Dear Editor,
In Bernard Rollin’s May 2013 Veterinary Medical Ethics column in (CVJ 2013;54:430) he commented on breed or industry standards as not being an ethical excuse for tail docking and ear cropping.
To date, the only defense veterinarians had against cruelty to animal charges being recommended against them for ear cropping and tail docking was that it was considered to be a generally accepted practice of veterinarians. However, position statements of the CVMA and College of Veterinarians of BC (CVBC) state that cosmetic surgery is no longer an acceptable practice and has no benefits to the animal.
The Chief Prevention and Enforcement Officer for the BCSPCA and a senior crown counsel reviewed the cosmetic issue recently, including the CVBC position statement, and agreed with the proposition that a good argument could be made that a veterinarian who performed these types of surgeries was in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) and that the “generally accepted” exception was no longer valid. As such, charges could be recommended against veterinarians performing cosmetic surgery in this province even though it is not yet banned by the CVBC.
Recent changes have also occurred in British Columbia based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, which requires that veterinarians must report to a BC SPCA constable if they suspect any distress of an animal.
Given the above, not only could veterinarians who perform cosmetic surgery be placing themselves at risk of potential animal cruelty charges, but there is a duty on the part of veterinarians to report their colleagues if they suspect they have done it.
The CVBC is making inroads into drafting of bylaws banning ear cropping and hopefully tail docking, but veterinarians who continue to perform cosmetic surgery should be aware that they may already be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am confident that cosmetic surgery will soon be a thing of the past in Canada for the reasons stated in Bernard Rollin’s column of “our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities.”
Sincerely,
Footnotes
Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful.