Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — July 2015 You recently joined a mixed animal practice that is an hour outside of a major metropolitan area. Many of the traditional livestock farms in the area are being purchased by suburbanites with significant off-farm income. They often keep a couple of horses or have a small goat herd or sheep flock. Your new employers are struggling to adjust to treating “farm” animals that are more closely tied to the emotional rather than the financial interests of the owners. Recently a horse with colic was seen by your colleague, treated with analgesics and the owners were instructed to walk the horse whenever it showed signs of colic. There has been little improvement over the past two days, the owners call several times a day to express their concerns and the senior partners continue to advise over the phone to keep walking the horse. You suggest it might be wise to refer this horse to a neighboring practice with more equine experience. Your employers are not in the habit of referring cases and are reluctant to invite in a competing practice. The horse is not improving. How should you respond?
Question de déontologie du mois — Juillet 2015 Vous avez récemment commencé à travailler dans une clinique mixte qui se trouve à une heure d’un grand centre métropolitain. Beaucoup de fermes d’élevage traditionnelles sont en voie d’être achetées par des banlieusards ayant un revenu important en dehors de la ferme. Ils gardent souvent quelques chevaux ou ont un petit troupeau de chèvres ou de moutons. Vos nouveaux employeurs tentent de s’ajuster au traitement d’animaux «de ferme» qui font appel plus à l’attachement émotionnel qu’aux intérêts financiers des propriétaires. Récemment, un cheval souffrant de coliques a été examiné par l’un de vos collègues et traité à l’aide d’analgésiques. On a demandé aux propriétaires de promener le cheval lorsqu’il manifestait des signes de coliques. L’état du cheval ne s’était pas vraiment amélioré pendant deux jours et les propriétaires appelaient plusieurs fois par jour pour exprimer leur inquiétude et les associés principaux ont continué de conseiller, par téléphone, de promener le cheval. Vous suggérez qu’il serait peut-être préférable de recommander ce cheval à une pratique voisine ayant plus d’expérience avec les chevaux. Vos employeurs n’ont pas l’habitude de recommander des cas et ils sont réticents à l’idée d’inviter une pratique concurrente. L’état du cheval ne s’améliore pas. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
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 p arvenir 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 56 / JULY 2015
651
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 — April 2015 A long-standing client of your mixed animal practice passed away recently and his widow is moving to a nursing home where pets are not allowed. She requested that you find a suitable home for their 6-year-old Labrador retriever. You recently had to euthanize the 16-year-old shepherd-cross that belonged to a family that lives on a hobby farm. You call and enquire as to whether they would be interested in adopting the Labrador and they gladly accept. When they come to pick up the dog they are most grateful and explain that they had been unable to adopt a dog because no shelter or rescue association would provide a dog to a family that did not keep the dog in the house. They had resigned themselves to purchasing a dog from a breeder. This family’s dog has free access to a heated garage with a heated dog bed. You have taken care of this family’s pets and livestock for over a decade and find them exceptionally caring and attentive owners. You cannot believe that a shelter would deny a dog to such an excellent home. You contact a few shelters to enquire regarding their adoption policies and find that they only offer dogs to people who keep their pets in the house. There was a long list of additional restrictions some of which you also found unreasonable. Is it in the best interest of companion animals to have such stringent requirements regarding adoptions?
Question de déontologie du mois — Avril 2015 Un client de longue date de votre pratique mixte est récemment décédé et sa veuve déménage dans un foyer de soins infirmiers où les animaux sont interdits. Elle vous a demandé de trouver un bon foyer pour leur Labrador retriever âgé de 6 ans. Vous avez récemment dû euthanasier le chien berger de race croisée âgé de 16 ans qui appartenait à une famille habitant sur une ferme d’agrément. Vous appelez la famille et vous lui demander si elle aimerait adopter le Labrador, ce qu’elle accepte avec joie. Lorsqu’elle arrive pour chercher le chien, elle est très reconnaissante et explique qu’elle ne réussissait à adopter un chien parce qu’aucun refuge ni association de sauvetage ne donnait un chien à une famille qui ne le gardait pas dans la maison. Ils s’étaient résignés à acheter un chien auprès d’un éleveur. Le chien de cette famille avait librement accès à un garage chauffé doté d’un lit chauffant. Vous soignez les animaux de compagnie et le bétail de cette famille depuis plus d’une décennie et vous trouvez que ce sont des propriétaires exceptionnellement compatissants et attentifs. Vous ne pouvez pas croire qu’un refuge refuserait un chien à cet excellent foyer. Vous contactez quelques refuges pour vous informer de leurs politiques d’adoption et vous constatez qu’ils offrent seulement des chiens aux personnes qui les gardent dans la maison. Il y avait aussi une longue liste de restrictions dont certaines vous semblaient déraisonnables. En va-t-il du meilleur intérêt des animaux de compagnie que les refuges imposent de telles exigences restrictives pour les adoptions?
