Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — January 2019

Even prior to the legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada you received regular queries regarding the use of cannabinoids to treat dogs and cats. You have been careful to explain that there is little research on the use of cannabis-based products to treat dogs and cats. Nevertheless, owners regale you with stories from friends and relatives whose arthritic or epileptic pet became asymptomatic following treatment with a cannabinoid product. Commonly these stories include the fact that until the cannabinoid was used, the family’s veterinarian had been unable to relieve the animal’s suffering. It is apparent some clients believe you will not even provide a dosage because you wish to protect your prescription drug sales. Today you are treating a dog with an apparent cannabis overdose after the owners decided to experiment with products and dosages on their own. The testimonials on the Internet are winning out over your professional conservatism. 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, 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 — October 2018

Some animal rights advocates argue that humane meat is an oxymoron. They believe killing an animal simply for human benefit is never humane. Other animal rights groups believe that advocating for humane meat improves the lives of more animals more rapidly than promoting a vegan lifestyle. Those involved in conventional animal agriculture believe that humanely raised livestock as well as veganism are passing fads and that modern livestock production has a smaller environmental footprint than humane meat. As a food animal veterinarian with both conventional and humanely raised livestock clients as well as friends and relatives who inquire about animal rights and veganism, you are looked to as a reliable source of information on these matters. It is a struggle, however, for you to stay current in veterinary practice without getting involved in animal welfare controversies. How should you respond to those who seek your counsel in these matters?

An ethicist’s commentary on how does a veterinarian answer queries regarding meat consumption

This case vividly reminds me of some superb advice I received from a colleague who was a laboratory animal veterinarian, David Neil, who had an eminent career working in Britain and then for the Canadian Council on Animal Care in Canada before coming to my university. We were working on drafting legislation at a United States federal level requiring the use of analgesia for experimental animals that will experience pain. (As I have mentioned before, a comprehensive literature search conducted at the Library of Congress by a librarian there in 1982 who was a friend of mine revealed not a single paper on the topic!). At any rate, my veterinarian friend asked us all to create a “wish list” for what we wanted to see included in our proposed legislation. I was having a merry old time listing every kind of invasive research I could think of, and suggesting that they all be banned. After this fantasy session ended, the veterinarian said “now that we have gotten that out of our systems, let’s get down to some real work.”

Living in a quasi-fantasy world is endemic among passionate animal advocates. Though the vast majority of citizens wish to see farm animals treated well and given a painless death, relatively few are willing to sacrifice animal products to achieve that goal. Evidence for my claim comes from the fact that the percentage of the population who are vegans remains pretty constant over many years. Currently, only 0.5% of the United States population is vegan. On the other hand, over 90% wish to see farm animal welfare legislated.

In contrast, about 50% of the United States population finds invasive research on animals morally wrong. When I was proposing the above-mentioned bill to the United States Congress, there was a woman proposing another bill, whereby the federal research budget would be cut by a very high percentage and the money plowed into “alternatives.” When I asked her what she meant by an “alternative,” she waved her hands in the air and affirmed “Oh you know, a plastic dog that howls when it is cut so the scientists can do their research on that.” The point is that the majority of the public has not thought through their position on animal ethics very clearly. So what is the veterinarian in this case to do?

Shortly after our initial meeting, Dr. Neil sat me down for a heart-to-heart discussion. He opined that I appeared to him to have a very deep and very strong commitment to improving the well-being of animals. If that is the case, he continued, I needed to take stock every few months of the results of my activity in the area, and ask myself if the animals are any better off by virtue of my efforts. If the answer is no, my activity is self-centered, aimed at making me feel good, but doing nothing for the objects of my concern. I suddenly felt as if my eyes had been opened, and I now understood what I must do. That has been my guiding principle ever since, and thus I was incredibly gratified when, in the early 21st century, I was given a national award for being the person who had eliminated the most animal pain in the previous century!

This is precisely the position in which our hypothetical veterinarian finds himself or herself. Thus he or she needs to spend some careful time thinking through their position on the well-being of farm animals. He or she then must commit to expressing it in a pithy manner intelligible to those by whom he or she is queried. Having done the same thing myself, I can attest to the fact that the task is not as onerous as it sounds. The veterinarian should articulate clear positions on industrially raised animals, animals raised under good husbandry conditions, animals transported, handled, and slaughtered with and without pain, fear, and distress, as well as on the contentious issue of meat created by biotechnological modalities without harming or killing animals.

This can probably be done at an introductory level in a few weeks and is an invaluable activity for one who is widely seen, as the case attests, as an expert and as an educator. (The role of veterinarian as educator pertaining to animal issues is often neglected.) In that way, the veterinarian can help assure that people’s positions are well-informed and well-thought out, and are not simply poorly reasoned, knee-jerk emotional reactions. This is a great service not only to the people one educates, and to the animals, but to society as a whole.