Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — September 2016 A dairy client calls for help with a number of heifers suffering from chronic respiratory disease. When you arrive in the late afternoon there are 6 heifers crowded into a small, damp hospital pen in a poorly ventilated corner of the barn. Two are down, emaciated, and mouth-breathing, 2 have labored breathing and are pyrexic, and 2 are eating and have normal temperatures. The owner has to leave twice during your examination of the heifers to address other concerns on the farm. You treat the 2 pyrexic individuals, insist that the 2 mouth-breathing animals be humanely euthanized, and recommend that the better pair be housed in an outdoor loafing shed to improve their environment and to decrease crowding in the hospital pen. You insist that the hospital pen be scraped out and fresh bedding supplied, windows opened for ventilation, and treatment of the 2 remaining heifers continued for 3 more days. The owner is appreciative but anxious to leave to attend to another matter on the farm. You are seriously concerned that your recommendations will not be acted upon that day, if at all. Have you fulfilled your duty of care and professional obligation to protect animal welfare at this point?
Question de déontologie du mois — Septembre 2016 Un client qui est producteur laitier vous appelle pour demander de l’aide avec plusieurs génisses souffrant d’une maladie respiratoire chronique. Lorsque vous arrivez à la ferme en fin d’après-midi, il y a six génisses à l’étroit dans un petit enclos d’infirmerie humide situé dans un secteur mal ventilé de la grange. Deux vaches sont couchées, émaciées et respirent par la gueule, deux ont une respiration difficile et sont atteintes de pyrexie et deux mangent et ont une température normale. Le propriétaire doit quitter deux fois durant votre examen des génisses pour répondre à d’autres situations à la ferme. Vous traitez les deux vaches atteintes de pyrexie, insistez que les deux génisses respirant par la gueule soient euthanasiées de manière non cruelle et vous recommandez que la paire en santé soit logée dans un abri à stabulation libre à l’extérieur afin d’améliorer leur environnement et de réduire le nombre d’animaux dans l’enclos d’infirmerie. Vous insistez que le sol de l’enclos d’infirmerie soit gratté et qu’une literie fraîche soit fournie, que les fenêtres soient ouvertes pour offrir de la ventilation et que le traitement de deux autres vaches soit maintenu pendant trois autres journées. Le propriétaire est reconnaissant mais il semble désireux de quitter pour s’occuper d’une autre situation à la ferme. Vous vous inquiétez sérieusement du fait que vos recommandations ne seront pas mises en œuvre ce jour-là, ni ultérieurement. Avez-vous rempli votre devoir de diligence et votre obligation professionnelle de protéger le bien-être animal à ce moment? 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 / SEPTEMBER 2016
917
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 — 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 devriez-vous répondre à cette demande?
An ethicist’s commentary on short-tail docking There is no question that societal commitment to the well-being of animals has been increasing exponentially over the past 4 or 5 decades. During the past year, 3 cultural events stand out as evidencing our claim. First, is the rapid end of battery cages for egg-laying hens. A series of referenda instituted by the Humane Society of the United States in 12 states helped accelerate an end to 3 of the most egregious confinement agricultural practices — gestation crates for pregnant sows, restrictive crates for veal calves, and small cages in which laying hens spent their entire productive lives. These referenda passed in all states in which they were proposed commonly, by a 2 to 1 margin. In 2008, I was in conversation with 2 of Smithfield Farms’ senior executives, when they asked me what I would do if I were in the swine industry. I replied that I would abolish gestation crates “yesterday.” I also enjoined them not to take my word for it, but to poll their customers. When they asked me to anticipate the result, I guessed that 80% of the public would disapprove of sow stalls. They agreed, and contacted me some months later and told that the total was in fact 78%, and they committed to replacing sow stalls with open systems, which they have proceeded to do. At that point, it was clear to me that the days of gestation crates were numbered. In the face of ever-increasing societal concern about severely confined veal calves, the industry declared that it was moving to group housing. And in the past year, the egg industry and restaurants and grocery chains hastened to disavow eggs from hens in cages. 918
The second momentous event was the announcement by Sea World that they would put a stop to killer whale shows, and would cease to gather these animals from the wild. This is after their stock prices and attendance plummeted following the release of the documentary on killer whale captivity, Blackfish. And third was Ringling Brothers’ agreement to end traveling elephant shows in the face of massive public protest. One need not be a Nostradamus to project that societal concern for animal welfare will continue to increase, particularly in the face of Internet coverage of animal welfare issues and social media support for resolving these issues. And, in light of what we have just recounted, it is also evident that traditional invasive and painful “management procedures” such as castration, dehorning, branding, and tail-docking will come to the attention of society and be deemed unacceptable. Given what we have just discussed, it is incomprehensible to me that a company attempting to garner market share in the humane pork world would mandate the short docking of piglet tails, which is both painful and conducive to rectal prolapse, a major medical problem, and to infection. Were I the veterinarian, I would explain to the client and to the company contracting with the client what we have just related. I would argue that it would behoove the person entering the humane market space to take cognizance of societal reality in an anticipatory manner, making as Plato says, “a virtue of necessity.” I would further explain that there are systems in use for raising piglets that obviate the need for tail-docking. It would behoove the producer to consider utilizing these systems, CVJ / VOL 57 / SEPTEMBER 2016
CVJ / VOL 57 / SEPTEMBER 2016
Europe will eventually reach North America. Why not then generate goodwill for your brand in a way that will mark you as a pioneer? Certainly such an approach will cost more money, but that cost will be reimbursed by the priceless marketing ploy of being the first to create a more humane system, especially if you promulgate the point that your commitment to good animal care is creating significant additional costs. Being seen as the pioneer in eliminating gestation crates has brought Smithfield favorable publicity that they probably could not buy.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
919
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
