By Dee Ann Divis
Science and Technology Editor, from Science & Technology
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist, R-Tenn., is being asked by an animal advocacy group to support
legislation for better animal treatment to make up for fraudulently
adopting cats from animal shelters then experimenting on and killing
them while he was a medical student.
A Dec. 31 letter from the People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Frist to make amends by
pressing for reforms that would replace old-style tests where animals
are subjected to painful and sometimes deadly procedures with newer,
more humane approaches. They also requested that he help fund research
to find non-animal alternatives.
Frist acknowledged in a 1989 book that
he routinely killed cats while an ambitious medical student at Harvard
Medical School in the 1970s. His office said it had no record on how
many cats died.
Frist disclosed that he went to animal shelters and
pretended to adopt the cats, telling shelter personnel he intended to
keep them as pets. Instead he used them to sharpen his surgical skills,
killing them in the process.
The newly elected leader of the Senate
Republicans revealed the practice in his book "Transplant: A Heart
Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine." "It
was a heinous and dishonest thing to do," Frist wrote, in a passage
quoted by The Boston Globe. On Tuesday, Frist's press aide, Nick Smith,
told United Press International that "Senator Frist denounces the
activities that he did while he was in medical school -- as he has done
before. "It is not clear if Frist's actions were illegal. Many states
ban shelters from knowingly letting their animals be taken for such
Massachusetts put such a ban in place in 1983. Frist was
a student in the Boston area from 1974 to 1978. A total of 14 states
have passed such laws. Four states -- Iowa, Minnesota, Utah and Oklahoma
-- still have laws that allow labs to demand the release of animals for
But such regulations, called pound seizure laws, only
govern the actions of the shelters.
"The pound seizure law probably would not apply there
because the shelter did not intentionally sell the animal to him for
this purpose," said Debora Bresch, a lawyer and a lobbyist for the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "They thought
they were adopting the animal out to him," said Bresch. "What he did was
fraudulent and probably was illegal." "It would probably would be
considered cruel back even then," added Stephen Musso, senior vice
president and chief of operations of ASPCA. Though Musso said he
personally had not heard about the Frist incident, he told UPI, "We
wouldn't want to see anybody taking an animal out of an animal shelter
and doing anything with it -- first of all that would be harmful; second
of all, different than the intentions that they gave to the people at
that shelter or humane organization.
"Attitudes toward animal experimentation have shifted,
said Gary Patronek, director of the Tufts Center for Animals and Public
Policy in North Grafton, Mass. "The fact that laws have passed
prohibiting the practice of pound seizure in 14 states is evidence of
the fact that society's attitudes have changed," Patronek told UPI. "The
laws reflect the attitudes. If there isn't a broad social consensus
about something, then typically the laws don't change.
"The demographics have changed also. By the end of 2000,
a total of 34 percent of American households had at least one cat -- a
sharp rise of 8 percent in only two years. The American Pet Products
Manufacturers Association also said in their 2001-2002 National Pet
Owner Survey that 39 percent of all U.S. households owned at least one
dog in 2000, about the same percentage as in 1998. Though Frist's
practice has been known for 11 years, the matter appears to be gathering
new attention since his election as Senate majority leader. E-mail with
copies of news articles mentioning the incident are bouncing around the
Internet, said Bresch.
One Frist supporter said the senator's opponents are
fueling the interest in the issue. What is happening here is that people
are doing profiles of the senator, and they are desperate to find
something wrong with him and to come up with something bad in his past,"
he pointed out.
Whether Frist will come to the aid of animal legislative
causes remains to be seen. His spokesman said they had not seen the PETA
letter and therefore would not comment on it. PETA, normally more
combative and high-profile, took a somewhat restrained tone in its
letter. There was no mistaking PETA's opinion, however, as the
organization asked Frist to make an effort on the animals' behalf.
"There could be no better way of making some small amends to those
animals whose trust you betrayed when you took them from shelters," the
(With reporting by Nicholas M. Horrock in Washington)
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
Go on to
Return to 5 January 2003 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright