• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Army to shoot live pigs for training

#161
Mark Latimour said:
I don't think that effectively demonstrates a point though. Much of the valuable medical and scientific knowledge we have today comes from activities we would consider immoral or inhumane today. Things like the Milgram experiment in the 60's and even research conducted by the Nazis, whilst abhorrent in every respect, provided information. Going back further, there is likely to be countless medical advances arrived at in ways that we would never consider today (think about the origins or surgery). However, that's not to say that if we had to come about the knowledge today, we would do it in the same way.

Its not morally inconsistent to be opposed to unnecessary testing on animals today and still take the benefit of research and techniques derived from testing in the past if you accept that, in the past, there may well not have been another way or that simply, in the past, the world was a different place. Of course, it would get more blurry with modern techniques derived from unnecessary testing..
Click to expand...

The issue of the pigs is that it is seeking to train medical specialists and also gain new knowledge in treating severe trauma. This is a real scientific objective that no computer simulation can duplicate. Is it needed? Someone in the medical authorities in government thinks so. I raised my questions to certain animal rights activists because they do have an agenda that smacks of some form of secularized animism that hampers medical research being conducted along current legitimate ethical and moral standards.

They are willing to sacrifice the very real lives of other persons with their political and quasi-animistic beleifs that they wish to force on others. I was curious to see how far some of them would be willing to go to take their moral position.

I'm very much against unnecessary animal research myself, as well as any legitimate need animal research that violates ethical standards to prevent the suffering of the creature as far as possible. May it be someday that such research becomes a relic of the past, the trouble is that we aren't there yet. I also wouldn't want a cure for cancer or parkinsons disease being prevented by someones animistic beliefs which took a chilling political effect on the world of legitimate, ethical, scientific research.
 
#162
ROON said:
It wouldn't really change my views on it much. I don't even like pigs, disgusting, ugly, grotty and dirty animals. :spit: Only good for eating. :D But I still don't believe that they should be shot for training. PETA was quoted in the article saying there are more advanced and humane options, including hi-tech human simulators. After thinking about it a bit more, I agree that it is a neccesary evil. A hundred pigs is a lot cheaper than even one high-tech human simulator.

It's not something I'm overly pleased about, but I guess there isn't much more you can do. Buying human simulators would be too costly. And I doubt you could send recruits to a ER ward and let them learn there, because the techniques on the battlefield would be different to what is used in a hospital. This is one of those things I really wish I didn't know was going on. I know for a fact there are going to be worser things happening in the world, but I don't know about them, so it doesn't bother me. I hate to see anything lose it's life. You can throw the "but it's training to save human lives" line at me, but a life to me is a life, and I don't like seeing it toyed with. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Agreed..my question is why can they not send the trainees over there for training, in a real battle situation, on real battle wounds????
 
#163
TheDarkReaver said:
Put it this way: Would you want your car fixed by someone who's read all about it but never seen a real engine before?
Click to expand...

Of course I don't. Because I'd most likely be paying him to do it. I'd hope he's seen at least one engine before in his life. If it was a free job that a mate offered, sure, if he's got a pretty good knowledge about engines, even if he's never really worked on one before, I'd be cool with letting him see if he can fix, or at least identify whatever my problem was.

Soldiers and medics in the past seem to have been able to do their job without having to shoot pigs. Now I am just interested as to what comes before shooting the pig. Are they still teaching to old way and simply giving the "do it themselves" learners an efficient training session?
 
#164
CallieBum73 said:
Agreed..my question is why can they not send the trainees over there for training, in a real battle situation, on real battle wounds????
Click to expand...

because people would rather them have the training before they go to battle? so they can be more effective maybe?

ROON said:
Soldiers and medics in the past seem to have been able to do their job without having to shoot pigs. Now I am just interested as to what comes before shooting the pig. Are they still teaching to old way and simply giving the "do it themselves" learners an efficient training session?
Click to expand...

Despite the article's title the quote from the army major suggests that it might have been this way for a while. Or maybe they found previous methods to be less effective and the need for live subjects was needed.
 
#165
thumpbass1 said:
The issue of the pigs is that it is seeking to train medical specialists and also gain new knowledge in treating severe head trauma. This is a real scientific objective that no computer simulation can duplicate. Is it needed? Someone in the medical authorities in government thinks so. I raised my questions to certain animal rights activists because they do have an agenda that smacks of some form of secularized animism that hampers medical research being conducted along current legitimate ethical and moral standards.

