Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — November 2010

There has been a voluntary disease control program within your practice area for several years. One of your clients uses subsidized testing to monitor the disease status of his herd, and has made sporadic efforts to follow your recommendations to control the spread of disease within his herd. As his veterinarian, you know that his animals have consistently demonstrated a low prevalence of the disease since the first test 3 years ago. You read today in the local paper that your client is dispersing his herd with claims it is “free” of the disease in question. Since most people are aware that he is involved in a pilot control program, you realize that they will readily believe the disease-free claim. You speak to him about the advertisement in the paper, and he assures you that he will not include the animals that have tested positive, in the sale. You explain to him that testing is only done on a sample of animals to give an estimate of disease prevalence. It is impossible to know which other animals are infected and since the last test was done 6 months ago, new animals may now test positive. The owner responds that he doubts this is likely and besides which he has never thought that the disease was all that serious anyway. How should you respond?

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 — August 2010

You have just finished a call to a long-time feedlot client. As you are cleaning up, one of the hired hands asks if you could castrate a stray tomcat that the cowboys have become particularly fond of. You ask that they bring the cat to the clinic, but the clinic is 150 km away and no one has time to make that drive for a stray cat. “If you can’t do it doc, we understand,” they say, “we can do it ourselves; just thought it might be nicer for the cat if you did it.” You have injectable, reversible anesthetics in the truck and know you can do a better and more humane job than these well-meaning farm hands. You also see this as a teaching opportunity regarding the importance of pain control for all animals including feedlot cattle. You are not going to address the problems related to them doing the surgery, since they routinely castrate and dehorn cattle without anesthetics and have castrated cats many times before. Should you acquiesce to their request and risk your license to practice, let the cat be castrated without anesthesia, or try to rationalize the need to have the surgery performed at your clinic?

Submitted by Roy Lewis, Westlock Veterinary Centre, Westlock, Alberta

Comment

The question assumes castration of outdoor male cats is justified and that only the method is an ethical issue. Tomcats lead a nomadic life of sex and violence, resulting in an earlier demise than their neutered male peers, which enjoy a long and comfortable existence. The Bramwell Report (1), freedom to express normal behavior, has become a “wicked problem” (2) over the past 45 years in livestock production. This “freedom” is the cornerstone of legislation restricting method of production in the United States (3). The purpose of cat castration is to curtail the freedom to express normal cat behavior. Individual cats are unlikely to be significantly harmed by humane forced neutering as they live in the moment (4), however; it is not ethically clear that castration is an individual animal benefit. Is a long, comfortable, and sedentary life more valuable to the cat than a short but heroic one?

Dr. Terry Whiting, Manager, Animal Health and Welfare, Office of the Chief Veterinarian, Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiatives, Winnipeg, Manitoba

An ethicist’s commentary on castration of cats on-farm

This case would be completely non-problematic under one possible factual scenario. If the veterinarian visits the feedlot on a regular basis, he or she could take the cat home, castrate it in the clinic, and then return the cat to the farm on his or her next visit. For the sake of discussion, I will assume that the veterinarian does not return often enough for this to be feasible.

Clearly, for the sake of the animal, the veterinarian does not wish to see the castration done without pain control, regardless of the proficiency of the farmhands. Further, the veterinarian wishes to teach the benefits of pain control. By the same token, he or she does not wish to risk his or her license.

I would proceed as follows: the farmhands are the de facto owners of the cat. I would have them sell me the cat for a nominal fee, so I am now the owner. The animal is now mine. I would thereby create an impromptu teaching situation where I demonstrated proper surgical castration technique, proper use of anesthesia and analgesia, and aftercare. The cat putatively serves as a model for any sort of surgical castration. The castration would not be done in a sterile field to be sure, but certainly the situation replicates the conditions under which all other castrations are done on-farm. Thus, from a legal point of view, I am utilizing an animal that I own as a teaching model, something done very often in veterinary schools.

I would then perform the castration in an exemplary way. I am teaching proper surgical technique, as well as proper use of anesthetics, analgesics, and postsurgical care. The animal belongs to me, so I am not falling below the standard of practice for a client animal.

When the surgery and aftercare have been completed, I would give the cat back to the farm hands, or sell it back for the same nominal fee. In this way, I could reduce the risk to my license, while at the same time provide the animal with a far less painful surgical experience than it would otherwise receive. The workers would receive some education regarding exemplary surgical procedures that might well result in improvements in the quality of surgical procedures on the farm. A win-win situation is created, and doing the right thing is not forestalled by bureaucratic considerations.