Veterinary Medical Ethics  Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — November 2014 The Sable Island horses were introduced to Sable Island by man, for various purposes, over a period of several hundred years. While it is romantic to think of these horses as now living a wild and free life, many suffer in the cold months of the year from lack of shelter and short supplies of food and water. If a horse owner kept his animals under these conditions, he would be charged under the anti-cruelty act for failing to provide adequate care for his charges. Is it ethical then for society to allow what are essentially domestic animals to fend for themselves in the wild? Can a domesticated species enjoy superior welfare in a “natural” environment? Submitted by Leland Thomas, DVM, Saint John, New Brunswick

Question de déontologie du mois — Novembre 2014 Les chevaux de l’île de Sable ont été introduits à l’île de Sable par l’homme, à des fins diverses, au cours d’une période de plusieurs siècles. Même s’il est romantique de penser que ces chevaux vivent maintenant une vie sauvage en liberté, beaucoup souffrent durant les mois froids de l’année en raison d’un manque d’abris et de faibles réserves de nourriture et d’eau. Si un propriétaire de chevaux gardait ces animaux dans ces conditions, il serait accusé en vertu de la loi contre la cruauté envers les animaux pour ne pas fournir des soins adéquats à ses protégés. Par conséquent, est-il éthique pour la société de laisser ces animaux essentiellement domestiques se débrouiller seuls dans la nature? Une espèce domestiquée peut-elle jouir d’un bien-être supérieur dans un environnement « naturel »? Soumise par Leland Thomas, D.M.V., Saint-Jean (Nouveau-Brunswick) Comments/Commentaires :

Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :

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, Veterinary Science, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 6484 Wellington Road 7, Unit 10, Elora, Ontario N0B 1S0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: [email protected] 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.

Les réponses au cas présenté sont les bienvenues. Veuillez limiter votre réponse à environ 50 mots et nous la faire parvenir par la poste avec vos nom et adresse à l’adresse suivante : Choix déontologiques, a/s du Dr Tim Blackwell, Science vétérinaire, ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales de l’Ontario, 6484, chemin Wellington 7, unité 10, Elora (Ontario) N0B 1S0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télé­ copieur : (519) 846-8178; courriel : [email protected] Les propositions de questions déontologiques sont toujours ­bienvenues! Toutes les questions et situations présentées dans cette chronique s’inspirent d’événements réels dont nous modifions certains éléments, comme les noms, les endroits ou les espèces, pour protéger l’anonymat des personnes en cause.

Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office ([email protected]) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere. L’usage du présent article se limite à un seul exemplaire pour étude personnelle. Les personnes intéressées à se procurer des ­réimpressions devraient communiquer avec le bureau de l’ACMV ([email protected]) pour obtenir des exemplaires additionnels ou la permission d’utiliser cet article ailleurs. CVJ / VOL 55 / NOVEMBER 2014

1021

D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E

Ethical question of the month — August 2014 Videos documenting animal mistreatment on livestock farms receive much attention from the media. Many jurisdictions in the United States have instituted “ag-gag” laws to prevent the making of such videos. Those opposed to the filming of animal mistreatment on farms criticize the person or welfare group that makes the videos by stating that anyone concerned about animal welfare should not stand by and film animal mistreatment but rather immediately intervene to stop the mistreatment. Producers also criticize those making the videos for not being honest about their intentions when they apply to work on a farm. In contrast, journalists report from war zones and natural disaster areas documenting extreme human suffering and are not expected to intervene. These reporters receive awards for documenting human suffering because it is believed that documenting atrocities is important in resolving such problems. These journalists are not condemned if they gain access to sites to report on atrocities under false pretenses. Is it ethical to report on human suffering or should journalists stop reporting on abuse and instead offer assistance to those in need? Should there be a distinction on such reporting depending on whether people or animals are involved?

Question de déontologie du mois — Août 2014 Les vidéos documentant le mauvais traitement infligé aux animaux dans des fermes d’élevage reçoivent beaucoup d’attention de la part des médias. Beaucoup de territoires aux États-Unis ont institué des lois contre les dénonciateurs afin de prévenir le tournage de telles vidéos. Ceux qui s’opposent au tournage de vidéos sur le mauvais traitement dans les fermes critiquent la personne ou le groupe de bien-être qui documente ces incidents en affirmant que les personnes qui se préoccupent du bien-être animal ne devraient pas observer sans rien faire et filmer le mauvais traitement infligé aux animaux, mais qu’elles devraient plutôt intervenir immédiatement pour cesser le mauvais traitement. Les producteurs critiquent aussi ceux qui filment les vidéos de manquer d’honnêteté à propos de leurs intentions lorsqu’ils postulent un emploi dans une ferme. Par contraste, les journalistes font des reportages dans des zones de guerre et de catastrophes naturelles et on ne s’attend pas à ce qu’ils interviennent. Ces journalistes reçoivent des prix pour avoir documenté la souffrance humaine parce qu’il est considéré qu’il est important de faire des reportages sur ces atrocités afin de régler ces situations. Ces journalistes ne sont pas condamnés s’ils ont accès à des lieux sous de faux prétextes pour faire un reportage sur des atrocités. Est-il éthique de faire un reportage sur la souffrance humaine ou les journalistes devraient-ils cesser de signaler ces abus et plutôt offrir leur assistance aux personnes dans le besoin? Devrait-il y avoir une distinction entre de tels reportages selon qu’il s’agit de personnes ou d’animaux?

