Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — December 2014 Supply managed commodities in Canada have created benefits for farmers and allied industry personnel including veterinarians. This Canadian policy of allowing commodity boards to set the price for milk, eggs, and poultry is unique in North America. Although some groups benefit from supply management, others argue that the system suppresses the advantages that would accrue in a truly free market including improved efficiency and innovation. Although consumers in Canada pay more than their American counterparts for dairy products, poultry, and eggs, the products themselves are indistinguishable in quality or safety. In addition, housing and management of dairy, chicken, turkeys, and laying hens are similar in both countries including practices considered inhumane by certain animal welfare organizations. Can a system that requires Canadian consumers to pay more than Americans for essentially equivalent products of livestock origin be justified?
Question de déontologie du mois — Décembre 2014 La gestion de l’approvisionnement des denrées au Canada a créé des avantages pour les agriculteurs et les travailleurs œuvrant dans les industries connexes, y compris les vétérinaires. La politique canadienne qui permet aux offices de commercialisation de fixer le prix du lait, des œufs et de la volaille est unique en Amérique du Nord. Même si certains groupes profitent de la gestion de l’approvisionnement, d’autres font valoir que le système empêche les avantages qui découleraient d’un marché vraiment libre, notamment l’amélioration de l’efficacité et de l’innovation. Même si les consommateurs canadiens paient plus que leurs homologues américains pour les produits laitiers, la volaille et les œufs, les produits en soi présentent une qualité et une salubrité identiques sur tous les plans. De plus, le logement et la gestion des bovins laitiers, des poulets, des dindons et des poules pondeuses sont semblables dans les deux pays, y compris les pratiques considérées cruelles par certains organismes de bien-être des animaux. Peut-on justifier un système qui exige que les consommateurs canadiens paient plus que les Américains pour des productions animales essentiellement équivalentes?
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 / DECEMBER 2014
1127
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 — September 2014 A small animal client of yours calls to report that she has purchased five feeder pigs to raise on her rural property where she also breeds collies. Two of the pigs are sick and she is requesting that you come out to the farm to examine them. You explain that you are not a licensed large animal ambulatory clinic and cannot provide such a service. She calls back later in the day to say that the two pigs are deteriorating and the only swine veterinarian she could find is 2 hours away. It would also cost more than she paid for the five feeder pigs to have the swine veterinarian come out to examine and treat them. The client cannot understand why you are unwilling to assist her. This type of request is increasing in frequency in your practice as people in your community embrace the local food concept promoted by the government. However you cannot justify establishing a large animal ambulatory service to service a few dozen hobby farmers. How should you respond?
Question de déontologie du mois — Septembre 2014 Une de vos clientes pour petits animaux vous appelle pour vous dire qu’elle a acheté cinq porcs d’engraissement pour en faire l’élevage dans sa propriété rurale où elle élève aussi des chiens bergers d’Écosse. Deux des porcs sont malades et elle vous demande de venir à la ferme pour les examiner. Vous lui expliquez que vous ne possédez pas de permis de clinique ambulatoire pour grands animaux et que vous ne pouvez pas offrir un tel service. Elle rappelle plus tard dans la journée pour dire que la santé des deux porcs se détériore et que le seul vétérinaire porcin qu’elle a pu trouver est situé à deux heures de route. Il en coûterait plus que le coût des cinq porcs d’engraissement pour faire venir le vétérinaire porcin à la ferme et les traiter. La cliente ne peut pas comprendre pourquoi vous refuser de l’aider. Ce type de demande est en hausse dans votre clinique car les gens de votre collectivité souscrivent au concept des aliments locaux dont le gouvernement fait la promotion. Cependant, vous ne pouvez pas justifier l’établissement d’un service ambulatoire pour grands animaux uniquement pour desservir quelques éleveurs amateurs. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
An ethicist’s commentary on veterinarians treating pigs without having a large animal license We North Americans are very respectful of the law. It is relatively rare that in crisis situations anarchy prevails. But by the same token, we have a very healthy cynicism about the law. Witness Jeremy Bentham’s classic statement “the law is an ass.” Witness to such folk truisms as “laws are made to be broken.” What this evidences is very sound common sense. Laws are by and large to be observed and respected, but not slavishly or mindlessly. With no traffic in evidence, few of us would stand stupidly at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the walk sign to go on. This is in sharp contrast to other countries such as Germany, where an attempt to cross the street against the light is likely to be met by stern shouts of “Verboten!” and universal signs of disapproval. There is clearly a reasonable basis for the prohibition against small animal veterinarians routinely practicing large animal medicine. But the rule takes absolutely no cognizance of special situations such as the one described in this case. Here common sense, common decency, and medical necessity all militate in favor of your breaking this rule. Indeed, if you do not, the pigs will very likely go untreated and will certainly suffer. Here the law flies in the face of what morality dictates. And, if you allow the pigs to go untreated, you are also facing a potentially devastating public relations nightmare that would cast veterinary medicine in a very negative light. To forestall the future occurrence of this sort of event, there are numerous strategies that could be deployed. One is very
