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?

Daniel Finkelstein, MD
Baltimore, Md

Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(12):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.

—I was saddened as well as frustrated to read the poorly focused "In Focus" in the March 1992 edition of the ARCHIVES.

Foreman begins by citing an AMA telephone survey, "... 90% of the physicians surveyed... used animals... during their medical education," as support for the use of animals in medical education. What kind of scientific data are these? Where is peer review?

As a non sequitur, Foreman then lists six AMA guidelines regarding the use of animals in medical education that clearly reflect the positive influence of animal welfare philosophy; as stated in a recent ARCHIVES editorial,¹ "... we must recognize that one of the benefits of the animal rights movement has been to cause us to reexamine our own procedures."

Foreman then discusses Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology guidelines that have nothing to do with medical education, but are focused on animals used in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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