Arguments to Legitimate Harmful Animal Teaching in Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics

Abstract

In this paper we analyze three arguments widely used by teachers to support harmful practices in training with animals, in order to demonstrate which ones are fallacious arguments. The first argument holds that the skills required in the profession are only acquired through harmful practices in animals that move and bleed; the second argument defends that harmful practices promotes desensitization of students, this in turn will ensure proper rational attitude without sentimentality; the last argument supports that the reason for using animals in harmful practices is that they were created specifically for this purpose. It is of great importance to demonstrate the validity of these arguments because the ethical (or unethical) behavior is acquired during their studies and it is seen in their professional practice.