1128
simply to amend the rule to allow an exception for these sorts of emergencies. Alternatively, the small animal veterinarian could enter into a relationship with a proximal large animal practice that allowed the small animal veterinarian to treat farm animals in the event of exigent situations. After all, veterinarians treat many exotic animals adventitiously brought into their clinics without any certification in those areas, relying only upon their knowledge of basic biological principles. Indeed, it is the possession of this sort of resourcefulness that is a good part of what makes a veterinarian a true professional, rather than a mechanic operating by rote. In the end, veterinarians exist to care for animals, and bureaucratic impediments should not stand in the way of providing such care. If a veterinarian ends up treating a suspicious number of animals for which he or she is not accredited, there is ample time to investigate the conditions under which this occurred, and provide punitive actions or rebuke if necessary. But by no means should this generally but not universally valid rule block the practice of a veterinarian’s art for the benefit of animals one is pledged to treat. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 55 / DECEMBER 2014
An ethicist’s additional commentary on free press (CVJ 2014;55:1022–1025)
CVJ / VOL 55 / DECEMBER 2014
important, federal laws opposed by the research community as “unnecessary” and “detrimental to research” came to be viewed by the general public as absolutely presuppositional to the continuation of invasive animal research, and forever laid to rest public confidence in the morality of animal researchers — “trust me, I’m a scientist.” There have now been hundreds of farm abuse videos released to the general public. All too often, unfortunately, the industry reaction has been one of “kill the messenger,” a demand for the blood of those exposing atrocities. I am very proud of the fact that the agricultural community in my home state, Colorado, is a notable exception to that tendency, with many farmers unhesitatingly condemning such abuse in no uncertain terms. Honesty of that sort serves the agricultural community far better than does denial.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
1129
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
Thomas Jefferson remarked on more than one occasion that he would rather have in a democracy a free press and no government than a government without a free press. In other words, Jefferson saw an unfettered media as the linchpin for a truly free and democratic society. The power of public opinion in the face of various forms of atrocity is well known. Once the searchlight of truth is shown upon abuse of any sort, almost inevitably the continuation of such abuse will be truncated. In terms of having journalists physically present at various forms of atrocity intercede rather than report is ludicrous, unless the journalist happens to be Clark Kent. The power of journalism lies in its ability to expose the concealed. I see absolutely no difference between the journalistic requirement to report on human abuse and the parallel requirement to report animal abuse. In both cases, by definition, objects of moral concern are being treated in a manner in no way commensurate with their moral status. The only difference perhaps is that we have a far greater number of legal remedies to stop human abuse than animal abuse. Many people in animal agriculture with whom I am privileged to work do not oppose clandestine journalists exposing cruelty on farms. On the contrary, they report, only by so doing can the agricultural community evidence to the public that abusers are in the minority, not the norm. As a person who is often asked to comment on atrocity reports because of my involvement in animal welfare, I can personally attest to the fact that many of these atrocities are extremely prolonged, genuine acts of sadism, rather than momentary acts of explosive rage growing out of frustration or inability to deal with an animal’s behavior. In many cases, these actions persist over a long period of time and in order to demonstrate such a pattern, filming cannot be of a single isolated event. On the other hand there certainly are cases where it is not necessary to let the abuse persist beyond a relatively short period of filming. When one has seen as many recorded horrific instances of animal abuse — the stuff of nightmares — as I have, one quickly loses the concern that clandestine filming is “unfair” to workers or facilities. Those concerned about cruelty to animals face an uphill battle, and often feel they must produce documentation that could be viewed as “overkill.” I can bear witness to many incidents of documented animal abuse literally changing both public attitudes towards animal treatment and, equally importantly, horrendous practices that perpetrators take for granted. The activists’ filming of unequivocally unacceptable practices deployed on baboons at the University of Pennsylvania head injury laboratories in the 1980s was definitely laudable. From those videos came an abrupt termination of a totally unacceptable set of research procedures, as well as a loss of innocence for a public that did not care to know what could happen in animal research labs. Even more
