Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — April 2011

Animals considered to be highly intelligent, such as certain marine mammals and great apes, are banned from being hunted or used in research in certain jurisdictions. The prohibitions on using these animals are widely supported by the public. This is despite the fact that many of these species either exist in large numbers in captive breeding programs or have stable or growing populations in their natural habitats. Is it reasonable to advocate different approaches to animal use and welfare based on a human perception of intelligence?

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 — January 2011

Recent legislation prohibits the transport of serious ill or recumbent animals for any reason except to receive veterinary care. You are called to a farrow-to-finish swine farm, where 10% of the nursery pigs have died in the last 72 hours with an uncharacteristic assortment of clinical signs, including profuse diarrhea. You necropsy two pigs that died that morning and are surprised by the absence of gross lesions. You are concerned that what is occurring here is not within the normal array of post-weaning swine diseases with which you are familiar. Every type of disease, from a strange toxicosis to a new emerging disease, seems possible as you review the history, clinical signs, and gross postmortem lesions. You want the farmer to bring a couple of moribund pigs to the laboratory to ensure that the laboratory has access to all possible tissues and fluids in a fresh state. You realize, however, that you are asking the producer to break the law by transporting these pigs in their severely debilitated condition. How should you proceed?

Comments

Subsection 138(2) of the Health of Animal Regulations prohibits the loading or transport of an animal that, by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause, cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey (1).

Provided that there is an associated animal welfare benefit for either the transported animal or the herd of origin, the suffering endured by a moribund animal that is transported for veterinary treatment or diagnosis is not undue. This is in contrast with selling an “ill” animal at an auction market or killing it at a slaughter plant. The Regulations refer to undue suffering in recognition of the fact that some degree of suffering is inevitable. The qualifier “undue” prevents the word suffering from being taken literally. Therefore, the loading and transporting of a moribund animal can be carried out in accordance with the Health of Animals Regulations for the purpose of providing veterinary diagnosis or treatment.

Special provisions, such as extra bedding, loading (last on-first off), and separation from other animals need to be taken to mitigate suffering during transport to a veterinary clinic or diagnostic laboratory.

Nicole Cormier, BSc, DVM, Geneviève Benard, BSc (Agr), Gord Doonan, BSc (Agr), DVM, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Terrestrial Animal Health Division, Ottawa, Ontario

I am writing in response to the ethical question of the month concerning the transport of debilitated animals to the laboratory for diagnosis. The question is misleading because there is a provision in the law for the transport of debilitated animals when required by a veterinarian for treatment or diagnosis. Since there is this provision, it is not illegal to do so. The producer just needs the consent of his treating veterinarian. I see ambulances transporting humans to the hospital every day, and I am certain the human patients are not completely without pain and discomfort. To me, the question posed using the terminology “breaking the law” is inappropriate and misleading. It gives those who haven’t read the law in its entirety the perception that it is illegal to do so. Our legislators did a good job in writing the law and we should do the same in reporting it. I personally think it is important to keep the possibility of doing so because the animals will be properly euthanized at the laboratory and are suffering in the barn anyway. In population medicine, the information from these few individuals can save the suffering of many animals by better preventing disease and using proper treatments (including the judicious use of antibiotics).

Daniel Venne, DMV, MSc, ACPV, Scott, Quebec

An ethicist’s commentary on unintended consequences of a “downer animal” law

Since we do not know the history of this law or why it was passed, we must make certain assumptions in order to discuss this case intelligently. I will presume that this law is intended to prohibit the shipping or other transport of sick, downer animals. “Downer animals” are animals that are ill or injured, so much so that they cannot ambulate on their own. In recent years, television viewers have seen such animals dragged to slaughter by tractors or even shoved with the blades of forklifts. In many cases, such animals have spent hours of misery in pain from sickness or injury while being transported to slaughter, to realize a few dollars for an insensitive farmer. In Colorado, thanks to a gratifying initiative from the Colorado Cattlemen that passed 20 years ago and banned the shipping of such animals as inhumane, the practice came to an abrupt end, and no such atrocious situations have been chronicled in the interim.

It is perfectly reasonable to ban shipping of downer animals. Yet, the current situation described in this case illustrates why people fear legislation — the unintended consequences that sometimes follow in its wake. A law intended to protect animals from abusive shipping has suddenly become an obstacle to transporting a sick animal to a diagnostic laboratory. In many cases, to achieve proper diagnostic pathology, one must be able to euthanize the animal at the diagnostic facility. In effect, then, the law works in a totally unintended way to block identification, and ultimately control, of a serious disease. As the case indicates, no provision is created in the law for shipping animals for diagnosis.

It is situations like this that prompted English novelist Charles Dickens to declare that “…the law is an ass….” Thus, of course, it is generally far superior for industry to proactively control socially unacceptable practices than to wait for societal revulsion to rush to ill-considered legislation which, once passed, is difficult to repeal or amend. In this case, repeal or amendment is the only recourse. The law needs to be rewritten in such a manner that it clearly applies to downer animals shipped for profit, rather than to animals shipped for diagnostic purposes. To be sure, these latter animals may well also suffer in transport, but such transport is not done to squeeze out profits, but rather for the greater good of humans and animals. It is morally obligatory, then, for any veterinarian shipping such an animal to ensure as much as is humanly possible that the animals are not uncomfortable, but rather are padded and treated with tranquilizers and/or analgesics to prevent or at least minimize stress and pain, and are not subject to extremes of temperature. This case, in fact, illustrates the significant degree to which veterinarians must be involved in the drafting of legislation pertaining to animals, so as to minimize unfortunate, unintended consequences.