Ethical question of the month — March 2017

Ethical question of the month — March 2017

For the past several decades, veterinary school admissions have been weighted towards academic performance and a subjective assessment of how applicants respond to interview questions. Several studies indicate that this system for assessing applicants does not accurately predict clinical competency in the final year rotation. Other research suggests that practicing veterinarians are at an increased risk of severe stress in the workplace manifested by a higher risk of suicide and other negative health outcomes. Should systems for assessing applicants for admission to the veterinary curriculum be subjected to more outcome-based scrutiny in terms of competency, job satisfaction, and personal health? Could changes in applicant screening procedures risk breaching the basic principles of justice or the rights and freedoms articulated in the Canadian constitution?

Submitted by Terry Whiting, Winnipeg, Manitoba

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, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: tim.e.blackwell@gmail.com.

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 2016

A “swine” client calls to report that a recent hire turned out to be an animal activist who placed disturbing videos on the Internet of another employee mishandling both sows and piglets. Major retailers immediately notified their suppliers that they would not accept pork from this farm. Your swine client reports that the employee in the video had behavioral problems that led to his dismissal shortly after he was hired. The client explained to the media that the employee was terminated and that the video does not reflect the farm’s stockmanship practices. Nevertheless retailers want to distance themselves from this disturbing video and are refusing to purchase his pork. As a result your client now has over-stocking problems as he waits for regulatory bodies to investigate. The client is calling to request that you euthanize healthy market hogs so he will not be accused of overcrowding his pigs. He wants the euthanasia done by a professional to ensure he is not in some way accused of further animal welfare infractions. You are concerned that euthanizing these healthy hogs will simply increase public displeasure but you cannot find a packer willing to accept the pigs. How should you respond?

An ethicist’s commentary on veterinarian asked to euthanize healthy hogs

I have many times in this column quoted Plato as a source of good ethical wisdom. Once again, his pronouncements are relevant and timely to this current issue. Plato once remarked that one should, if possible, “make a virtue of necessity.” This is a more sophisticated variation on the common sense dictum that if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

The client’s request for euthanasia is an extremely bad idea, both for him and for you. As you fear, killing these animals to no purpose will only further turn public opinion against the client. In addition, doing so will harm your own reputation. The last thing any veterinarian wishes to be known for is killing healthy animals for no purpose.

How then, can this dire scenario be turned into a positive one? One relatively simple approach would be to get the local media to cover the story, and thereby explain to the public that your client is not at all culpable for any animal abuse. Assuming that he was diligent in monitoring the behavior of his employees as a matter of course, he bears no guilt. Ideally, if he has any common sense whatsoever, he has instituted new safeguards to make sure this sort of abuse can never happen again, and these should be recounted in the story. Clearly, if he is willing to have these hogs euthanized, financial considerations entailed by their loss does not loom large in his mind. Most important, certainly, is the potential damage to his — and your — reputations.

In the newspaper story, it should be stressed that it would be sinful simply to discard these animals. Therefore, in talking to the reporter, you should emphasize that the client is willing to donate these animals, once processed, to a food bank or the Salvation Army or some other worthy charity making sure that people have adequate food, particularly in holiday seasons. The only problem, you should state, is finding a packer willing to process these animals. I think that we can be morally certain that the hitherto reluctant packers will fall all over themselves to do so. I am also morally certain that, in the interest of good public relations, something packers do not usually enjoy, they will do the job at minimal cost or indeed gratis. If, mirabile dictu, some demand payment, you are sure to find one that does not.

This situation would represent a classic case of making a virtue of necessity. Additionally, your client could sweeten the pot by agreeing to make a similar, albeit smaller, donation each holiday season. Neither a producer nor a processor could buy such a degree of favorable publicity, which could go a long way to expunging the bad image created by the whole unfortunate situation! Nor will such a tactical move on your part at all harm your image in the community.

Using the media to advance a worthwhile cause is typically not a strategy often deployed by veterinarians. But all veterinarians understand, at some level, how effective it can be, for example, in adopting out a dog that has been abandoned, hit by a car, or suffered some other fate that moves people to act. There is no shame in such actions; quite the contrary!