which are more humane, since they would serve as a marvelous marketing strategy. In a world such as ours, in which negative information spreads like wildfire through social media, why not radically improve the system for rearing piglets? If you continue to rely on tail-docking you risk publicity which will very likely degrade the extent to which you are perceived as truly producing humane pork, and further provide activists with a golden opportunity for exposing you as hypocritical and unconcerned about animal welfare. In Europe, the swine industry has moved away from knife castration of baby pigs without anesthesia; many companies turning towards immunological castration. What happens in
Question de déontologie du mois — Septembre 2016 Un client qui est producteur laitier vous appelle pour demander de l’aide avec plusieurs génisses souffrant d’une maladie respiratoire chronique. Lorsque vous arrivez à la ferme en fin d’après-midi, il y a six génisses à l’étroit dans un petit enclos d’infirmerie humide situé dans un secteur mal ventilé de la grange. Deux vaches sont couchées, émaciées et respirent par la gueule, deux ont une respiration difficile et sont atteintes de pyrexie et deux mangent et ont une température normale. Le propriétaire doit quitter deux fois durant votre examen des génisses pour répondre à d’autres situations à la ferme. Vous traitez les deux vaches atteintes de pyrexie, insistez que les deux génisses respirant par la gueule soient euthanasiées de manière non cruelle et vous recommandez que la paire en santé soit logée dans un abri à stabulation libre à l’extérieur afin d’améliorer leur environnement et de réduire le nombre d’animaux dans l’enclos d’infirmerie. Vous insistez que le sol de l’enclos d’infirmerie soit gratté et qu’une literie fraîche soit fournie, que les fenêtres soient ouvertes pour offrir de la ventilation et que le traitement de deux autres vaches soit maintenu pendant trois autres journées. Le propriétaire est reconnaissant mais il semble désireux de quitter pour s’occuper d’une autre situation à la ferme. Vous vous inquiétez sérieusement du fait que vos recommandations ne seront pas mises en œuvre ce jour-là, ni ultérieurement. Avez-vous rempli votre devoir de diligence et votre obligation professionnelle de protéger le bien-être animal à ce moment? 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 / SEPTEMBER 2016
917
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 — 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 devriez-vous répondre à cette demande?
An ethicist’s commentary on short-tail docking There is no question that societal commitment to the well-being of animals has been increasing exponentially over the past 4 or 5 decades. During the past year, 3 cultural events stand out as evidencing our claim. First, is the rapid end of battery cages for egg-laying hens. A series of referenda instituted by the Humane Society of the United States in 12 states helped accelerate an end to 3 of the most egregious confinement agricultural practices — gestation crates for pregnant sows, restrictive crates for veal calves, and small cages in which laying hens spent their entire productive lives. These referenda passed in all states in which they were proposed commonly, by a 2 to 1 margin. In 2008, I was in conversation with 2 of Smithfield Farms’ senior executives, when they asked me what I would do if I were in the swine industry. I replied that I would abolish gestation crates “yesterday.” I also enjoined them not to take my word for it, but to poll their customers. When they asked me to anticipate the result, I guessed that 80% of the public would disapprove of sow stalls. They agreed, and contacted me some months later and told that the total was in fact 78%, and they committed to replacing sow stalls with open systems, which they have proceeded to do. At that point, it was clear to me that the days of gestation crates were numbered. In the face of ever-increasing societal concern about severely confined veal calves, the industry declared that it was moving to group housing. And in the past year, the egg industry and restaurants and grocery chains hastened to disavow eggs from hens in cages. 918
The second momentous event was the announcement by Sea World that they would put a stop to killer whale shows, and would cease to gather these animals from the wild. This is after their stock prices and attendance plummeted following the release of the documentary on killer whale captivity, Blackfish. And third was Ringling Brothers’ agreement to end traveling elephant shows in the face of massive public protest. One need not be a Nostradamus to project that societal concern for animal welfare will continue to increase, particularly in the face of Internet coverage of animal welfare issues and social media support for resolving these issues. And, in light of what we have just recounted, it is also evident that traditional invasive and painful “management procedures” such as castration, dehorning, branding, and tail-docking will come to the attention of society and be deemed unacceptable. Given what we have just discussed, it is incomprehensible to me that a company attempting to garner market share in the humane pork world would mandate the short docking of piglet tails, which is both painful and conducive to rectal prolapse, a major medical problem, and to infection. Were I the veterinarian, I would explain to the client and to the company contracting with the client what we have just related. I would argue that it would behoove the person entering the humane market space to take cognizance of societal reality in an anticipatory manner, making as Plato says, “a virtue of necessity.” I would further explain that there are systems in use for raising piglets that obviate the need for tail-docking. It would behoove the producer to consider utilizing these systems, CVJ / VOL 57 / SEPTEMBER 2016
CVJ / VOL 57 / SEPTEMBER 2016
Europe will eventually reach North America. Why not then generate goodwill for your brand in a way that will mark you as a pioneer? Certainly such an approach will cost more money, but that cost will be reimbursed by the priceless marketing ploy of being the first to create a more humane system, especially if you promulgate the point that your commitment to good animal care is creating significant additional costs. Being seen as the pioneer in eliminating gestation crates has brought Smithfield favorable publicity that they probably could not buy.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
919
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
which are more humane, since they would serve as a marvelous marketing strategy. In a world such as ours, in which negative information spreads like wildfire through social media, why not radically improve the system for rearing piglets? If you continue to rely on tail-docking you risk publicity which will very likely degrade the extent to which you are perceived as truly producing humane pork, and further provide activists with a golden opportunity for exposing you as hypocritical and unconcerned about animal welfare. In Europe, the swine industry has moved away from knife castration of baby pigs without anesthesia; many companies turning towards immunological castration. What happens in
