This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stephen R. Kaufman, MD
New York, NY

Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(12):1681-1682.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The article by Foreman¹ in the March 1992 issue of the ARCHIVES is yet another manifestation of the American Medical Association's (AMA) ongoing propaganda campaign to defend animal experimentation, as outlined in its 1989 "Action Plan."² Publications of the AMA have been replete with commentaries and essays that uncritically endorse the animal experimentation status quo and attack the animal rights movement, while failing to address scientific objections to animal research.

The fact that most physicians appear to favor the use of animals in medical education is hardly surprising. Most of them, after all, were trained in a system that traditionally encourages such use. Asking those who use animals whether it is ethically acceptable to do so is like asking slave owners if slavery is ethically acceptable. The answer is quite predictable.

According to the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs, the use of animals in medical . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?