Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — June 2020

A farmer, who is not one of your regular clients and who lives relatively distant from your clinic, started calling you to talk about difficulties on his farm. He appears to have both animal health and financial problems. You encourage him to call the veterinarians at his local clinic so that they can work out his animal health problems. He continues to call, often at odd hours, leaving rambling and often incoherent messages to the point that you are concerned for his well-being. You contact the local ministry of agriculture about mental health resources for farmers. They assure you that resources are available but that the farmer must initiate the process. You believe that this would be a difficult topic to introduce to the farmer. If this was an animal welfare situation, you would be obliged to report it, but with human welfare, you are limited by legal requirements of confidentiality. What is my best ethical action here?

An ethicist’s commentary on response to case of a farmer with suspected mental health concerns

Veterinarians by nature of their professional experience recognize abnormal behavior in a variety of species including other humans. As members of a caring profession, it is understandable that veterinarians wish to ensure that optimal care is provided to all those they contact who suffer from ailments of any description. In rural areas where there may be a shortage of physicians, veterinarians may feel a greater obligation to intercede in matters related to human health.

Although laudable in intention, a veterinarian should resist the urge to directly intervene if he or she suspects a client may be suffering from physical or mental ill health. The best course of action in such cases is to encourage the individual to seek professional medical attention appropriate for the malady. This suggestion, however, may not always produce the desired outcome.

Mental health disorders are now increasingly diagnosed among those working in agriculture. Long hours working alone, physically demanding work, and financial insecurity likely all contribute to this. The isolation that results from living and working in one place means that deteriorating mental health in a farmer may be observed by very few outside the family. A veterinarian is often one of the rare individuals a livestock producer interacts with over extended periods of time.

What, then, should a veterinarian do if she/he suspects a problem is developing in a client? There is a moral imperative to intercede on behalf of a farmer who is not addressing his animal health and financial problems and may be drifting into a state of mental ill health. The solution begins with establishing communication. In the case described, a first step would be for the farmer’s regular veterinarian to be contacted for advice. The producer’s herd veterinarian may have more information on the farmer’s current state based on direct contact or conversations with neighbors or personnel such as feed or equipment suppliers. If this is not the case, the herd veterinarian out of professional courtesy, may agree to stop by the farm to check on animal health while assessing the farmer’s mental state at the same time.

If the herd veterinarian observes animal health concerns (perhaps related to the producer’s mental state) she/he can begin by engaging the producer in addressing those problems. This will provide the regular veterinarian additional opportunities to interact with and assess the farmer’s mental state.

If animal health appears adequate but the veterinarian notes instances of unusual behavior on the part of the farmer, the herd veterinarian may be able to engage neighbors and friends of the client to stop by and visit. This would provide additional perspectives on the farmer’s condition. If the producer is under some mental strain, he may be more willing to share his concerns with a friend or fellow farmer than with his veterinarian. Another option that can be both effective and non-threatening is to ask an appropriate religious leader to approach the producer.

If it is concluded by all involved that the producer is not well and is behaving increasingly irrationally, there are many excellent mental health resources that are available in most rural jurisdictions. Unfortunately, these resources must be accessed by the farmer directly. The only exception is in cases in which the individual has demonstrated that he is a threat either to himself or to others. In such cases, police may intervene directly. However, if the livestock are adequately cared for and the producer has not demonstrated threatening behavior nor is willing to seek professional help, options to assist such individuals are limited.

Ethical question of the month — September 2020

Farmers and human nutritionists complain that food is too cheap. Others claim that there is a “cheap food” policy in western countries that adversely affects the competitiveness of local producers while benefiting large corporate agriculture. Many of the least expensive foods available are convenient but nutritionally deficient. Nevertheless, cheap food is seen as a benefit for those on limited incomes and politicians are reluctant to support policies that lead to higher food costs. Accepting that many animal welfare improvements will increase the costs of production, how does one balance the welfare of livestock with that of people on limited incomes?

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.