Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — May 2013 It is a busy day in your small one-person animal clinic. The receptionist has booked more elective surgeries than you wish to perform, and the patients have already been admitted. You examine the pre-anesthetic blood work and see that a 6-month-old mixed breed dog scheduled for an ovario-hysterectomy is mildly anemic. You find no other abnormalities on physical examination or blood chemistry. You ask the technician to contact the owner and explain the added risks of anesthesia due to the mild anemia. The owner is concerned and when he arrives to take his dog home he is instructed to return the dog in 2 weeks for a follow-up hematocrit. Later that week, when only one elective surgery is scheduled, pre-anesthetic blood work reveals a mild anemia in another young dog scheduled for ovario-hysterectomy. You proceed with this surgery without contacting the owner. No mention of the anemia is made when the dog is discharged. When the first dog is re-examined 2 weeks later the hematocrit is unchanged, but the dog is nevertheless scheduled for surgery the following day. The technician is fully aware of what is going on but is mildly uncomfortable with the way in which the two cases were handled. Is there a problem here?
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2013 C’est une journée chargée dans votre petite clinique pour animaux de compagnie d’une personne. La réceptionniste a pris plus de rendez-vous de chirurgies non urgentes que vous ne le souhaitiez et les patients ont déjà été admis. Vous examinez l’hémogramme préanesthésique et vous constatez qu’une chienne de race croisée âgée de 6 mois devant subir une ovariohystérectomie est légèrement anémique. Vous ne constatez aucune autre anomalie à l’examen physique ou dans la chimie du sang. Vous demandez à la technicienne de communiquer avec le propriétaire et d’expliquer les risques supplémentaires de l’anesthésie en raison de l’anémie légère. Le propriétaire est inquiet et lorsqu’il arrive pour ramener son chien à la maison, on lui demande de revenir avec le chien dans 2 semaines pour un hématocrite de suivi. Plus tard la même semaine, lorsque seulement une chirurgie non urgente est prévue, l’analyse sanguine préanesthésique révèle une anémie légère chez une autre jeune chienne devant subir une ovariohystérectomie. Vous effectuez cette chirurgie sans contacter le propriétaire. Aucune mention d’anémie n’est faite lorsque la chienne obtient son congé. Lorsque le premier chien est réexaminé deux semaines plus tard, l’hématocrite est inchangé, mais la chirurgie est tout de même fixée au lendemain. La technicienne est pleinement consciente de ce qui se passe, mais elle est un peu mal à l’aise avec la façon dont les deux cas ont été gérés. Y a-t-il un problème avec cette situation? 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 54 / MAY 2013
429
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 — February 2013 When there is public outcry concerning specific practices in companion animal or food animal husbandry, a typical response by the respective organizational representatives is to refer to breed or industry standards. Referring to such standards has been used to defend a variety of practices including tail docking and ear cropping in dogs, gestation crates in sows, and castration without analgesia in calves. Are references to breed or industry standards a legitimate approach by which to defend practices that create public concern for either pet or production animals?
Question de déontologie du mois — Février 2013 Lorsqu’il y a un tollé général concernant des pratiques particulières de l’élevage des animaux de compagnie ou des animaux destinés à l’alimentation, la réponse habituelle des représentants des organisations respectives consiste à s’appuyer sur les normes des races ou de l’industrie. Ces normes ont été utilisées pour défendre diverses pratiques, incluant l’amputation de la queue et la coupe des oreilles chez les chiens, les cages de gestation pour les truies et la castration sans analgésie chez les veaux. La consultation des normes de races ou de l’industrie constitue-t-elle une approche légitime pour défendre les pratiques qui soulèvent l’inquiétude du public à l’égard des animaux de compagnie ou de production?
