Ethical question of the month — December 2008
Legislation regulating livestock management is intended to improve animal welfare. However, when the slaughter of horses for food was banned in the United States, slaughter horses were forced to endure longer transport times to reach slaughter facilities in Canada or Mexico. When veal crates were banned in England, newborn calves were shipped to France to be raised in veal crates and the finished product then shipped back to England. It is suggested that the recent proposal to ban the use of battery cages for egg production in California will force the majority of layer farms in California to close without changing the way eggs are produced in North America. Is there legislation that actually does advance the welfare of animals?
Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward 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 — September 2008
Humane societies are faced with a continuous flow of dogs and cats that are surrendered to them and struggle to have these animals adopted. Their records show that spayed and neutered pets are more readily adopted. Because humane societies run on very limited budgets, they request discounts from veterinarians for spay and neuter procedures. Veterinarians also receive requests from foreign-trained veterinarians who need surgical experience before they take their requisite clinical proficiency examination. These veterinarians have passed their North American board exams but lack practical experience. You see here an opportunity to help both the local humane society and your foreign-trained colleagues. You are disappointed, however, to find that a percentage of the veterinarians you allow to spay or neuter humane society animals under your supervision demonstrate deficiencies in surgical techniques as well as deficiencies in maintaining a sterile surgical field. The animals that return to the humane society have overly large incisions and demonstrate an increased prevalence of infections post-operatively. There have been no deaths. The humane society tolerates these complications. They recognize a net benefit as the sterilization procedures increase the proportion of animals that are readily adopted.
Is the much needed opportunity for foreign-trained veterinarians to gain surgical experience and the increased opportunities for adoption an acceptable trade-off for the increased risk of post-surgical complications and pain in the dogs and cats used for surgical training? Submitted by Gary Goeree DVM, Kitchener, Ontario
An ethicist’s commentary on training foreign graduates with humane society animals
My acquaintance with the essence of this issue goes back to the 1970s, when I worked with the Colorado State University veterinary school to eliminate multiple survival surgery on dogs as a mainstay of surgical training. Gratifyingly, other schools followed our lead, and this odious practice was ended in most schools. Faced with the need to develop alternative ways of teaching surgery, we and other schools began to establish spay-neuter programs with humane societies. This was generally seen as win-win overall; the humane societies had their dogs spayed, the animals were rendered more adoptable, the students learned without killing, and the school saved money.
One day, I visited the humane society and found that some members were angry that surgically naïve students were being “turned loose on our animals.” I hastened to explain that the students were hardly “turned loose.” Colorado State University had hired a very proficient surgeon to closely oversee and mentor the students. She did this job for 11 years, and was essentially the basic surgical teacher for all our graduates during that period. Furthermore, they had acquired some skills on models and cadavers before approaching the live animals.
When I received this case, I spoke to her at length. As she and I realized, these foreign-trained veterinarians were very like naïve students except perhaps they had learned some bad skills. The answer, she pointed out, was proper supervision by a skilled surgeon. If the incisions are too large or sterility is broken, it is essentially the mentor’s fault. Either the mentor is not a good and careful teacher or he or she is simply not that skilled a surgeon, or he or she is stretched too thin. In any of the above cases, the solution is simple — either provide greater individual attention, or get better or additional surgeons as mentors. Perhaps the foreign-trained veterinarians need some basic skills labs.
As far as risk benefit is concerned, it is worth mentioning that any spay-neuter, indeed any elective procedure, subjects the animal to additional risks; such a risk comes with the turf. The answer is to minimize the risk as much as possible by first-rate mentoring. As far as pain is concerned, adequate analgesia, historically lacking in veterinary medicine before 20 years ago, is absolutely essential to a proper cost-benefit ratio. Above all, humane society animals deserve no less than any other animals.