An ethicist’s commentary on shelter reluctant to adopt Let me begin with a caveat: the vast majority of people working in animal shelters do not fit the description I am about to present. Most are dedicated, selfless people who take it upon themselves to rectify grievous social wrong. But in too many cases over the past 40 years, I have encountered an insufferable sanctimonious attitude on the part of a small number of those who have taken upon themselves the very real burden of dealing with the societal problem of unwanted animals needing to be homed. According to this attitude, no home is good enough for the animals for whom they have assumed responsibility. In one case, there was a prominent veterinary oncologist employed at the Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences who was attempting to acquire a dog from a shelter as a family pet. He worked very long hours on numerous cancer patients for whom he effected unprecedented cures. After repeated home visits, the shelter refused to place an animal with him, since “he was not home enough.” I could not imagine a better owner with a nicer family! I have encountered the same story in far too many shelters — the self-appointed guardians of animal welfare seem to believe that the animal is better off dead than placed in what they deem 652
to be a less than perfect home! In stark contrast to this inexplicable attitude, my close veterinarian friend Brian Forsgren, who has spent decades unselfishly serving a ghetto community by providing affordable veterinary care, has repeatedly stressed, both in narratives and in his photographs, that these pets may belong to people whose clothes are in tatters, but whose animals are immaculate, well fed, and well cared for. As Brian tellingly puts it, who would be willing to say that a companion animal means more to a rich person than to a poor one. Besides having to answer a battery of questions paralleling what one might be required to answer for adopting a child, a shelter sometimes consider an animal “unadoptable” for indefensible reasons. Foremost among these reasons are spurious “behavior tests” administered by self-appointed “behavior experts.” Failing these tests may amount to a death sentence for the animal. In one horrifying case I witnessed, a dog was moved from his kennel into a common area, growled at another male dog, and was euthanized for being “overly aggressive.” In 1978, I gave my first public speech on these issues. I argued that too many shelters protect the public from the ugly truth of their behavior, rather than the animals. In attendance was Richard Avenzino, who had just taken over running the CVJ / VOL 56 / JULY 2015
CVJ / VOL 56 / JULY 2015
are situations such as isolated and well-fenced rural properties where these dogs could live a good life while serving to protect people and property. Obviously such cases require a modicum of common sense. No one should adopt an aggressive dog to a house regularly populated by small children, just as such a home should not keep pistols and long guns, which are an “attractive nuisance,” in plain view or otherwise accessible to prying children. Yet if managed appropriately these dogs can live well in a loving home while at the same time earning their keep. No one should choose death for another creature for anything but the utmost compelling reasons, such as amelioration of intractable suffering.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
653
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). He came up to me after my talk, shook my hand and told me he had resolved not to let animals die under his aegis. He served a wealthy and morally responsible community, and soon cut the euthanasia rate drastically. Shortly thereafter, he was tapped to head the Maddie Fund, a billion-dollar bequest devoted to end the killing of healthy animals. He recently retired, leaving an unparalleled legacy of animals saved from euthanasia. It is worth remembering that “the perfect home” is a mythic construct by which real homes should not be judged. Such ridiculous criteria, as are described in the current case, are a travesty. No one with an ounce of sensitivity would affirm that a dog is better off dead than living in a home with access to a heated garage. Almost no one adopts aggressive dogs, yet there
Question de déontologie du mois — Juillet 2015 Vous avez récemment commencé à travailler dans une clinique mixte qui se trouve à une heure d’un grand centre métropolitain. Beaucoup de fermes d’élevage traditionnelles sont en voie d’être achetées par des banlieusards ayant un revenu important en dehors de la ferme. Ils gardent souvent quelques chevaux ou ont un petit troupeau de chèvres ou de moutons. Vos nouveaux employeurs tentent de s’ajuster au traitement d’animaux «de ferme» qui font appel plus à l’attachement émotionnel qu’aux intérêts financiers des propriétaires. Récemment, un cheval souffrant de coliques a été examiné par l’un de vos collègues et traité à l’aide d’analgésiques. On a demandé aux propriétaires de promener le cheval lorsqu’il manifestait des signes de coliques. L’état du cheval ne s’était pas vraiment amélioré pendant deux jours et les propriétaires appelaient plusieurs fois par jour pour exprimer leur inquiétude et les associés principaux ont continué de conseiller, par téléphone, de promener le cheval. Vous suggérez qu’il serait peut-être préférable de recommander ce cheval à une pratique voisine ayant plus d’expérience avec les chevaux. Vos employeurs n’ont pas l’habitude de recommander des cas et ils sont réticents à l’idée d’inviter une pratique concurrente. L’état du cheval ne s’améliore pas. Comment devriez-vous répondre?
