Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — March 2010

A young couple presents you with a 2-year-old Rottweiller cross for routine vaccinations. The woman has brought her cat to you in the past but the dog belongs to her new boyfriend. The woman’s young son is obviously afraid of the dog and you soon realize you will have to muzzle the dog in order to safely examine it and administer the vaccinations. The owner reports that his dog “doesn’t much like vets but otherwise is fine.” On inquiring about the woman’s cat, you are told the boyfriend’s dog killed the cat shortly after he moved in. New legislation makes it mandatory for you to report cases of animal abuse; however, you have no reason to suspect this dog is being abused by the owner. You do, however, believe that the dog poses a very serious threat to both the woman and her son. Because you are concerned about client confidentiality and there is no sign of animal neglect or abuse, you are unsure of how to proceed. What is the right thing to do?

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, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: tim.blackwell@ontario.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 — December 2009

Over the last 6 decades, agricultural universities and government extension services have worked to improve livestock production practices in North America. The emphasis was on increased specialization, greater capital investments, improved nutrition and genetics, increased numbers of animals per site, and the use of antimicrobial and other growth promotants. The overriding objective was to achieve the lowest possible cost of production. Today, livestock agriculture is being accused of environmental degradation, animal welfare abuse, producing unwholesome products, creating antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, and destroying traditional family farms and rural communities. The criticism tends to be directed at the farmers engaged in livestock production rather than at the university professors who promoted the practices in question. In some cases, one department at a university teaches modern livestock production, while another department criticizes producers who practice those teachings. Today, most livestock farms are heavily in debt and struggling to survive despite 6 decades of university-centered research. Should universities not accept some responsibility for the current ills facing livestock agriculture?

An ethicist’s commentary on the role of universities in the emergence of modern agriculture

I am unclear as to what this question means. What does it mean for universities to “accept some responsibility” for today’s agricultural problems? I will thus interpret the question to mean, “Are universities in part responsible for what has happened to agriculture?” The answer is, then, a resounding “yes!”

When land-grant colleges in the United States were funded, they were intended to help small family farms — the only kind of agriculture that existed when the Morrill Act of 1862 chartering them was passed. These schools were also intended to educate children from farm families in relevant trades, but not “at the expense of the classics.” Such schools benefited from the Congressional passage of large appropriations for agricultural and veterinary research 25 years later. Much of that research, however, ironically favored the emergence of large corporate agriculture, as agriculture gained increasing efficiency and productivity and ultimately favored an industrial model. Ironically, such research inexorably led to the demise of the small family farmer these colleges were intended to help, giving us the agriculture we have today.

In previous columns, I have spoken of traditional values of stewardship, husbandry, and way of life becoming supplanted by industrial values of productivity and efficiency and the toll this took on respect for farm animals and the land. The replacement of labor by capital (that is, machinery) diminished the need for agricultural labor, resulting in farm job losses. This was famously underscored by the lawsuit filed against the University of California, Davis for violating its charter by developing a square tomato congenial to being picked by machine. The machine both displaced farm workers and tended to harm small growers who could not afford to buy it.

Thus, historically, land-grant schools were complicit, indeed instrumental, in changing the nature of agriculture — animal and plant — to an industrial model. Tellingly, departments of Animal Husbandry became departments of Animal Science; the concept of husbandry as good care is virtually lost. It is, therefore, fitting that much of the criticism of modern agriculture should also come from such schools, through people like Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson regarding crops, and myself and others regarding animal agriculture.

We can hope that current criticisms of intensive agriculture of this sort enunciated by the Pew Commission regarding air and water pollution, loss of rural communities, waste disposal, human and animal health near factory farms, and loss of competition in confinement agriculture will be taken seriously by land-grant schools and generate compromises melding the benefits of both traditional and modern agriculture.