Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — March 2017 For the past several decades, veterinary school admissions have been weighted towards academic performance and a subjective assessment of how applicants respond to interview questions. Several studies indicate that this system for assessing applicants does not accurately predict clinical competency in the final year rotation. Other research suggests that practicing veterinarians are at an increased risk of severe stress in the workplace manifested by a higher risk of suicide and other negative health outcomes. Should systems for assessing applicants for admission to the veterinary curriculum be subjected to more outcome-based scrutiny in terms of competency, job satisfaction, and personal health? Could changes in applicant screening procedures risk breaching the basic principles of justice or the rights and freedoms articulated in the Canadian constitution? Submitted by Terry Whiting, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Question de déontologie du mois — Mars 2017 Au cours des dernières décennies, l’admission à l’école de médecine vétérinaire s’est surtout appuyée sur les résultats scolaires et une évaluation subjective de la façon dont les candidats répondaient aux questions d’entrevue. Plusieurs études indiquent que ce système d’évaluation des candidats ne prédit pas bien les compétences cliniques lors des rotations de la dernière année du programme. D’autres études suggèrent que les vétérinaires praticiens s’exposent à un risque accru de stress aigu au travail qui se manifeste par une plus grande vulnérabilité au suicide et à d’autres problèmes de santé. Les systèmes d’évaluation devraient-ils soumettre les candidats à l’admission au programme vétérinaire à un examen qui se concentre sur les résultats en matière de compétence, de satisfaction à l’égard du travail et de santé personnelle? Ces changements aux procédures d’évaluation des candidats pourraient-ils risquer d’enfreindre les principes de base de la justice ou les droits et les libertés enchâssés dans la constitution canadienne? Soumise par Terry Whiting, Winnipeg (Manitoba) 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 58 / MARCH 2017
221
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 — December 2016 A “swine” client calls to report that a recent hire turned out to be an animal activist who placed disturbing videos on the Internet of another employee mishandling both sows and piglets. Major retailers immediately notified their suppliers that they would not accept pork from this farm. Your swine client reports that the employee in the video had behavioral problems that led to his dismissal shortly after he was hired. The client explained to the media that the employee was terminated and that the video does not reflect the farm’s stockmanship practices. Nevertheless retailers want to distance themselves from this disturbing video and are refusing to purchase his pork. As a result your client now has over-stocking problems as he waits for regulatory bodies to investigate. The client is calling to request that you euthanize healthy market hogs so he will not be accused of overcrowding his pigs. He wants the euthanasia done by a professional to ensure he is not in some way accused of further animal welfare infractions. You are concerned that euthanizing these healthy hogs will simply increase public displeasure but you cannot find a packer willing to accept the pigs. How should you respond?
Question de déontologie du mois — Décembre 2016 Un client «porcin» appelle pour signaler qu’un employé embauché récemment s’est révélé être un activiste de défense des animaux qui a publié des vidéos troublantes sur Internet qui montraient un autre employé maltraitant les truies et les porcelets. Les grands détaillants ont immédiatement avisé leurs fournisseurs qu’ils n’accepteraient pas la viande de porc provenant de cette ferme. Votre client porcin signale que l’employé dans la vidéo manifestait des problèmes de comportement qui ont causé son congédiement peu de temps après l’embauche. Le client a expliqué aux médias que l’employé avait été congédié et que la vidéo ne reflétait pas les pratiques d’élevage employées à la ferme. Néanmoins, les détaillants désirent se distancier de cette vidéo troublante et refusent d’acheter son porc. Par conséquent, votre client est maintenant aux prises avec des problèmes de surpeuplement en attendant l’enquête des organismes de réglementation. Le client vous appelle pour vous demander d’euthanasier des porcs de marché en santé afin qu’il ne soit pas accusé d’entasser ses porcs. Il désire que l’euthanasie soit faite par un professionnel afin qu’il ne soit pas accusé de nouvelles infractions liées au bien-être animal. Vous vous inquiétez que l’euthanasie de ces porcs en santé ne fera qu’accroître la grogne du public, mais vous ne pouvez pas trouver un abattoir disposé à accepter les porcs. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