Question de déontologie du mois — Décembre 2014 La gestion de l’approvisionnement des denrées au Canada a créé des avantages pour les agriculteurs et les travailleurs œuvrant dans les industries connexes, y compris les vétérinaires. La politique canadienne qui permet aux offices de commercialisation de fixer le prix du lait, des œufs et de la volaille est unique en Amérique du Nord. Même si certains groupes profitent de la gestion de l’approvisionnement, d’autres font valoir que le système empêche les avantages qui découleraient d’un marché vraiment libre, notamment l’amélioration de l’efficacité et de l’innovation. Même si les consommateurs canadiens paient plus que leurs homologues américains pour les produits laitiers, la volaille et les œufs, les produits en soi présentent une qualité et une salubrité identiques sur tous les plans. De plus, le logement et la gestion des bovins laitiers, des poulets, des dindons et des poules pondeuses sont semblables dans les deux pays, y compris les pratiques considérées cruelles par certains organismes de bien-être des animaux. Peut-on justifier un système qui exige que les consommateurs canadiens paient plus que les Américains pour des productions animales essentiellement équivalentes?
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 / DECEMBER 2014
1127
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 — September 2014 A small animal client of yours calls to report that she has purchased five feeder pigs to raise on her rural property where she also breeds collies. Two of the pigs are sick and she is requesting that you come out to the farm to examine them. You explain that you are not a licensed large animal ambulatory clinic and cannot provide such a service. She calls back later in the day to say that the two pigs are deteriorating and the only swine veterinarian she could find is 2 hours away. It would also cost more than she paid for the five feeder pigs to have the swine veterinarian come out to examine and treat them. The client cannot understand why you are unwilling to assist her. This type of request is increasing in frequency in your practice as people in your community embrace the local food concept promoted by the government. However you cannot justify establishing a large animal ambulatory service to service a few dozen hobby farmers. How should you respond?
Question de déontologie du mois — Septembre 2014 Une de vos clientes pour petits animaux vous appelle pour vous dire qu’elle a acheté cinq porcs d’engraissement pour en faire l’élevage dans sa propriété rurale où elle élève aussi des chiens bergers d’Écosse. Deux des porcs sont malades et elle vous demande de venir à la ferme pour les examiner. Vous lui expliquez que vous ne possédez pas de permis de clinique ambulatoire pour grands animaux et que vous ne pouvez pas offrir un tel service. Elle rappelle plus tard dans la journée pour dire que la santé des deux porcs se détériore et que le seul vétérinaire porcin qu’elle a pu trouver est situé à deux heures de route. Il en coûterait plus que le coût des cinq porcs d’engraissement pour faire venir le vétérinaire porcin à la ferme et les traiter. La cliente ne peut pas comprendre pourquoi vous refuser de l’aider. Ce type de demande est en hausse dans votre clinique car les gens de votre collectivité souscrivent au concept des aliments locaux dont le gouvernement fait la promotion. Cependant, vous ne pouvez pas justifier l’établissement d’un service ambulatoire pour grands animaux uniquement pour desservir quelques éleveurs amateurs. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
An ethicist’s commentary on veterinarians treating pigs without having a large animal license We North Americans are very respectful of the law. It is relatively rare that in crisis situations anarchy prevails. But by the same token, we have a very healthy cynicism about the law. Witness Jeremy Bentham’s classic statement “the law is an ass.” Witness to such folk truisms as “laws are made to be broken.” What this evidences is very sound common sense. Laws are by and large to be observed and respected, but not slavishly or mindlessly. With no traffic in evidence, few of us would stand stupidly at a pedestrian crossing waiting for the walk sign to go on. This is in sharp contrast to other countries such as Germany, where an attempt to cross the street against the light is likely to be met by stern shouts of “Verboten!” and universal signs of disapproval. There is clearly a reasonable basis for the prohibition against small animal veterinarians routinely practicing large animal medicine. But the rule takes absolutely no cognizance of special situations such as the one described in this case. Here common sense, common decency, and medical necessity all militate in favor of your breaking this rule. Indeed, if you do not, the pigs will very likely go untreated and will certainly suffer. Here the law flies in the face of what morality dictates. And, if you allow the pigs to go untreated, you are also facing a potentially devastating public relations nightmare that would cast veterinary medicine in a very negative light. To forestall the future occurrence of this sort of event, there are numerous strategies that could be deployed. One is very
