Veterinary Medical Ethics  Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — February 2014 Recent advances in the production of “test tube meat” (meat fibers produced in cell culture) have added a new perspective to discussions regarding the welfare of domestic food animals. If meat can be made in laboratories growing muscle cells in nutrient broth, then there may no longer be a valid reason or need to raise domestic animals on farms. Can well-managed livestock farms operated by caring and knowledgeable stockpeople compete on an ethical basis with muscle cells grown in vitro?

Question de déontologie du mois — Février 2014 Les progrès récents dans la production d’une «viande éprouvette» (des fibres de viande produites dans une culture cellulaire) jettent un nouvel éclairage sur les discussions concernant le bien-être des animaux domestiques destinés à l’alimentation. Si la viande peut être fabriquée dans des laboratoires qui cultivent des cellules musculaires dans un bouillon d’éléments nutritifs, il pourrait ne plus y avoir de raison valide ni de besoin d’élever des animaux domestiques à la ferme. Les fermes d’élevage bien gérées et exploitées par des éleveurs compatissants et informés peuvent-elles faire concurrence, sur le plan de l’éthique, aux cellules musculaires cultivées in vitro? Comments/Commentaires :

Name/Nom : Address/Adresse :

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 / FEBRUARY 2014

113

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 — November 2013 As a small animal practitioner in a suburban community in British Columbia, you see an increasing number of laying hens from small backyard flocks with owners seeking what they perceive to be a healthier and more humane source of table eggs. You have educated yourself in small flock health management and believe that backyard laying hens are a good way for consumers to learn something about how food is produced. Increasingly your clients are coming in with older birds suffering common age-related ailments including reduced egg production. These owners are expecting service similar to what their pets receive and apply the same philosophy of lifetime commitment to the laying hens that they do to their pets. Your recommendations regarding euthanasia and replacement therefore are often rejected. If the older birds are to be kept and egg production maintained, then new younger birds must be added to the flock. Unfortunately many municipal ordinances restrict flock size. You are considering changing from an advocate to a detractor of backyard poultry production. What should you do?

Question de déontologie du mois — Novembre 2013 En tant que praticien pour petits animaux d’une municipalité de banlieue de la Colombie-Britannique, vous examinez un nombre grandissant de poules pondeuses provenant de troupeaux de cour appartenant à des propriétaires qui recherchent ce qu’ils perçoivent comme étant une source d’œufs de consommation plus saine et moins cruelle. Vous vous êtes renseigné sur la gestion de la santé des petits troupeaux et vous estimez que les poules pondeuses de cour représentent une bonne façon de permettre aux consommateurs d’acquérir des connaissances sur les méthodes de production des aliments. Or, vos clients vous présentent de plus en plus fréquemment des oiseaux âgés qui souffrent de problèmes communs reliés au vieillissement, incluant une production d’œufs réduite. Ces propriétaires s’attendent à des services semblables à ceux prodigués à leurs animaux de compagnie et ils appliquent aux poules pondeuses la même philosophie d’engagement à l’égard de la durée de vie que celle utilisée pour leurs animaux de compagnie. Vos recommandations concernant l’euthanasie et le remplacement sont donc fréquemment rejetées. Si les propriétaires désirent garder les oiseaux âgés et maintenir la production d’œufs, ils devront alors ajouter de jeunes oiseaux au troupeau. Malheureusement, les règlements municipaux limitent la taille du troupeau. Vous envisagez passer du camp des défenseurs de la production résidentielle de volaille à celui des détracteurs. Que devriez-vous faire?