An ethicist’s commentary on the appeal to standard practice One of the first distinctions one learns in an introductory ethics class is not to confuse what is the case with what ought to be the case. Or, as it is often put, one should not confuse fact and value. Just because most North Americans are obese does not mean that they ought to be. Just because the Taliban works very hard to prevent female literacy is not a good reason to believe they should. Not attending to this fundamental distinction would effectively prevent desirable change arising out of recognizing flaws in the status quo. To be sure, there are places in the legal system that seem to deliberately perpetuate blurring the distinction between is and ought. I am referring, for example, to numerous anti-cruelty laws in the United States affirming that nothing that is standard practice in an animal-using industry can legally be considered “cruel.” Such a position is based on seeing cruelty as necessarily deviant, and correlatively viewing all current practice as a good. A moment’s reflection reveals that such a position does not allow for progress in social thought. Some citizens historically attempted to prosecute high-confinement veal production, in which the animals were kept borderline anemic so that the flesh was pale and exercise was denied so that the meat was tender. Under the cruelty laws the courts denied these claims on the grounds that these practices were standard in the industry. Yet consumers rejected these practices and eliminated them via referenda and new legislation, as society increasingly viewed them as unacceptable. Clearly, this illustrated the inadequacy of the anti-cruelty laws as a mechanism for effecting major change in animal use in society. We, in fact, live in an era where social change has occurred with great rapidity in a multitude of areas. For example, air
430
and water pollution were pretty much accepted as unfortunate aspects of modern technological society, as when people in Ohio joked about their ability to set fire to the Cuyahoga River because it was so polluted. Some 5 years later, the United States celebrated the first Earth Day. Similarly, rapid changes have occurred regarding homosexual rights, civil rights, children’s rights, consumer protection, sexual harassment, and myriad other areas. The point is that awareness of absurdity in traditional beliefs and practices grows incrementally and indeed, exponentially, as social critical thought increases. And most of us are very grateful for our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities. When all we thought about in the food area was that food be very abundant and cheap at the register, we tended to overlook the fact that these values were accomplished at the expense of animal welfare and environmental sustainability. As we have grown in sophistication, we have demanded reform of extant practices that do not fit our changing values and concerns. Indeed, it is through this sort of relentless self-criticism that we create improvements leading to a better world. As public awareness grows regarding mistakes we have made in the past, be it awareness that high-confinement systems do not meet the needs of animals, or that excessive use of petrochemicals in agriculture harms an enduring food supply, change in such practices is socially demanded and effected. And thus it is absurd to try to blunt such change by appealing to what we already do. Animal welfare is ever increasingly becoming a major value alongside productivity in animal industries. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 54 / MAY 2013
Question de déontologie du mois — Mai 2013 C’est une journée chargée dans votre petite clinique pour animaux de compagnie d’une personne. La réceptionniste a pris plus de rendez-vous de chirurgies non urgentes que vous ne le souhaitiez et les patients ont déjà été admis. Vous examinez l’hémogramme préanesthésique et vous constatez qu’une chienne de race croisée âgée de 6 mois devant subir une ovariohystérectomie est légèrement anémique. Vous ne constatez aucune autre anomalie à l’examen physique ou dans la chimie du sang. Vous demandez à la technicienne de communiquer avec le propriétaire et d’expliquer les risques supplémentaires de l’anesthésie en raison de l’anémie légère. Le propriétaire est inquiet et lorsqu’il arrive pour ramener son chien à la maison, on lui demande de revenir avec le chien dans 2 semaines pour un hématocrite de suivi. Plus tard la même semaine, lorsque seulement une chirurgie non urgente est prévue, l’analyse sanguine préanesthésique révèle une anémie légère chez une autre jeune chienne devant subir une ovariohystérectomie. Vous effectuez cette chirurgie sans contacter le propriétaire. Aucune mention d’anémie n’est faite lorsque la chienne obtient son congé. Lorsque le premier chien est réexaminé deux semaines plus tard, l’hématocrite est inchangé, mais la chirurgie est tout de même fixée au lendemain. La technicienne est pleinement consciente de ce qui se passe, mais elle est un peu mal à l’aise avec la façon dont les deux cas ont été gérés. Y a-t-il un problème avec cette situation? 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 54 / MAY 2013
429
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 — February 2013 When there is public outcry concerning specific practices in companion animal or food animal husbandry, a typical response by the respective organizational representatives is to refer to breed or industry standards. Referring to such standards has been used to defend a variety of practices including tail docking and ear cropping in dogs, gestation crates in sows, and castration without analgesia in calves. Are references to breed or industry standards a legitimate approach by which to defend practices that create public concern for either pet or production animals?