Animal suffering footage — A comment I think we’re making a false analogy here. Exposing and documenting true cases of animal abuse is important. The typical complaint behind these types of videos, however, is not that the videographer should be intervening to help the animal, but rather concerns over videos being shown in the proper context with appropriate background knowledge. Context is important. How many circumstances, taken out of context, in our own practice lives might be construed as “animal cruelty” if witnessed by the lay person?

Animal abuse often evokes anger because blame can be laid more readily: A bad farmer or labor force, a transporter, a kennel, a mentally distressed person or a bad business practice and failing regulators. People want this fixed. People see their animals as defenseless subjects. Some people are unaware of animal abuse. Rather than critique of the mechanism by which this is reported, media reporting should be honored. Max Popp, DVM, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Dale Atkin, DVM, Cochrane, Alberta

An ethicist’s commentary on “ag-gag” laws “Ag-gag” laws are truly stupid. If agricultural people are concerned over the showing of atrocities, those atrocities need to be eliminated, not ignored. The more the agricultural community adopts a policy of trying to hide the dark side of agriculture, the more public attention will focus on atrocities. In my view, it is much better for the leaders of agriculture to be involved in focusing the clear light of day on such an issue, and using it as an exemplar for “what we would (or should) never do!” Having myself taught thousands of agricultural students, and lectured to thousands of agricultural people, I know with absolute certainty that no one deplores animal abuse more than people who raise animals for a living based in an ethic of husbandry. 1022

Ideally Ag workers themselves should blow the whistle on animal abuse. That this does not happen more often is a function of the American compunction against being a “squealer” or tattletale. I recall showing the PETA video depicting the abuse of baboons at the University of Pennsylvania in the 80s. At least three of my students from ranch backgrounds were fighting to hold back tears. And one man asked me how much it would cost to fly to Philadelphia. When I asked him “why?” he replied that, “someone needed to beat the crap out of those people.” When I was fighting a proposed United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy to face brand Mexican cattle coming into the United States, because they could carry tuberculosis CVJ / VOL 55 / NOVEMBER 2014

CVJ / VOL 55 / NOVEMBER 2014

humans sufficiently for animal abuse to develop into human abuse. In the last half-century, a massive amount of evidence has been accumulated buttressing this insight. For example, animal abuse is one of three pieces of sentinel behavior betokening nascent psychopathy (the other two are bed-wetting and starting fires). That fact in itself should suffice to have society take animal abuse more seriously than ever before. Equally important, is the degree to which philosophers and others have carefully laid out the degree to which animals deserve moral status and protection if people do. It is for these reasons that United States’ society has elevated animal cruelty to the status of a felony in all but a few states. It is furthermore the desire to move beyond the deliberate, deviant, sadistic cruelty that was traditionally covered by the law to extending legal protection over actions that are not done out of cruelty or sadism as a motivation, and attempting to mitigate animal suffering even in laudable, praiseworthy activities such as biomedical research. Journalists exposing animal abuse should be entitled to the same degree of protection as those who expose human abuse. In my own view animal abuse is very much analogous to child abuse, since in neither case do the victims have recourse to redressing those wrongs and in neither case are deserving of punishment. Animals are paradigmatically innocent, and are entitled to having that innocence protected and respected.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD

1025

V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S

(TB), I asked the Colorado cattlemen for support and made an appeal to their board. I was warned not to antagonize one very large 85-year-old rancher. As it happened, we ended up using adjacent urinals. He looked down at me and said “Thanks for taking this on Doc. I’m 85, but if I saw someone branding a calf, I would have to kick the shit out of him!” There is a genuine, non-spurious reason why activists continue to film atrocities for weeks. In some cases, in agricultural jurisdictions, prosecutors are reluctant to initiate proceedings against accused animal abusers until they have an overwhelming amount of evidence. In such cases, activists are in essence compelled to keep accumulating more and more proof of abuse in order to be taken seriously. In addition, animal advocates want such a preponderance of evidence that their case is indubitable. This problem can be corrected by prosecutorial authorities being willing to accept as much evidence as would move an ordinary, commonsensical person. In the majority of cases, evidence is collected well beyond such a standard. As I have often remarked in this column, the moral status of animals is rapidly being elevated in society. And as moral protections for animals are increased and augmented, they come to resemble more and more human legal protections. This is why one of my best known articles is entitled “animal rights as a mainstream phenomenon.” Centuries ago, St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that even though animals had no souls, and thence no intrinsic moral status, we cannot allow them to be abused since they resemble

An ethicist’s commentary on “ag-gag” laws.

An ethicist’s commentary on “ag-gag” laws. - PDF Download Free
448KB Sizes 3 Downloads 6 Views