1128
simply to amend the rule to allow an exception for these sorts of emergencies. Alternatively, the small animal veterinarian could enter into a relationship with a proximal large animal practice that allowed the small animal veterinarian to treat farm animals in the event of exigent situations. After all, veterinarians treat many exotic animals adventitiously brought into their clinics without any certification in those areas, relying only upon their knowledge of basic biological principles. Indeed, it is the possession of this sort of resourcefulness that is a good part of what makes a veterinarian a true professional, rather than a mechanic operating by rote. In the end, veterinarians exist to care for animals, and bureaucratic impediments should not stand in the way of providing such care. If a veterinarian ends up treating a suspicious number of animals for which he or she is not accredited, there is ample time to investigate the conditions under which this occurred, and provide punitive actions or rebuke if necessary. But by no means should this generally but not universally valid rule block the practice of a veterinarian’s art for the benefit of animals one is pledged to treat. Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 55 / DECEMBER 2014
An ethicist’s additional commentary on free press (CVJ 2014;55:1022–1025)
CVJ / VOL 55 / DECEMBER 2014
important, federal laws opposed by the research community as “unnecessary” and “detrimental to research” came to be viewed by the general public as absolutely presuppositional to the continuation of invasive animal research, and forever laid to rest public confidence in the morality of animal researchers — “trust me, I’m a scientist.” There have now been hundreds of farm abuse videos released to the general public. All too often, unfortunately, the industry reaction has been one of “kill the messenger,” a demand for the blood of those exposing atrocities. I am very proud of the fact that the agricultural community in my home state, Colorado, is a notable exception to that tendency, with many farmers unhesitatingly condemning such abuse in no uncertain terms. Honesty of that sort serves the agricultural community far better than does denial.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
1129
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
Thomas Jefferson remarked on more than one occasion that he would rather have in a democracy a free press and no government than a government without a free press. In other words, Jefferson saw an unfettered media as the linchpin for a truly free and democratic society. The power of public opinion in the face of various forms of atrocity is well known. Once the searchlight of truth is shown upon abuse of any sort, almost inevitably the continuation of such abuse will be truncated. In terms of having journalists physically present at various forms of atrocity intercede rather than report is ludicrous, unless the journalist happens to be Clark Kent. The power of journalism lies in its ability to expose the concealed. I see absolutely no difference between the journalistic requirement to report on human abuse and the parallel requirement to report animal abuse. In both cases, by definition, objects of moral concern are being treated in a manner in no way commensurate with their moral status. The only difference perhaps is that we have a far greater number of legal remedies to stop human abuse than animal abuse. Many people in animal agriculture with whom I am privileged to work do not oppose clandestine journalists exposing cruelty on farms. On the contrary, they report, only by so doing can the agricultural community evidence to the public that abusers are in the minority, not the norm. As a person who is often asked to comment on atrocity reports because of my involvement in animal welfare, I can personally attest to the fact that many of these atrocities are extremely prolonged, genuine acts of sadism, rather than momentary acts of explosive rage growing out of frustration or inability to deal with an animal’s behavior. In many cases, these actions persist over a long period of time and in order to demonstrate such a pattern, filming cannot be of a single isolated event. On the other hand there certainly are cases where it is not necessary to let the abuse persist beyond a relatively short period of filming. When one has seen as many recorded horrific instances of animal abuse — the stuff of nightmares — as I have, one quickly loses the concern that clandestine filming is “unfair” to workers or facilities. Those concerned about cruelty to animals face an uphill battle, and often feel they must produce documentation that could be viewed as “overkill.” I can bear witness to many incidents of documented animal abuse literally changing both public attitudes towards animal treatment and, equally importantly, horrendous practices that perpetrators take for granted. The activists’ filming of unequivocally unacceptable practices deployed on baboons at the University of Pennsylvania head injury laboratories in the 1980s was definitely laudable. From those videos came an abrupt termination of a totally unacceptable set of research procedures, as well as a loss of innocence for a public that did not care to know what could happen in animal research labs. Even more
