How might veterinarians do more for animal welfare?

Introduction

In this article, some possible answers to the underlying question of how veterinarians might do more for animal welfare (1,2) are examined.

Differentiate the clinical signs of disease from other signs of poor welfare

This point reflects today's holistic understanding of welfare as the state of the animal's mind and body and the extent to which its nature is satisfied (3). If veterinarians are to do more for animal welfare, it is not enough for them to identify that herd productivity is down, that an animal is sick, or that the environment predisposes animals to illness. Even when an animal is healthy and the environment meets its physical needs, the environment should also promote mental welfare and enable the animal to satisfy its nature. For example, a horse may have a clean, spacious stall, but lack social contact; a hospitalized cat may have a clean cage, but have inadequate separation between its food and its litter-tray and have nowhere to hide (4). Veterinarians also need to be aware that clinical signs associated with compromised physical welfare may be associated with reduced mental and natural aspects of welfare. For example, dairy cows in tie-stalls may develop muscle cramps by the end of the winter due to lack of exercise. The same lack of exercise also frustrates expression of the bovine nature of moving about to graze and interact. Thus, an exercise yard is desirable to promote all 3 aspects of welfare, not only health. These examples of a more inclusive approach to veterinary assessment indicate how veterinarians might do more for animal welfare in the course of their clinical work.

Speak publicly about animal welfare concerns

The profession, through the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), has position statements about many animal welfare concerns (5). The CVMA continues to work on new statements (6), participates in consultations about welfare issues (6), and has played a strong role in examining animal welfare aspects of proposed legislation on bovine somatotropin (7,8) and cruelty to animals (9). However, it does not appear to have issued public statements about its position on Bill C10-B (Cruelty to Animals) (10) and it does not show public leadership in the welfare of animals in existing systems. This silence is not consistent with 2 of the organization's 3 top priorities: “animal welfare advocacy” and “leadership on national issues” (6), for both imply an element of public education and leadership. The inconsistency may reflect a lack of resources and the challenges faced in showing public leadership.

The 1st challenge is that the CVMA is a self-interest group (10), committed “to advocating responsible care of animals” (11), so sometimes this commitment must conflict with its primary goal of “serving the interests of over 8000 Canadian veterinarians”(11). Leadership is conditioned in the fact that the CVMA is not a regulatory body; therefore, it has no public mandate for animal advocacy, cannot set binding professional standards, and cannot speak for all veterinarians, because some are not members of the association. Therefore, provincial regulatory bodies collectively may need to address the veterinarian's role in animal welfare and make this a priority. Such action might lead to nationally agreed, binding standards in areas such as analgesia, which would guide veterinarians in the special role entrusted to them by virtue of being a profession.

The 2nd challenge is in generating media interest. There are many issues of daily welfare concern, including the transport of farm animals, aspects of poultry management, and owners' ignorance about the needs of companion animals, particularly exotic animals, that are not “news,” so media coverage has tended to result from protests and statements by more extreme groups. If a statement by the profession were to make some of these issues “news,” it could alienate the animals' care-givers and might not assist the animals.

The potential for alienation represents the 3rd challenge. Veterinarians typically have worked with animal owners to enhance production (dog breeding, raising of animals for meat); therefore, it may be awkward for individual veterinarians to identify publicly the welfare problems that have resulted from high production systems. However, leadership on these issues may reasonably be expected from the profession. Leadership would include careful groundwork and consultation with the groups concerned (farmers, consumers, retailers, breeders) from a position of common interest in animal well-being, leading to various ethical concerns being considered and veterinarians with expertise in animal welfare speaking on behalf of animals. Veterinarians' lack of training in welfare, the 4th challenge, was highlighted recently by Dr. Mike Radford, School of Law, University of Aberdeen (12), who argued that practising veterinarians are assumed by policy-makers and law enforcers to be experts in animal welfare, but that being a good clinician or surgeon is not the same as being an expert in welfare. Veterinarians' professional standing and clinical knowledge may suffice under anticruelty legislation that forbids treating animals in certain ways, but it does not stipulate positive duties towards animals (provision of particular space allowances and social contact.) If future legislation should stipulate such positive duties, veterinarians would need to have expertise in animal welfare to evaluate cases accurately.

The 5th challenge in speaking publicly about animal welfare is the profession's inconsistent stance on the welfare of different species: The different standards accepted for routine surgeries, such as castration of companion animals and farm animals; working with dog breeders to correct certain genetic defects (hip dysplasia; progressive retinal atrophy), while doing little to challenge the cosmetic requirements of breed standards and publicly oppose the breeding of grossly deformed breeds, such as the modern English bulldog or the Chinese shar-pei. Such inconsistencies detract from the profession's integrity.

The 6th and related challenge is that veterinarians usually solve clinical problems by focusing on proximate causes that are typically within the veterinarian's or owner's control. However, as individuals and as a profession, veterinarians cannot ignore ultimate causes, such as the esthetic requirements of canine and feline breed standards and society's demand for cheap food. Veterinarians cannot be expected to resolve these bigger causes, but they might highlight them whenever possible. This would be considerably easier if the profession had publicly stated, unequivocal positions on the issues.

Participate more in the animal welfare movement as an independent voice

Veterinarians are already engaged with the animal welfare movement: clinicians work with or for humane organizations, and the CVMA includes a delegate from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) on its Animal Welfare Committee and has worked quite closely with the CFHS on Bill C10-B. Nevertheless, the profession has tended to keep some distance from the animal welfare movement, providing some advice and clinical expertise but less solidarity and leadership. Some veterinarians may avoid the animal welfare movement due to fear of extremism and fruitless exchanges. There may also be a sense that while welfare groups lobby the public and the government, the profession should avoid such advocacy and any confrontation. Lobbying may not be part of the profession's mandate, but the issuing of clear public statements on controversial issues is a reasonable expectation. In the absence of a more appropriate national veterinary body, the CVMA might host meetings with groups in the animal welfare movement (CFHS, Canadian Farm Animal Care Trust) and make public statements on areas of both agreement and disagreement. “Animal rights” groups need not be excluded. Any mutual distrust between any of the groups might be dispelled by clear terms of reference, including a commitment to transparency.

The question of how to do more for animal welfare is pressing, and this article has suggested some ways in which veterinarians might do more. The underlying assumptions are that animal welfare is a public good and that, as members of the only animal-oriented profession, veterinarians are automatically invested with public trust and a responsibility to lead in questions of animal use.