[Hearty_Beast]

(Original post by MagLatus)
Tell me more?

Haha, Should of expected that...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying animals aren't important. (I've applied (and got an offer yesterday ) to study veterinary medicine.) But humans are the dominant species on Earth, we form stronger relationships and have higher thinking abilities (though that may just be our awesome thumbs, our puppy is much more intelligent than a 2yr old baby).

Consider the difference to your life if surgery went wrong on your mother, or your pet dog. Both would be deeply upsetting, but humans are more important. We individually have more of an impact on the world, and those (humans) around us.

[MagLatus]

(Original post by Hearty_Beast)
[...] humans are the dominant species on Earth, we form stronger relationships and have higher thinking abilities [...]

You might want to reconsider this. In regards to dominance, and even relationships, think symbiotic spores and fungii for instance. There's also some interesting research on on "fungal communities" - some of them apparently function as a sort of integrated social network. There's also some very interesting research about the "higher thinking" capabilities of humans compared to other animals and it may just be so that it is our combination of cognitive abilities that is unique, but by themselves not a single one may be (Christine Kenneally's "The First Word" is an incredibly readable account of some of the latest research on that from an evolutionary perspective on language and thought in humans).

But what you said about how it affects us in our lives if something happens etc. I can agree that the effects for the social environment of the affected individual may weigh heavier than in most other animals. But again, this is not black and white and for instance Dan Everett makes a nice case for the Piraha people (a native people) in the Amazon who have to deal with these things more regularly and whose societal dynamic appears to be quite different from most societies previously studied, they seem not to be attached to other's "destiny" to the same degree we are (in fact, in many societies as soon as you die you become a "taboo", that might tell you something about the fact). Of course other species are also known to mourn extensively at the death or misery of other members of their family/social group.

(Apologies if I drag you into a discussion, it just seems to be a convinient excuse for procrastination to my mind atm.)

And congrats on getting into the vet course, well done!

[bestofyou]

(Original post by Hearty_Beast)
I think that in an emergency and with consent, you probably could (legally).

But as human lives are so much more important

hmmm...

depends on who you ask.

Put a greedy banker in a room with his grand national race horse, a human stranger and a gun, i wouldn't rule out the possiblity of the banker riding out of that room on his horse and a human body lying in a puddle of blood with their pockets emptied...

[Hearty_Beast]

(Original post by MagLatus)
You might want to reconsider this. In regards to dominance, and even relationships, think symbiotic spores and fungii for instance. There's also some interesting research on on "fungal communities" - some of them apparently function as a sort of integrated social network. There's also some very interesting research about the "higher thinking" capabilities of humans compared to other animals and it may just be so that it is our combination of cognitive abilities that is unique, but by themselves not a single one may be (Christine Kenneally's "The First Word" is an incredibly readable account of some of the latest research on that from an evolutionary perspective on language and thought in humans).

But what you said about how it affects us in our lives if something happens etc. I can agree that the effects for the social environment of the affected individual may weigh heavier than in most other animals. But again, this is not black and white and for instance Dan Everett makes a nice case for the Piraha people (a native people) in the Amazon who have to deal with these things more regularly and whose societal dynamic appears to be quite different from most societies previously studied, they seem not to be attached to other's "destiny" to the same degree we are (in fact, in many societies as soon as you die you become a "taboo", that might tell you something about the fact). Of course other species are also known to mourn extensively at the death or misery of other members of their family/social group.

(Apologies if I drag you into a discussion, it just seems to be a convinient excuse for procrastination to my mind atm.)

And congrats on getting into the vet course, well done!

Haha, thank you. I'm afraid I can't stay online much longer, I dread to think how my mum will react when I tell her I debated human dominance instead of packing for Easter...

I will admit I hadn't heard about... most of what you referred to (so googled some) and I agree that most of our cognitive abilities aren't unique (though we are particularly developed, monkeys don't write novels (as far as I know) and we are particularly good at simply thinking about things for no other reason than personal interest/amusement (eg. this discussion ) which I think (though it would be difficult to prove) is fairly unique) (Wow that was a lot of brackets )

But on dominance, you can't deny that we have most of the power on Earth, and that isn't gonna change because we alter our environments so vastly for nothing but our own interests and amusement. We are particularly well developed to be able to make use of our surroundings.

It isn't a clear set thing, but in general, individual humans have a greater impact on the world than most species. Hence my (not particularly well thought out) statement that our lives are more important.
(though in my defence I was thinking more in line with the subject of the thread than this largely unrelated and unexpected tangent )

If ya wanna discuss this further, feel free to PM me (though I'm not particularly knowledgeable and may not be online much next week)

[bestofyou]

(Original post by Hearty_Beast)
Haha, Should of expected that...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying animals aren't important. (I've applied (and got an offer yesterday ) to study veterinary medicine.) But humans are the dominant species on Earth, we form stronger relationships and have higher thinking abilities (though that may just be our awesome thumbs, our puppy is much more intelligent than a 2yr old baby).

Consider the difference to your life if surgery went wrong on your mother, or your pet dog. Both would be deeply upsetting, but humans are more important. We individually have more of an impact on the world, and those (humans) around us.

which uni offered?

