week 2 db 815

Case Study 4.2 Vivisection: A Dilemma for the Undergraduate Classroom

Morgan College is an undergraduate private liberal arts institution that is church affiliated. This college takes great pride in its biology department. Many of its students, both male and female, continue with their further education and enter careers in the health and science fields.

In an introductory biology class, several of the laboratory activities require freshly pithed frogs that students use to perform experiments on the functioning frog heart. Frogs are anesthetized prior to pithing to prevent pain and suffering. Biology students take this activity very seriously; experimental success requires careful dissection to expose the frog heart without damaging the surrounding organs and vessels. The first stage of the pithing process renders the frog brain-dead, and the second stage reduces skeletal muscle reflex activity.

Specifics of the pithing procedure are not described here; many laboratory manuals include a procedure similar to a classic source-book for biology teachers by Morholt, Brandwein, and Alexander (1966). Several additional experiments that require fresh tissue do not necessitate pithing but do require careful dissection to remove tissue from a freshly killed frog (e.g., a sciatic nerve). For these procedures, most students prefer to use a decapitated frog instead of a pithed (brain-dead) frog.

In general, biology teachers and students are finding it increasingly difficult to justify vivisection, particularly in church-affiliated institutions. Consequently, the chair of the biology department, Dr. Hartiz, has decided to not require students to perform or observe the pithing process, but they are encouraged to work through the experimental vivisection procedures with their laboratory group.

Although Dr. Hartiz has made this decision, he has some qualms about the scientific background he is now providing to all of his students. On the one hand, biology students have extensive dissection experience with preserved specimens. On the other hand, the students’ experiences of and responses to the procedure are varied. Some students are not willing to observe vivisection whereas others are willing to observe but not perform vivisection. Only a few students are willing to perform the procedure. These students often indicate that they find the experience to be less traumatic if the frog has been treated with an amphibian anesthetic prior to pithing and vivisection.

Students are not in agreement on the vivisection issue, and experimental groupings are usually sufficiently diverse to provide constructive debate among group members. The following dialogue highlights the issues surrounding “live dissection.” Ahn contemplates a career in medical technology. She refuses to observe the procedure. Rodney plans to major in premed and eventually become a physician. Rodney is willing to perform the procedure and is attempting to convince Ahn that live dissection is necessary.

Ahn: I refuse to hurt that frog!

Rodney: The anesthetic has knocked him out—won’t feel a thing. Besides, pithing renders the frog brain-dead.

Ahn: That is not the issue! What gives us the right to take this frog’s life, and for what purpose?

Rodney: For months I have been dissecting stinky rubbery preserved specimens. I plan to attend medical school, and I’m going to try my hand at this procedure. If I can’t handle it, I better find out now!

Ahn: I’m sure you can handle it … you big brute! What makes our species superior to other species?

Rodney: Think about it, Ahn. I am sure the frog can’t! … Or can he? Do you think that doctors never practice?

Ahn: It is not necessary for this frog to be sacrificed so that you can become a doctor or to find out if you have the stomach for medicine. Besides, no medical procedures should be performed unless the result is expected to extend life.

Rodney: Oh! Well, in that case, I’ll sew him back up!

Ahn: You are hopeless! I’ll be back after the procedure.

Rodney: Why should I share my data with you if you don’t contribute to the activity?

Ahn: Because the teacher said that I may instead use a new computer program that simulates the effects of acetylcholine and adrenaline on the frog heart.

Rodney: Fine for your purposes, but I plan to use this herbal extract as an additional independent variable—find that in your computer simulation!

Ahn: What practical application might your herbal extract have? It is unlikely that you would stumble on some amazing substance by accident!

Rodney: If I did, would this frog’s death be justified?

Ahn: Depends how amazing the substance is … but just experimenting with no practical application in mind is not justified.

Rodney: But that is what basic science is all about.

Ahn: Well, Mr. Serendipitous … you do your thing and I’ll do mine.

Questions for Discussion

Do animals have rights? Do we, as human beings, have a responsibility to species other than ourselves?

What are the pros and cons of pithing frogs? If you were the chair of the biology department, would you permit this procedure? Would your answer be different if the animal were a dog, a cat, a horse? Why or why not? How would you decide where to draw the line?

Pithing frogs is legal and sometimes considered to be a good practice.

Do these things also make it ethical? Why or why not?

If pithing frogs was the only way to improve medical practice and save human lives, would that justify the practice? What if it were not the only way but was clearly the best way, would your answer change? Why or why not?