An ethicist’s commentary on veterinarian asked to euthanize healthy hogs I have many times in this column quoted Plato as a source of good ethical wisdom. Once again, his pronouncements are relevant and timely to this current issue. Plato once remarked that one should, if possible, “make a virtue of necessity.” This is a more sophisticated variation on the common sense dictum that if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. The client’s request for euthanasia is an extremely bad idea, both for him and for you. As you fear, killing these animals to no purpose will only further turn public opinion against the client. In addition, doing so will harm your own reputation. The last thing any veterinarian wishes to be known for is killing healthy animals for no purpose. How then, can this dire scenario be turned into a positive one? One relatively simple approach would be to get the local media to cover the story, and thereby explain to the public that your client is not at all culpable for any animal abuse. Assuming that he was diligent in monitoring the behavior of his employees as a matter of course, he bears no guilt. Ideally, if he has any common sense whatsoever, he has instituted new safeguards to make sure this sort of abuse can never happen again, and these should be recounted in the story. Clearly, if he is willing to have these hogs euthanized, financial considerations entailed by their loss does not loom large in his mind. Most important, certainly, is the potential damage to his — and your — reputations. In the newspaper story, it should be stressed that it would be sinful simply to discard these animals. Therefore, in talking to the reporter, you should emphasize that the client is willing 222
to donate these animals, once processed, to a food bank or the Salvation Army or some other worthy charity making sure that people have adequate food, particularly in holiday seasons. The only problem, you should state, is finding a packer willing to process these animals. I think that we can be morally certain that the hitherto reluctant packers will fall all over themselves to do so. I am also morally certain that, in the interest of good public relations, something packers do not usually enjoy, they will do the job at minimal cost or indeed gratis. If, mirabile dictu, some demand payment, you are sure to find one that does not. This situation would represent a classic case of making a virtue of necessity. Additionally, your client could sweeten the pot by agreeing to make a similar, albeit smaller, donation each holiday season. Neither a producer nor a processor could buy such a degree of favorable publicity, which could go a long way to expunging the bad image created by the whole unfortunate situation! Nor will such a tactical move on your part at all harm your image in the community. Using the media to advance a worthwhile cause is typically not a strategy often deployed by veterinarians. But all veterinarians understand, at some level, how effective it can be, for example, in adopting out a dog that has been abandoned, hit by a car, or suffered some other fate that moves people to act. There is no shame in such actions; quite the contrary!
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD CVJ / VOL 58 / MARCH 2017
Question de déontologie du mois — Mars 2017 Au cours des dernières décennies, l’admission à l’école de médecine vétérinaire s’est surtout appuyée sur les résultats scolaires et une évaluation subjective de la façon dont les candidats répondaient aux questions d’entrevue. Plusieurs études indiquent que ce système d’évaluation des candidats ne prédit pas bien les compétences cliniques lors des rotations de la dernière année du programme. D’autres études suggèrent que les vétérinaires praticiens s’exposent à un risque accru de stress aigu au travail qui se manifeste par une plus grande vulnérabilité au suicide et à d’autres problèmes de santé. Les systèmes d’évaluation devraient-ils soumettre les candidats à l’admission au programme vétérinaire à un examen qui se concentre sur les résultats en matière de compétence, de satisfaction à l’égard du travail et de santé personnelle? Ces changements aux procédures d’évaluation des candidats pourraient-ils risquer d’enfreindre les principes de base de la justice ou les droits et les libertés enchâssés dans la constitution canadienne? Soumise par Terry Whiting, Winnipeg (Manitoba) 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 58 / MARCH 2017
221
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 — December 2016 A “swine” client calls to report that a recent hire turned out to be an animal activist who placed disturbing videos on the Internet of another employee mishandling both sows and piglets. Major retailers immediately notified their suppliers that they would not accept pork from this farm. Your swine client reports that the employee in the video had behavioral problems that led to his dismissal shortly after he was hired. The client explained to the media that the employee was terminated and that the video does not reflect the farm’s stockmanship practices. Nevertheless retailers want to distance themselves from this disturbing video and are refusing to purchase his pork. As a result your client now has over-stocking problems as he waits for regulatory bodies to investigate. The client is calling to request that you euthanize healthy market hogs so he will not be accused of overcrowding his pigs. He wants the euthanasia done by a professional to ensure he is not in some way accused of further animal welfare infractions. You are concerned that euthanizing these healthy hogs will simply increase public displeasure but you cannot find a packer willing to accept the pigs. How should you respond?