[Hopple]

(Original post by bestofyou)
A vet operates on animals right? Well are humans not animals? If I got a veterinary medic degree and went to uganda and worked with chimps for a year, I doubt there would be much difference in operating on a different type of ape (humans)

I just ask, because if anyone has seen/read 3:10 to Yuma. The doctor who operates on the pinkerton's gun shot wound is in fact a vet, not a human doctor...


edit:

hmm, appears there is a rather significant lack of intelligence in this forum (it took a week before someone actually answered the question asked). Which is ironic as it is called 'the student room'.

I asked can vets operate on people. Not are they allowed to operate on people. If this is still puzzling you then read on:

By 'can' a vet operate, I meant if a vet would have the medical ability to perform medical actions on a human body. I do not care whether the law allows it or not as it was clearly a hypothetical question...

They're capable, but not the as high a standard as a human surgeon. Bear in mind that a vet will have to have some knowledge of all different types of animals, so won't have as in-depth knowledge of each animal, but a human surgeon will focus entirely on humans (apart from maybe some animals as practice).

I'd let a vet dress/stitch up a wound, but anything deeper involving my organs is a no no. Of course I'd prefer a human specialist, but a vet's better than leaving it, and in turn leaving it is better than getting a sewer worker to put their mitts on the wound.

[Hippokrates]

maybe a vet could stop a bleed/ remove a mole/ do some stitches to some success but surgeries like removing tumours would not go so well i would imagine.

[happyhands]

(Original post by Wangers)
As a HCAmyself, example?

When I worked on haemodialysis as a HCA, one of our main jobs was to cannulate surgically grafted venous fistulae prior to dialysis. This was a clinical skill that required special training due to the importance of maintaining the patency for access for dialysis. This isn't a skill that is routinely taught at F1 and perhaps even F2 (though please correct me if I'm wrong), but it is something carried out daily by many HCAs on dialysis wards around the country.

[happyhands]

(Original post by bestofyou)
While this is nice to know, I simply asked if a vet can operate on people. Not are they allowed to operate. There is a huge difference.

The answer to whether they "can" operate is fairly obvious, I would have thought?

[bestofyou]

(Original post by happyhands)
The answer to whether they "can" operate is fairly obvious, I would have thought?

not really no. I have not studied a veterinary medicine degree nor know any vets well enough to ask them in the near future.

[Wangers]

(Original post by happyhands)
When I worked on haemodialysis as a HCA, one of our main jobs was to cannulate surgically grafted venous fistulae prior to dialysis. This was a clinical skill that required special training due to the importance of maintaining the patency for access for dialysis. This isn't a skill that is routinely taught at F1 and perhaps even F2 (though please correct me if I'm wrong), but it is something carried out daily by many HCAs on dialysis wards around the country.

And what exactly does this involve?

[boba]

well I think it depends I'd have more confidence in someone who has worked soley with apes for the last 10 years than an aviary vet

[happyhands]

(Original post by Wangers)
And what exactly does this involve?

It's more involved in practice, but when a patient is undergoing dialysis they need to be cannulated at two points on their fistula, one for the blood to flow out of the body and into the dialysis machine, and the other for the blood to flow back in once it has been filtered and/or removed of excess water content.

Inserting a cannula into a fistula is a little more complicated than on a normal vein, and consideration of other factors such as how the access will remain patent during dialysis need to be taken into account.

If you're interested in finding out more, or thinking of working in renal medicine or renal nursing, drop me a PM. Hope this helps.

[Notethis]

only in France

[Einheri]

Yes, a vet can operate on a human but not legally, and advisable only in an emergency.

(Original post by MagLatus)
Tell me more?

I know you guys in Wales are a little too attached to your sheep, but c'mon maaaan . . .

[Philosoraptor]

(Original post by happyhands)
It's more involved in practice, but when a patient is undergoing dialysis they need to be cannulated at two points on their fistula, one for the blood to flow out of the body and into the dialysis machine, and the other for the blood to flow back in once it has been filtered and/or removed of excess water content.

Inserting a cannula into a fistula is a little more complicated than on a normal vein, and consideration of other factors such as how the access will remain patent during dialysis need to be taken into account.

If you're interested in finding out more, or thinking of working in renal medicine or renal nursing, drop me a PM. Hope this helps.

(Original post by Wangers)
...

He really should have a better signature hahah. I heard he's interested in renal nursing though?

[Renal]

(Original post by happyhands)
It's more involved in practice, but when a patient is undergoing dialysis they need to be cannulated at two points on their fistula, one for the blood to flow out of the body and into the dialysis machine, and the other for the blood to flow back in once it has been filtered and/or removed of excess water content.

Inserting a cannula into a fistula is a little more complicated than on a normal vein, and consideration of other factors such as how the access will remain patent during dialysis need to be taken into account.

If you're interested in finding out more, or thinking of working in renal medicine or renal nursing, drop me a PM. Hope this helps.

I've seen 8 year-olds who can do it. One-handed.

[happyhands]

(Original post by Renal)
I've seen 8 year-olds who can do it. One-handed.

You should have reported it to your superior then as a "near miss" clinical crisis. Did you?

[Renal]

(Original post by happyhands)
You should have reported it to your superior then as a "near miss" clinical crisis. Did you?

Course not. I was too busy wiring up my dialysis machine.

[Hearty_Beast]

(Original post by bestofyou)
which uni offered?

RVC