Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — October 2007

On a routine herd health visit to a small family-run dairy, you find the husband is away. While checking the cows with his wife, you inquire as to the whereabouts of her husband. “He is delivering milk in town,” she replies. When you inquire further, you understand he is servicing a small group of people in town who prefer to drink raw milk. When you inquire regarding the legality of this practice, she explains that the townspeople are all part-owners of the cows and it is not illegal to drink raw milk from your own cows. During the time you have been in practice, you have known many people who have drunk raw milk without obvious detrimental effects on their health. Still this practice makes you uncomfortable. How should you respond?

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and mail along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Wellington Place, R.R.#1, Fergus, Ontario N1M 2W3; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8101; e-mail: tim.blackwell@omaf.gov.on.ca

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Ethical question of the month — July 2007

Arizona and Florida recently joined the European Union in banning the use of gestation crates as a means of housing sows throughout pregnancy. Discussions on the use of gestation crates commonly either address personal beliefs of right and wrong or focus on the science of animal welfare. It is often argued that no decision on gestation crates should be made until there is solid scientific evidence to support or refute the continued use of this form of sow housing. Voters in Florida, Arizona, and the European Union did not wait for the scientific evidence. They apparently voted on personal beliefs of right and wrong. Can science change people’s beliefs in what is right and what is wrong?

An ethicist’s commentary on science, ethics, and sow stalls

The issue raised provides an excellent ingression into a whole host of questions emerging from burgeoning societal concern about farm animal welfare in industrialized agriculture. To their detriment, the agricultural and veterinary communities, as well as the scientific community, simply fail to understand the logical relations between science and ethics. As I have discussed elsewhere, most notably in Science and Ethics (1), the best way to point this out is through an anecdote of an experience I had a few years ago.

I am a member of the United States National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, better known as the Pew Commission. The Commission is looking at intensive agriculture from the perspectives of public health, environmental despoliation, waste disposal, animal welfare, worker health, and community well-being. About a year and a half ago, we invited members of the various industries to address us. One representative from the swine industry told us that the industry is quite nervous about the Commission, but will be happy if we “base all our conclusions on sound science.” I pointed out to her that while sound science may tell you how to raise pigs in confinement, the question the Commission and society is asking is, “ought we to raise pigs in confinement?” (Her response was a perplexed “Huh?”)

Science can provide answers to factual questions, but societal questions about animal welfare are at least partly ethical questions about what ought to be the case morally, which are not answerable by gathering data or doing experiments. Wittgenstein (2) once remarked that one can take an inventory of all the facts in the universe, and not find it a fact that killing is wrong. While facts may shed some light on moral questions, they do not determine the answers to them. Even if we determine, for example, that the death penalty deters many murderers, those facts do not allow us logically to conclude that the death penalty is morally right. Similarly, gathering scientific data that shows that pigs are productive (for example, make money for producers in confinement) does not prove that confinement is morally acceptable.

As I have pointed out many times in these columns, social consensus ethics sets the rules for the playing field on which businesses (including agriculture and veterinary medicine) operate. As I have also argued many times, today’s society believes that farm animals need to express their biological and psychological natures (telos), and that a 2′ × 3′ × 7′ cage does not allow this. Proving that sow stalls, if “well-managed,” allow a producer to make money is completely irrelevant to societal moral beliefs that animals built to move should be permitted to move. In sum, it is ill-conceived and ill-advised to respond to moral concerns by adducing “sound science.”

Furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact that we often have the best science money can buy. Environmental scientist consultants hired by developers uncannily come up with answers that developers want. This is equally true in agricultural research. The question, for example, of whether bovine somatotropin (bST) increases mastitis beyond what is expected from increased production is a straightforward empirical question, yet there are 2 distinct scientific literatures giving opposite responses. Thus, one must look at scientific results with a jaundiced eye depending on who has funded the investigation, and, too often, the phrase “sound science” is shorthand for “science that proves what I want it to prove.”

In sum, it is clear that once people have crystallized their ethical ideas, it is conceptually absurd to counter or reject them by appeal to “sound science.” Industries that fail to accord with societal ethics are quickly brought to heel by society, losing both money and autonomy.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD