Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — July 2022

A provincial animal welfare agency has requested that the provincial Veterinary Registrar consider a ban on devocalization surgeries in dogs. Reasons for the request include post-surgical pain, removal of a normal behavioral response, and risk of medical complications. Despite widespread support for the proposed ban from animal welfare advocates, there is pushback from the general public as a result of “nuisance” barking due to lack of bylaws or insufficient enforcement. In addition, some Registrars have opined that elective surgeries should be left to the discretion of veterinarians and should not be regulated by provincial veterinary bylaws. Should devocalization be an option for owners unable or unwilling to attempt retraining their dogs? Is it reasonable for neighbors to request the surgery be performed to “keep the peace” when less invasive requests have failed? Should elective surgeries be performed at a veterinarian’s discretion?

Ethicists’ commentary on debarking of dogs

Debarking of dogs can be viewed as a type of “convenience surgery,” like tail docking and ear cropping in dogs or declawing in cats. These procedures are undertaken to satisfy a desire of the owner, and frequently impose welfare costs on the animals concerned.

Debarking in dogs is typically defended by claiming that it prevents a greater harm to the dog, such as abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia. This defense is often made by humans who will themselves benefit from a quieter dog. However, it’s questionable to what extent debarking prevents harm to the dog, given: i) the short- and longer-term welfare costs associated with the procedure; and ii) that excessive barking may reflect a lack of appropriate care by the owner (including a lack of training). Indeed, at least some dogs might be better off with a new home, and possibly, in some cases, even better off euthanized.

Both the risks and benefits of this surgery are uncertain. Dogs face risks of complications during the anesthesia and surgery, pain during recovery, and post-operative scarring that can lead to dyspnea, exercise intolerance, and other issues. And the claimed benefits are somewhat hypothetical. Owners may benefit from a quieter dog, but the magnitude and duration of this effect are variable, and the procedure may heighten rather than resolve underlying behavioral issues.

There are 2 main responses to the demand for allowing debarking of dogs. One (consistent with recent CVMA policy and in line with legislation in large parts of Europe) is to ban the procedure. This would encourage owners to seek out alternative treatments to prevent the harm that debarking may cause. Some dogs (and owners), however, may be harmed by the alternatives (i.e., the hypothetical dog that suffers no ill effects from surgery, for whom the procedure would be effective, and that would not respond to other less risky forms of treatment). The second option (consistent with the policy supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association that considers the procedure “a final alternative to euthanasia after behavioral modification to correct excessive vocalization has failed”) provides some room for veterinary discretion. However, it also gives leeway to veterinarians who may offer the procedure for cases that would otherwise be viewed as spurious, and it means that if one veterinarian refuses the procedure the owner can keep asking veterinarians until one agrees.

We think a ban is clearly best. Yes, in some cases, alternative forms of treatment may not be successful, but in any case, the benefits of the procedure are uncertain and the risk to the dogs are serious. A ban will provide a strong incentive for owners (committed to their dogs) to make other forms of treatment successful and will protect the profession from demands to undertake surgery that is not for the benefit of their patients.

Drs. Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, and Dan Weary

Ethical question of the month — October 2022

You are an ambulatory veterinarian who offers occasional service to a remote community. There is a rescue agency in the community that uses the pro bono or deeply discounted veterinary services of another practice. A volunteer of the rescue requests the euthanasia of her own very elderly cat in end-stage renal failure. You know the volunteer to be extremely sensitive about euthanasia decisions. When you examine the cat, it is moribund and heavily infested with maggots. The owner has been keeping the cat alive with daily subcutaneous fluids, which in your mind, has just delayed an overdue natural death. The client is terribly upset about the loss of the cat, so you do not raise the issue at the time. You are uncomfortable raising your concerns about the inappropriate home treatment of the cat with the generous veterinarian who assists with rescue and rescue management. What do you do?

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. Bettina Bobsien, 4353 Yellowpoint Road, Ladysmith, British Columbia V9G 1G5; email: bettinadvm@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.