Veterinary Medical Ethics  Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — April 2016 You receive a call as clinic hours are ending from someone who is visiting in your area. Their dog has been hit by a car and they are 8 hours from home. The person describes a dog that appears to be seriously injured. You agree to see the dog but since this person is from out of town, you explain your fees and out-of-hours charges and that some form of payment is required at the time of admission. You can hear on the phone that the person is put off by this and says, “Well, I’ll think about it and call you back.” They do not call back and you call them back after an hour and they are still debating what to do and the dog is described as breathing with difficulty. They still say they will call you when they make a decision. You seriously doubt you will hear from them. Are you in any way responsible for this animal’s outcome?

Question de déontologie du mois — Avril 2016 Un peu avant la fermeture de la clinique, vous recevez un appel d’une personne en visite dans votre région. Son chien a été heurté par une automobile et elle se trouve à huit heures de trajet de la maison. La personne décrit un chien qui semble être gravement blessé. Vous acceptez d’examiner le chien mais, vu que cette personne provient de l’extérieur de la ville, vous expliquez vos tarifs, les frais après les heures d’ouverture et le besoin d’un dépôt au moment de l’admission. Vous pouvez constater au téléphone que la personne est décontenancée par vos propos et elle dit : «Eh bien, je vais y réfléchir et je vous rappellerai.» La personne ne rappelle pas et vous décidez de la contacter après une heure. Elle se demande toujours quoi faire et elle décrit le chien comme ayant une respiration difficile. Elle dit qu’elle vous rappellera quand elle aura pris une décision. Vous doutez sérieusement que vous aurez de nouveau de ses nouvelles. Êtes-vous responsable du sort de cet animal? 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, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; 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 D r Tim Blackwell, 6486, E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood (Ontario) N0B 1J0; téléphone : (519) 846-3413; télécopieur : (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 57 / APRIL 2016

349

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 — January 2016 The most fundamental requirements of adequate animal care include the provision of food and water. There is little sympathy for a livestock producer who does not provide feed and water for his or her animals. However federal livestock transportation regulations in Canada state that cattle may be transported for up to 52 hours without access to feed or water. Does the geographic size of the country and the limited number of slaughter plants justify this dichotomy between the acceptable standards of care expected from livestock producers and transporters?

Question de déontologie du mois — Janvier 2016 Les exigences les plus fondamentales des soins adéquats aux animaux incluent la fourniture des aliments et de l’eau. On éprouve peu de sympathie pour un éleveur de bétail qui ne fournit pas d’eau ni d’aliments à ses animaux. Cependant, les règlements fédéraux sur le transport du bétail au Canada stipulent que le bétail peut être transporté jusqu’à 52 heures sans avoir accès à des aliments ou à de l’eau. L’étendue géographique du pays et le nombre limité d’abattoirs justifient-ils cette dichotomie en matière de normes de soins acceptables que doivent respecter les éleveurs et les transporteurs de bétail?

An ethicist’s commentary on government livestock transport standards This case calls to mind a wonderful scene in a classic movie from the 1960s — The Manchurian Candidate. A villainous senator, loosely based on Sen. Joe McCarthy, is sitting in a restaurant and talking to someone, I believe a reporter, about the number of communists who have infiltrated the federal government. When queried regarding specifics, the senator informs the reporter about a significant number of communists in the State Department. “How many?” asks the reporter. Caught unawares, the senator furtively looks around the table, until his eyes fix upon a bottle of ketchup. His face lights up and he turns to the reporter with a big smile and intones “57!” My point is that 52 hours is clearly a length of time determined arbitrarily. I can think of no scientifically sound reason that one should be allowed to deprive livestock of food and water and the chance to stretch their legs for 52 hours. Not only is there no science behind this dictate, the ethics underlying this highly debatable pronouncement is seriously flawed. Going without water and food and without relief from the cramped, crowded, poorly ventilated environment provided in transport is stressful and generates distress, so much so that animals can die in transport. I am also reminded of the time in my life when I was working to create decent federal standards for laboratory animals, particularly the provision of analgesia for animals undergoing painful research. I was amazed to learn that even the pitifully weak requirements of the Animal Welfare Act did not apply to

350

federal laboratories, a fact that supplied much ammunition to the large number of research scientists not wishing to be regulated. I repeatedly argued then, and would reiterate even more volubly now, that the government should be exemplary in adhering to welfare and standards, and not be forced into a hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do” posture. I have often affirmed, even in this column, that the societal ethic for animal treatment has recently become significantly augmented, with states of affairs deemed acceptable even 25 years ago no longer being tolerated by the public. Examples abound: zoos as prisons, routine in my youth, are a thing of the past — witness the California public’s ban on Sea World acquiring killer whales; the end of gestation crates for sows; the worldwide elimination of chimpanzees in research. I have argued extensively that much of the legal system represents encoding of the societal ethic in various areas. If that is the case, surely the government should be the most highly sensitive entity to changing societal norms. In the wake of the foregoing considerations, I would argue that it is exigent that the government eliminate the current deplorable 52 hour standard, and forthwith convene a task force of experts in animal welfare to create standards that are ethically and scientifically defensible.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD

CVJ / VOL 57 / APRIL 2016