Question de déontologie du mois — Février 2013 Lorsqu’il y a un tollé général concernant des pratiques particulières de l’élevage des animaux de compagnie ou des animaux destinés à l’alimentation, la réponse habituelle des représentants des organisations respectives consiste à s’appuyer sur les normes des races ou de l’industrie. Ces normes ont été utilisées pour défendre diverses pratiques, incluant l’amputation de la queue et la coupe des oreilles chez les chiens, les cages de gestation pour les truies et la castration sans analgésie chez les veaux. La consultation des normes de races ou de l’industrie constitue-t-elle une approche légitime pour défendre les pratiques qui soulèvent l’inquiétude du public à l’égard des animaux de compagnie ou de production?
An ethicist’s commentary on the appeal to standard practice One of the first distinctions one learns in an introductory ethics class is not to confuse what is the case with what ought to be the case. Or, as it is often put, one should not confuse fact and value. Just because most North Americans are obese does not mean that they ought to be. Just because the Taliban works very hard to prevent female literacy is not a good reason to believe they should. Not attending to this fundamental distinction would effectively prevent desirable change arising out of recognizing flaws in the status quo. To be sure, there are places in the legal system that seem to deliberately perpetuate blurring the distinction between is and ought. I am referring, for example, to numerous anti-cruelty laws in the United States affirming that nothing that is standard practice in an animal-using industry can legally be considered “cruel.” Such a position is based on seeing cruelty as necessarily deviant, and correlatively viewing all current practice as a good. A moment’s reflection reveals that such a position does not allow for progress in social thought. Some citizens historically attempted to prosecute high-confinement veal production, in which the animals were kept borderline anemic so that the flesh was pale and exercise was denied so that the meat was tender. Under the cruelty laws the courts denied these claims on the grounds that these practices were standard in the industry. Yet consumers rejected these practices and eliminated them via referenda and new legislation, as society increasingly viewed them as unacceptable. Clearly, this illustrated the inadequacy of the anti-cruelty laws as a mechanism for effecting major change in animal use in society. We, in fact, live in an era where social change has occurred with great rapidity in a multitude of areas. For example, air
430
and water pollution were pretty much accepted as unfortunate aspects of modern technological society, as when people in Ohio joked about their ability to set fire to the Cuyahoga River because it was so polluted. Some 5 years later, the United States celebrated the first Earth Day. Similarly, rapid changes have occurred regarding homosexual rights, civil rights, children’s rights, consumer protection, sexual harassment, and myriad other areas. The point is that awareness of absurdity in traditional beliefs and practices grows incrementally and indeed, exponentially, as social critical thought increases. And most of us are very grateful for our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities. When all we thought about in the food area was that food be very abundant and cheap at the register, we tended to overlook the fact that these values were accomplished at the expense of animal welfare and environmental sustainability. As we have grown in sophistication, we have demanded reform of extant practices that do not fit our changing values and concerns. Indeed, it is through this sort of relentless self-criticism that we create improvements leading to a better world. As public awareness grows regarding mistakes we have made in the past, be it awareness that high-confinement systems do not meet the needs of animals, or that excessive use of petrochemicals in agriculture harms an enduring food supply, change in such practices is socially demanded and effected. And thus it is absurd to try to blunt such change by appealing to what we already do. Animal welfare is ever increasingly becoming a major value alongside productivity in animal industries. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 54 / MAY 2013