Backyard laying hens — A comment More Canadian urban/suburban municipalities are catching up with the rest of the world in realizing the benefits of “backyard” laying hens. In addition to the tangible benefits of egg production, pest reduction, and sources of rich compost, hens are endlessly amusing. The author of the ethical question seemed almost frustrated that some hen owners view the hens as pets and want to care for them even when they are no longer useful as egg producers. I find this ironic as our profession has battled for years with owners who view animals as disposable belongings not worth spending money on if sick or injured. In my experience people seem to be in one of two camps when obtaining ‘backyard” hens. The first includes those who want control over some aspect of their food production and see hens as practical and educational sources of healthy eggs. In keeping with traditional food production, these folks will either find other homes for hens that no longer lay or seek out an accept-

able means of ending life whether that be humane euthanasia or approved slaughter. Keep in mind that most backyard hens are dual purpose or heritage breeds and have more flesh than commercial laying hens. The other camp contains those who bond to their hens and truly view them as pets. The egg production becomes a secondary benefit. When hens no longer lay, these people are quite content to keep the hens and care for them much as many of our clients care for their beloved pocket pets. I don’t believe it is appropriate for us to judge what value our clients place on hens. Whether clients view hens as food producers or pets, we veterinarians can play an important role in providing care for these animals without passing judgment on the attachment owners may have. Dr. Margaret Fisher, Edmonton, Alberta

An ethicist’s commentary on backyard chickens It is unquestionable that the general public has grown increasingly interested in the question of where their food comes from and, in the case of foods of animal origin, in the related question of what sort of lives the animals experienced. Raising backyard chickens for egg production is an excellent way of learning about animal husbandry, teaching children responsibility, as well as assuring that the animals live good lives. 114

Having myself raised chickens after moving to a rural property, I can fully understand that, for many people who raise these animals, one inevitably forms a bond of attachment with them, particularly when one comes to realize that chickens have their own personalities and display great variation in these personalities and much more complexity in behavior than one would have anticipated. The same phenomenon arises when one rears a few CVJ / VOL 55 / FEBRUARY 2014

CVJ / VOL 55 / FEBRUARY 2014

sensitizing them to concerns regarding the life of animals in factory conditions. Awakening such concern is surely a worthy task for any veterinarian. Chickens live roughly 5 years, and produce eggs for roughly 3 years. Caring for them when they are no longer productive is not expensive and indelibly underscores the ancient contract that was embodied in traditional husbandry, and further presses home the message that animals lives matter to them, even when they are of no economic use to us, which can in turn aid in helping society to restore some fairness to industrial agriculture. The obvious problem, explicit in this case, is that the veterinarian’s original purpose in suggesting backyard chickens under conditions where the number of chickens is limited, namely assuring a humane supply of eggs, eventually becomes impossible when the chickens have ceased to produce. This problem can very possibly be resolved by assuring that not all backyard producers acquire their laying hens at the same time, but rather stagger the acquisition so that when client A’s chickens have ceased to produce, client B first acquires his own chickens, thereby being in a position to supply eggs to himself and to client A. Eventually, the roles of A and B will inevitably reverse. In short, I see no reason for the veterinarian either to berate himself or herself or change attitude towards backyard chickens. On the contrary, he or she should take great pride in having developed an enduring source of concern among clients for farm animal welfare.

Bernard E. Rollin, PhD

115

V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S

cows, or sheep, or goats, or pigs. These situations profoundly illustrate the power of the human-animal bond even beyond standard companion animals. Some years ago, a large company that produces and sells laboratory animals found small and tame pigs which lived in people’s homes in the Yucatan. The company dedicated itself to breeding smaller versions of these animals which could serve as a swine model for biomedical researchers that the researchers were not intimidated by, in contradistinction to the large, difficult to handle and often aggressive domestic breeds of swine that were traditionally employed in research. One can imagine the chagrin experienced by the company when people began buying these animals as pets, one even appearing on the Johnny Carson show, and many being litter box trained to live in homes, thereby dashing plans to make them the small animal of choice for research! The bonding between owners and chickens should have been anticipated by the veterinarian. Before agriculture came to be dominated by industrial operations, farmers often kept animals as part of their household, even old dairy cows, when diminution of productivity no longer justified keeping them for economic reasons. In fact, one could argue that this sort of bonding is essentially responsible for companion animal practice, and should be celebrated by the veterinarian, not condemned. There is also a huge moral benefit to the bonding between the owners and the chickens. That is the extension of moral concern to animals beyond the dog and cat, which can in turn potentiate people’s concern for the living situations of farm animals. Anyone who raises chickens, for example, can no longer view these animals as interchangeable and identical clones, thereby