Veterinary Ethics &Animal Rights CONTINUED FROM PAGE 54
should have input into breed standards. First they would not perform the elective surgeries required by breed standards, and second, they want to oppose breed standards that “cause disease, impairment, or discomfort for the animals.” This could lead them to oppose breed standards for toy breeds that suffer tooth loss and subluxing patellas, Giant breeds with Bloat and bone cancer, brachycephalic breeds with breathing restrictions and whelping problems, osteochondrodysplasic breeds with dwarfism, or extreme white breeds with deafness. This is the first place that I have seen where the goal is having vets actually oppose the standards that we breed to. Item6. Towhatextentisitmorallyappropriate for veterinarians to assist or participate in methods of rearing food animals that restrict the natural behavior of such animals? Let’s get real. Building fences restricts the natural behavior of animals. When the west was fenced with barbed wire, the entire goal was to restrict the free ranging of cattle. And Animal Planet is advertising a new show called “Hog Wild” that depicts the current war on wild pigs. These are pigs with unrestricted natural and very destructive behaviors that are spreading across the United States. I prefer hog farming to having to go out and shoot pigs for pork. Although the landowners with infestations of wild hogs would be happy to have you shoot them. When we build fences and kennels we restrict the natural behavior of dogs and now AR legislation is turning up that wants to restrict our ability to confine our dogs. I want new owners to have good fences. The AR folks apparently want them to have none. Item 7.” Is it morally appropriate to engage in practices (e.g., not using anesthesia during the removal of the tails of pigs or the castration of pigs and cattle) that are painful to patients but are desired by clients for economic reasons?” Actually I am surprised that anybody hires veterinarians to dock pig tails or castrate pigs and cattle. I thought that was what old time cowboys did without the aid of veterinarians. But perhaps the vets want in on that practice like they do on the tooth cleaning which is also often done by non vets. One way of expanding a vet’s practice is to require vets to perform procedures that are now being done by non vets. How many calves and piglets would die if they were anesthetized for castration and tail docking? It is customary practice to dock tails
and remove dewclaws from puppies without anesthesia. Does anybody really want to anesthetize a day old puppy for these procedures? Doing so would be life threatening to the puppy. And finally Item 12 “How should the profession respond to those who seek to end animal research or who advocate measures (e.g., prohibition of the use of abandoned pound animals) that can curtail research or increase its costs?” I call this the “be nice to AR folks” ethics issue which is not really an ethics issue at all. Veterinarians should respond to all of the AR proposals by saying that the AR folks are not their clients and that vet ethics do not concern the AR community, no matter how much they want to create new AR-based ethics for our vets. One of the Journal of Social Issues articles was titled,”The Movement Is My Life: The Psychology of Animal Rights Activism” by Harold A. Herzog, Jr. Mr. Herzog spent three years interviewing in depth twenty three ground roots animal rights activists. He would up with 400 pages of transcription and some of my favorite AR quotes: Bernadette said, “Take, for example, fleas on my dog. I don’t use toxic chemicals on my dog to get rid of fleas. Instead, I try to pick them off and put them outside. I know they do not feel pain or anything, but I feel it is important to be consistent. If I draw the line somewhere between fish and mollusks or something, it isn’t going to make sense.” I thought that dog fanciers would find that amusing. Then there is the ultimate problem of what an AR person can eat. If animals are off limits, how about killing plants? Gina, a graduate student, said, “I cannot draw a line in my mind. I try to do as little damage as possible, but if I don’t eat plants, I can’t live. I have to eat something and it is the least evil. I guess even plants are a dilemma to me to some degree.” Herzog said that “Several participants mentioned that they had given serious thought to the notion that consuming fruits and nuts is preferable to a vegetarian diet composed of plants that are killed through the act of harvest.” This makes the AR folks the ultimate right to life believers. They don’t want animals, or plants killed. This overlooks the fact that everything that lives dies: plants, animals, and people. There is no way to avoid death for any living thing. Instead of necessary end to life, AR folks seem to think it can be somehow avoided.
Whenwebuildfencesandkennelswerestrictthe
NATURALBEHAVIOROFDOGS... 78 Dog News