

Answer:
There are two different topics here, animal testing in general and the issue of whether this guy deliberately induced an aneurysm in an animal for the purpose of making a sales pitch.
As Herschel has pointed out earlier, in the U.S., sales representatives of pharmacutical and medical equipment manufacturers are the primary method of educating physicians on new procedures, devices and medicines.
It is established practice for these "sales pitches" to take place in the operating room with the manufacturer's representatives assisting in the procedures. These people need to know more about their products than they can learn in a powerpoint.
This is not to defend the neurosurgeon's decision in this particular case, but until the U.S. develops a system to train physicians that is not profit based, training medical sales reps under real world conditions is a necessity.

Answer:
Who was making money?
Here's a quote from the article:
The as-yet-unnamed neurosurgeon was demonstrating a medical device that fills a brain aneurysm -- defined as an abnormal bulge in a blood vessel -- with a coil to stop bleeding. There were 20 to 25 salespeople present
If they weren't out to make money or sell something, why would they be demonstrating a device to a room full of salespeople? While the hospital says that neither it nor the surgeon had any moneymaking interest, I'm thinking there had to be *someone* there who did.
Even if this was just a demonstration and had no moneymaking interest, what could possibly be gained by showing an aneurysm to a bunch of salespeople? Are the salespeople going to log the data and do some research on it? Somehow, I doubt it.
Also, the article mentions that the use of a dog in the demonstration had not been approved in the first place.

Answer:
Hes not allowed to do anything with animals for two years and the clinic faces some serious charges if they get caught letting something like that happen again.

Answer:
My opinion of the Cleveland Clinic has now been harshly tarnished. I hope they and their neurosurgeon pay very dearly for this awful, absolutely unnecessary travesty to life.
I'm disgusted and dismayed. And to those who witnessed this canine execution (which really what it was) or profit from such cruelty, I hope you all suffer the shame of your deeds.