Case Study 6.2 Parents’ Rights Versus School Imperatives

It was 4 p.m. on Friday afternoon, and Ned Parker was still at his desk. In front of him was the pamphlet distributed by the state’s Division of Youth and Family Services that detailed the school’s role in preventing child abuse. Among other things, the pamphlet was very specific with regard to school officials’ responsibilities. Any school official or teacher who fails to report suspected child abuse, the pamphlet read, could be held criminally liable.

Of course, Ned Parker was well aware of the legal responsibilities of school officials with regard to suspected child abuse cases. Indeed, he had presented in-service training to his teaching staff on just that subject. As principal at Sandalwood Elementary School, Ned had reported dozens of suspected child abuse cases over his eight-year tenure despite the fact that the school was situated in a mostly upper-middle-class community. He understood his responsibilities all too well. Yet, on this particular Friday afternoon, he felt very unsure of himself. Earlier that day, he had witnessed a parent beating his child but was hesitant to report this incident as child abuse.

The child in this case was Robert Buck, a sixth grader who was both small in stature and emotionally immature for his age. He had transferred to Sandalwood earlier in the school year from a district in another state, following the bitter divorce of his parents. Robert’s father, Frank Buck, had been awarded full custody, and the transition was anything but smooth.

Robert was a discipline problem from almost the first day he arrived. He was constantly disrupting his classes, disrespectful to his teachers, and both physically and verbally abusive to his classmates. Needless to say, his academic achievements were few. Robert had been a frequent visitor to Ned Parker’s office and had been rapidly progressing through the various levels of the school discipline policy.

Frank had also been a frequent visitor to the school. He was a rough and relatively uneducated working-class man who had dropped out of high school to marry his pregnant girlfriend. He lived on one of the few streets in the community that had escaped gentrification, a street very close to the school district’s boundary line. However, he was glad to live in this district, hoping that a good education might make up for all the problems in his son’s life. When his marriage went sour, Mr. Buck made every effort to gain full custody of his only child to remove him from what he called the “unhealthy influence of his mother.” In his dealings with Frank, Ned had believed him to be a concerned parent who was doing his best with the child under very difficult circumstances. He had personally come to the school each time there was a problem with his son. His meetings with the principal and each of Robert’s teachers had always been cordial, and he had often expressed support for the school’s efforts toward his son. He regularly attended parent back-to-school nights and was one of the few fathers who was active in the PTA.

It was becoming apparent that Robert was not responding to the typical disciplinary practices of the school. After a series of disruptive behavior reports from teachers, Mr. Parker suggested to Frank that he implement a behavior remediating program suggested by the school psychologist. All indications were that Frank was dutifully following this program.

The final straw came early on Friday when Robert was sent to the principal’s office for what his teacher described as behavior that was out of control. Ned called Frank to inform him of the problem. Angry, Frank said, “This has gone too far. That boy needs to be taught once and for all how to behave.” With that, he abruptly hung up the phone.

Questions for Discussion

Do schools have the right to determine how parents may discipline their children? Do you believe that Mr. Buck’s actions constitute child abuse? Why or why not? How do your state laws define child abuse? Should Mr. Parker report this incident to the authorities? Why or why not? If Ned thought Mr. Buck’s actions were not child abuse, but feared that Mr. Buck was, or could become, more violent at home, should he report the incident to the authorities? Discuss the pros and cons of taking action against an anticipated wrongdoing.

What do you suppose was the purpose of states instituting child abuse laws? Who likely supported or rallied for such laws? Who do these laws benefit? Do you believe that such laws are fair? Why or why not? If there was a class difference between those who fought for the law and those whom the law affected, would that change your opinion of the laws? Why or why not? Should exceptions be made in these types of cases, or should the law be followed literally? Explain your answer. Should professional judgment be a consideration in reporting such incidents? Why or why not? How would this work? Whose professional judgment should be taken into account and why those persons as opposed to others?

What is the most caring solution to this problem? Would it be caring to report Mr. Buck? What solution would be in Robert’s best interests? The best interests of all students?

Some 31 states have passed laws forbidding corporal punishment in schools (Center for Effective Discipline, 2015), and many, if not most, school districts have policies opposing this type of discipline. Discuss the pros and cons of corporal punishment in schools. Is there a difference between corporal punishment in schools and similar types of discipline at home? Explain. Is there a difference between corporal punishment and child abuse? How are they the same? How are they different?