Question de déontologie du mois — Décembre 2016 Un client «porcin» appelle pour signaler qu’un employé embauché récemment s’est révélé être un activiste de défense des animaux qui a publié des vidéos troublantes sur Internet qui montraient un autre employé maltraitant les truies et les porcelets. Les grands détaillants ont immédiatement avisé leurs fournisseurs qu’ils n’accepteraient pas la viande de porc provenant de cette ferme. Votre client porcin signale que l’employé dans la vidéo manifestait des problèmes de comportement qui ont causé son congédiement peu de temps après l’embauche. Le client a expliqué aux médias que l’employé avait été congédié et que la vidéo ne reflétait pas les pratiques d’élevage employées à la ferme. Néanmoins, les détaillants désirent se distancier de cette vidéo troublante et refusent d’acheter son porc. Par conséquent, votre client est maintenant aux prises avec des problèmes de surpeuplement en attendant l’enquête des organismes de réglementation. Le client vous appelle pour vous demander d’euthanasier des porcs de marché en santé afin qu’il ne soit pas accusé d’entasser ses porcs. Il désire que l’euthanasie soit faite par un professionnel afin qu’il ne soit pas accusé de nouvelles infractions liées au bien-être animal. Vous vous inquiétez que l’euthanasie de ces porcs en santé ne fera qu’accroître la grogne du public, mais vous ne pouvez pas trouver un abattoir disposé à accepter les porcs. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
An ethicist’s commentary on veterinarian asked to euthanize healthy hogs I have many times in this column quoted Plato as a source of good ethical wisdom. Once again, his pronouncements are relevant and timely to this current issue. Plato once remarked that one should, if possible, “make a virtue of necessity.” This is a more sophisticated variation on the common sense dictum that if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. The client’s request for euthanasia is an extremely bad idea, both for him and for you. As you fear, killing these animals to no purpose will only further turn public opinion against the client. In addition, doing so will harm your own reputation. The last thing any veterinarian wishes to be known for is killing healthy animals for no purpose. How then, can this dire scenario be turned into a positive one? One relatively simple approach would be to get the local media to cover the story, and thereby explain to the public that your client is not at all culpable for any animal abuse. Assuming that he was diligent in monitoring the behavior of his employees as a matter of course, he bears no guilt. Ideally, if he has any common sense whatsoever, he has instituted new safeguards to make sure this sort of abuse can never happen again, and these should be recounted in the story. Clearly, if he is willing to have these hogs euthanized, financial considerations entailed by their loss does not loom large in his mind. Most important, certainly, is the potential damage to his — and your — reputations. In the newspaper story, it should be stressed that it would be sinful simply to discard these animals. Therefore, in talking to the reporter, you should emphasize that the client is willing 222
to donate these animals, once processed, to a food bank or the Salvation Army or some other worthy charity making sure that people have adequate food, particularly in holiday seasons. The only problem, you should state, is finding a packer willing to process these animals. I think that we can be morally certain that the hitherto reluctant packers will fall all over themselves to do so. I am also morally certain that, in the interest of good public relations, something packers do not usually enjoy, they will do the job at minimal cost or indeed gratis. If, mirabile dictu, some demand payment, you are sure to find one that does not. This situation would represent a classic case of making a virtue of necessity. Additionally, your client could sweeten the pot by agreeing to make a similar, albeit smaller, donation each holiday season. Neither a producer nor a processor could buy such a degree of favorable publicity, which could go a long way to expunging the bad image created by the whole unfortunate situation! Nor will such a tactical move on your part at all harm your image in the community. Using the media to advance a worthwhile cause is typically not a strategy often deployed by veterinarians. But all veterinarians understand, at some level, how effective it can be, for example, in adopting out a dog that has been abandoned, hit by a car, or suffered some other fate that moves people to act. There is no shame in such actions; quite the contrary!
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD CVJ / VOL 58 / MARCH 2017