They are willing to sacrifice the very real lives of other persons with their political and quasi-animistic beleifs that they wish to force on others. I was curious to see how far some of them would be willing to go to take their moral position.

I'm very much against unnecessary animal research myself, as well as any legitimate need animal research that violates ethical standards to prevent the suffering of the creature as far as possible. May it be someday that such research becomes a relic of the past, the trouble is that we aren't there yet. I also wouldn't want a cure for cancer or parkinsons disease being prevented by someones animistic beliefs which took a chilling political effect on the world of legitimate, ethical, scientific research.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything in your post above, I was merely pointing out that the question you posed earlier doesn't really prove the point that you were trying to make as there are more factors to consider.
 
#166
TheDarkReaver said:
Despite the article's title the quote from the army major suggests that it might have been this way for a while. Or maybe they found previous methods to be less effective and the need for live subjects was needed.
Click to expand...

IIRC in the Stephen Ambrose book Band of Brothers, one of the medics talks about how they would shoot either cows or buffalo or something and patch up their wounds for training in the US prior to deploying to the UK. However, my memory might be of another book as I have read a lot of books about WWII recently. I am not sure that they would have done this under veterinary supervision at the time nor administered painkillers, but then again, I would imagine a freshly shot animal wouldn't be the easiest to learn to operate on without some sort of sedation.
 
#167
Mark Latimour said:
IIRC in the Stephen Ambrose book Band of Brothers, one of the medics talks about how they would shoot either cows or buffalo or something and patch up their wounds for training in the US prior to deploying to the UK. However, my memory might be of another book as I have read a lot of books about WWII recently.
Click to expand...

So then, there is a strong possibility that various animals have been used in this way for a while.
 
#168
TheDarkReaver said:
Despite the article's title the quote from the army major suggests that it might have been this way for a while. Or maybe they found previous methods to be less effective and the need for live subjects was needed.
Click to expand...

Mark Latimour said:
IIRC in the Stephen Ambrose book Band of Brothers, one of the medics talks about how they would shoot either cows or buffalo or something and patch up their wounds for training in the US prior to deploying to the UK. However, my memory might be of another book as I have read a lot of books about WWII recently.
Click to expand...

If it has been going on in the past, at least they are switching to a more practical animal to shoot. Or did they shave the buffaloes? :eyebrow: :p
 
#169
TheDarkReaver said:
So then, there is a strong possibility that various animals have been used in this way for a while.
Click to expand...
I would have thought so, at least insofar as training medics during an ongoing war situation. Perhaps in peacetime, there is more leeway to train medics by having them visit ER's in hospitals etc and observe doctors treating GSWs etc. However, in a time of war maybe the deployment requirements are so great that there is not time (or its not as effective) to train medics that way. I really don't know, but it seems unlikely that the military just stumbled across this idea recently.
 
#170
CallieBum73 said:
Agreed..my question is why can they not send the trainees over there for training, in a real battle situation, on real battle wounds????
Click to expand...

In a sense every medical doctor who practices surgery in the battlefield is constantly training. Sadly war produces just about every unimaginable horror and mutilation to its casualties. To a surgeon under such conditions it's their version of purgatory and hell combined. These doctors are trying to save the lives of the critically wounded!

Now would you want your brother or neighbor or friend serving in the military in harms way to be subjected to an inexperienced surgeon if the tragedy of them being horribly wouded should occur? Would you for yourself select an inexperienced surgeon to do some minor surgical procedure for you here in the civilian world? None of us would. Training doctors where a human life is not at risk is greatly needed today as it has been in the past.
 
#171
CallieBum73 said:
Agreed..my question is why can they not send the trainees over there for training, in a real battle situation, on real battle wounds????
Click to expand...


Because this is being used for medics, not doctors. Meaning, these are the kids that are patching soldiers up often while people are still shooting at them. The added level of stress alone makes the job nearly impossible. By doing this type of training, it takes one component of stressor (that of self-preservation) out of the equation.

ROON said:
Soldiers and medics in the past seem to have been able to do their job without having to shoot pigs.
Click to expand...

And soldiers died of combat wounds at levels FAR higher than they do today.

Now I am just interested as to what comes before shooting the pig. Are they still teaching to old way and simply giving the "do it themselves" learners an efficient training session?
Click to expand...


Having been in the Army, I feel qualified to speak to how the Army trains. I'm confident that before shooting the pig, hours of classwork, followed by hours of simulated practice are taught. Think of the pig as the 'final exam' and you've got an idea of how training for the military works.
 
#173
Link Removed

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

PigglyWigglyStore.gif


Have we been desensitized?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back