Ch. 14— State Regulation of Animal Use • 325 
been "convicted in local court [in New Jer- 
sey] of receiving stolen dogs, animal cruelty, 
failing to keep proper records and failing to 
provide animals with adequate shelter from 
the cold" (54). 
U.S. Surgical contended that its salespeople are 
given hands-on, live-tissue training in the use of 
its surgical stapling equipment, principally to "en- 
able [them] to provide technical assistance in the 
operating room the first few times a surgeon uses 
the stapling instrumentation on a human patient.” 
U.S. Surgical’s technical field representatives also 
act as instructors, under the supervision of pro- 
fessors of surgery, in the laboratory portion of 
surgical -stapling seminars at postgraduate teach- 
ing hospitals. The company provides an "intense, 
five-week training program” for these purposes, 
consisting of instruction in "anatomy, physiology, 
surgical terminology, aseptic surgical techniques, 
surgical gowning, gloving, and scrubbing, and 
operating room protocol,” in addition to super- 
vised live-tissue training. Refresher courses on 
new surgical -stapling procedures are given to all 
sales staff at least once each year (106). 
U.S. Surgical responded to major charges con- 
tained in the 1981 article as follows: 
• In all, 974 dogs were acquired and used dur- 
ing the period mentioned, but only for “teach- 
ing regarding technical application and use 
of surgical instrumentation in well -accepted 
surgical procedures,” and not for demonstra- 
tion purposes. The company asserts that only 
foam wound and organ models are used for 
sales demonstration purposes. 
• All anesthetic procedures are initiated and 
supervised by two "laboratory technicians 
trained in animal care and handling and who 
have been previously employed in animal lab- 
oratories responsible for both survival and 
nonsurvival animal research work.” 
• The company "complied in good faith” with 
Animal Welfare Act requirements. U.S. Surgi- 
cal first applied for registration of its Stam- 
ford, CT, facility on June 4, 1976; it was first 
visited by USDA-APHIS inspectors in Febru- 
ary 1979, and informed that it was not reg- 
istered under the act. An inspection was con- 
ducted under “license-pending” status. The 
company reapplied for registration on Feb- 
ruary 20, 1979, and Registration No. 16-28 
was issued on March 27, 1979. 
• "The strength of the staples is tested to dem- 
onstrate their benefit when used in human 
clinical surgery; however, the methods de- 
scribed [lifting dogs by the staples and at- 
tempting to pull incisions apart by hand] are 
not employed.” 
• Although "the level of sedation may vary dur- 
ing the program,” due to periodic adminis- 
tration of regulated doses to maintain un- 
consciousness without overdose, “the animal 
never regains consciousness or experiences 
discomfort.” U.S. Surgical also stated that 
multiple teaching procedures are performed 
on single dogs in one session, "minimizing the 
need to use even more dogs and maximizing 
the teaching benefit provided by the animal.” 
• Expressing no specific opinion about the 
statements made by the quoted USDA-APHIS 
inspector as to the utility of using dogs for 
this purpose, U.S. Surgical noted that they 
had been contacted by a USDA veterinarian 
who would be writing to substantiate its need 
to use live animals. 
• Dogs used in live-tissue training were ac- 
quired only from federally licensed dealers, 
their identification tags were checked and 
recorded, and their condition was evaluated 
prior to acceptance. If, as was stated in the 
article, the New Jersey dealer had had its Fed- 
eral license revoked, then reinstated when 
violations had been corrected, the dealer 
"must be considered an acceptable source by 
the USDA” (123). 
The Lawsuits 
Friends of Animals filed its first lawsuit against 
U.S. Surgical in Federal court in Connecticut on 
December 29, 1981, a little less than 2 months af- 
ter the newspaper article had appeared (37). Al- 
leging that the defendant company, registered as 
a research facility as defined in the Federal Ani- 
mal Welfare Act, had killed 974 dogs to demon- 
strate its surgical equipment, FOA contended that 
the demonstrations: 
• were, "at times, performed without the prop- 
er administration of anesthesia”; 
