Veterinary Medical Ethics  Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — June 2016 A client is depopulating his swine barn to eliminate chronic disease challenges and to enter into a contract for humane raised pork. Part of the contract stipulates the genetic line to be used to repopulate the herd. The producer was told that the new required ultra-lean genotype is “high strung” and that tails should be docked as short as possible to avoid tail biting. The producer wants your advice on the best method for doing this. You explain that short tail docks are associated with rectal prolapses and spinal abscesses and likely are more painful than longer tail docks. The producer replies that he has been assured by the packer that short tail docks are routine on all contract farms and cause few problems compared to outbreaks of tail biting which occur more often when tails are docked normally. The Canadian Code of Practice for Pigs does not recommend ultra-short tail docking but you know how inhumane and devastating serious outbreaks of tail biting can be. How should you respond to this request?

Question de déontologie du mois — Juin 2016 Un client procède au dépeuplement de sa grange porcine afin d’éliminer des problèmes liés aux maladies chroniques et de conclure un contrat de viande porcine élevée de façon non cruelle. Une section du contrat précise la lignée génétique à utiliser pour repeupler le troupeau. On a dit à l’éleveur que le nouveau génotype ultra-maigre requis est «hyperactif» et qu’il faut couper les queues le plus court possible pour éviter que les animaux se mordent la queue. L’éleveur désire vos conseils quant à la meilleure méthode pour effectuer cette intervention. Vous expliquez que des amputations courtes sont associées à des prolapsus rectaux et à des abcès spinaux et qu’elles seront probablement plus douloureuses qu’une amputation plus longue. L’éleveur répond que l’exploitant de l’abattoir l’a assuré que les amputations courtes sont routinières pour toutes les fermes retenues à contrat et qu’elles causent peu de problèmes comparativement aux éclosions de morsures de la queue qui se produisent plus fréquemment lorsque les queues sont amputées de la manière habituelle. Le Code canadien des pratiques pour les porcs ne recommande pas les amputations ultra-courtes, mais vous savez comment les éclosions de morsures de la queue peuvent être cruelles et dévastatrices. Comment devriezvous répondre à cette demande?

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 / JUNE 2016

577

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 — March 2016 Scientists at universities as well as in the private sector are rewarded for research leading to new discoveries. One consequence of these financial and professional remunerations is the incentive to keep research results confidential until they are published or patented. This has become more important as research institutions struggle for adequate funding while scientists vie for limited positions and promotions. Policies that inhibit scientific findings from being shared as rapidly as possible slow the progress of scientific advancement and contribute to unnecessary repetition of similar studies. Where research is directed at painful or life-threatening diseases, delays in sharing research results contribute to unnecessary suffering in animals and in humans. Does a competitive rather than cooperative basis for scientific research remain the only realistic option for scientific advancement?

Question de déontologie du mois — Mars 2016 Les scientifiques dans les universités ainsi que dans le secteur privé sont récompensés pour la recherche qui mène à de nouvelles découvertes. Une conséquence de cette rémunération financière et professionnelle est l’incitatif de préserver la confidentialité des résultats de recherche jusqu’à la publication ou l’obtention du brevet. Cette situation est devenue plus importante tandis que les établissements de recherche peinent à trouver du financement adéquat et que les scientifiques se font concurrence pour un nombre limité de postes et de promotions. Les politiques qui interdisent le partage des résultats scientifiques le plus rapidement possible ralentissent les progrès de l’avancement scientifique et contribuent à la répétition inutile d’études semblables. Lorsque la recherche cible des maladies douloureuses ou potentiellement mortelles, le retard au niveau de la communication des résultats contribue à des souffrances inutiles chez les animaux et les humains. Le modèle concurrentiel de recherche scientifique, plutôt qu’un modèle comparatif, demeure-t-il la seule option réaliste pour l’avancement scientifique?

T

An ethicist’s commentary on competitive and cooperative research

he history of science is a history of competition. Whether Newton was contending with Leibniz over who invented the calculus, or Charles Darwin was laying claim to the theory of evolution by natural selection at the same time as Alfred Wallace was, competition was seen as fueling scientific progress. Humans are by nature competitive beings, whether what is in contention is a foot race or being first to reach the moon. Indeed, it is healthy competition that creates reasonable prices for consumers, and healthy profits for businesses. A healthy career in academic science requires that one outcompete one’s rivals for publication and research grants. It might well be the case that cooperative efforts among scientists and institutions could decrease wasteful redundancy and inefficiency, but even more likely would be the loss of incentive. Consider the case of capitalistic entrepreneurial activities. A New York expression from when I was young intoned “Does Macy’s tell Gimbel’s?” i.e., do two competing mega-department stores confide in each other regarding marketing? By the same token, it would undoubtedly save General Motors and Chrysler a good deal of research money if they shared their innovations, but the chances of this happening are vanishingly small. In fact, we must bear in mind that the patenting process makes new discoveries available to those willing to pay for that use. Were this to be eliminated, progress would flatline. Furthermore, in many cases, new discoveries may be modified by others to move a field or product forward. Especially in today’s world, there are significantly greater numbers of people seeking academic jobs than there are such jobs. How would

578

we choose among competing candidates in the absence of an emphasis on success and quality? We could of course choose randomly, for example, by a lottery, but we would sacrifice the benefits to society. In the end, the drive to create and discover new medical modalities resides in a combination of altruism and self-interest. The latter may come in the form of pecuniary rewards, increased reputation, proliferation of future options, and new opportunities. It is well-known that a cooperative approach to agriculture — collective farming — failed abysmally in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, given the lack of incentive for workers. The Marxist doctrine of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs” does not accord with human nature. We all feel compelled to earn visible marks of excellence. One of my department heads in philosophy used to say that although we currently give salary raises marking superior performance, we could achieve competition equally intense if he were to distribute gold stars for merit in the absence of financial reward. Winston Churchill once remarked that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. Perhaps the same may be said of our competitive approach to scientific and medical discovery. Failing the incentive provided by competition, scientific and medical progress is likely to slow down appreciably. This is far too great a price to pay.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD

CVJ / VOL 57 / JUNE 2016