“Another day, another ulcer” was the half-joking, half-serious comment of Maryann Terrasi, the Attending Veterinarian (AV) at Great Eastern University. She was walking out of an IACUC meeting with Gwenn McGee, another Great Eastern veterinarian. Terrasi had argued in vain that rats should routinely receive postoperative analgesics when a small burr hole was made in the cranium as part of a research project.

“Well, you know” said McGee, “not all people having burr holes made request analgesia. We discussed this before the meeting, and you know that we didn't agree on this.” “Maybe in this case we didn't agree,” replied Terrasi, “but we usually do. And anyways, how do you know which rat does or doesn't need some relief? We're not there to monitor each one after surgery, and you know as well as I do that most rats seem to act just fine after much more invasive procedures. Maybe that wouldn't be true if each and every one was carefully watched by a trained observer, but that just doesn't happen around here. And I'll tell you something else that really irks me,” said Terrasi. “Every time an animal gets sick or injured, the first thing that happens is that it gets blamed on poor veterinary care. It doesn't matter if the ceiling falls down on a mouse, it gets blamed on us. All I hear is that the veterinarians are supposed to ensure adequate veterinary care. But if I insist that an analgesic must be given and somebody disagrees with that, it gets thrown back at me that the IACUC has to approve the use of any drugs used in research, and analgesics are drugs. If the IACUC has the final say, why do the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] regs say that the AV is supposed to have the authority to provide adequate veterinary care? Why does the PHS Policy say that the veterinarian is supposed to provide medical care? Does that mean only if an animal becomes sick or injured? Are we only allowed to suggest that analgesics should be used? What happened to preventive medicine? What if we think that giving analgesia is medically appropriate? Maybe we're not right all of the time, and maybe it's good to have input from the IACUC in case a drug would affect the study, but after all is said and done, who actually has the final say on providing adequate veterinary care?”

Terrasi was upset, but was her argument really valid? When it comes to a decision such as using or not using analgesia, reasonable people can have different opinions, even with the “if it hurts a human it will hurt an animal” rule of thumb. If there cannot be an agreement between the AV and the IACUC, then does the AV or the IACUC have the final say on the provision of analgesia?

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Veterinary variability

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Listen to the AV

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Make the AV part of the plan