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 p arvenir 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 56 / JULY 2015
651
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 — April 2015 A long-standing client of your mixed animal practice passed away recently and his widow is moving to a nursing home where pets are not allowed. She requested that you find a suitable home for their 6-year-old Labrador retriever. You recently had to euthanize the 16-year-old shepherd-cross that belonged to a family that lives on a hobby farm. You call and enquire as to whether they would be interested in adopting the Labrador and they gladly accept. When they come to pick up the dog they are most grateful and explain that they had been unable to adopt a dog because no shelter or rescue association would provide a dog to a family that did not keep the dog in the house. They had resigned themselves to purchasing a dog from a breeder. This family’s dog has free access to a heated garage with a heated dog bed. You have taken care of this family’s pets and livestock for over a decade and find them exceptionally caring and attentive owners. You cannot believe that a shelter would deny a dog to such an excellent home. You contact a few shelters to enquire regarding their adoption policies and find that they only offer dogs to people who keep their pets in the house. There was a long list of additional restrictions some of which you also found unreasonable. Is it in the best interest of companion animals to have such stringent requirements regarding adoptions?
Question de déontologie du mois — Avril 2015 Un client de longue date de votre pratique mixte est récemment décédé et sa veuve déménage dans un foyer de soins infirmiers où les animaux sont interdits. Elle vous a demandé de trouver un bon foyer pour leur Labrador retriever âgé de 6 ans. Vous avez récemment dû euthanasier le chien berger de race croisée âgé de 16 ans qui appartenait à une famille habitant sur une ferme d’agrément. Vous appelez la famille et vous lui demander si elle aimerait adopter le Labrador, ce qu’elle accepte avec joie. Lorsqu’elle arrive pour chercher le chien, elle est très reconnaissante et explique qu’elle ne réussissait à adopter un chien parce qu’aucun refuge ni association de sauvetage ne donnait un chien à une famille qui ne le gardait pas dans la maison. Ils s’étaient résignés à acheter un chien auprès d’un éleveur. Le chien de cette famille avait librement accès à un garage chauffé doté d’un lit chauffant. Vous soignez les animaux de compagnie et le bétail de cette famille depuis plus d’une décennie et vous trouvez que ce sont des propriétaires exceptionnellement compatissants et attentifs. Vous ne pouvez pas croire qu’un refuge refuserait un chien à cet excellent foyer. Vous contactez quelques refuges pour vous informer de leurs politiques d’adoption et vous constatez qu’ils offrent seulement des chiens aux personnes qui les gardent dans la maison. Il y avait aussi une longue liste de restrictions dont certaines vous semblaient déraisonnables. En va-t-il du meilleur intérêt des animaux de compagnie que les refuges imposent de telles exigences restrictives pour les adoptions?
An ethicist’s commentary on shelter reluctant to adopt Let me begin with a caveat: the vast majority of people working in animal shelters do not fit the description I am about to present. Most are dedicated, selfless people who take it upon themselves to rectify grievous social wrong. But in too many cases over the past 40 years, I have encountered an insufferable sanctimonious attitude on the part of a small number of those who have taken upon themselves the very real burden of dealing with the societal problem of unwanted animals needing to be homed. According to this attitude, no home is good enough for the animals for whom they have assumed responsibility. In one case, there was a prominent veterinary oncologist employed at the Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences who was attempting to acquire a dog from a shelter as a family pet. He worked very long hours on numerous cancer patients for whom he effected unprecedented cures. After repeated home visits, the shelter refused to place an animal with him, since “he was not home enough.” I could not imagine a better owner with a nicer family! I have encountered the same story in far too many shelters — the self-appointed guardians of animal welfare seem to believe that the animal is better off dead than placed in what they deem 652
to be a less than perfect home! In stark contrast to this inexplicable attitude, my close veterinarian friend Brian Forsgren, who has spent decades unselfishly serving a ghetto community by providing affordable veterinary care, has repeatedly stressed, both in narratives and in his photographs, that these pets may belong to people whose clothes are in tatters, but whose animals are immaculate, well fed, and well cared for. As Brian tellingly puts it, who would be willing to say that a companion animal means more to a rich person than to a poor one. Besides having to answer a battery of questions paralleling what one might be required to answer for adopting a child, a shelter sometimes consider an animal “unadoptable” for indefensible reasons. Foremost among these reasons are spurious “behavior tests” administered by self-appointed “behavior experts.” Failing these tests may amount to a death sentence for the animal. In one horrifying case I witnessed, a dog was moved from his kennel into a common area, growled at another male dog, and was euthanized for being “overly aggressive.” In 1978, I gave my first public speech on these issues. I argued that too many shelters protect the public from the ugly truth of their behavior, rather than the animals. In attendance was Richard Avenzino, who had just taken over running the CVJ / VOL 56 / JULY 2015
CVJ / VOL 56 / JULY 2015
are situations such as isolated and well-fenced rural properties where these dogs could live a good life while serving to protect people and property. Obviously such cases require a modicum of common sense. No one should adopt an aggressive dog to a house regularly populated by small children, just as such a home should not keep pistols and long guns, which are an “attractive nuisance,” in plain view or otherwise accessible to prying children. Yet if managed appropriately these dogs can live well in a loving home while at the same time earning their keep. No one should choose death for another creature for anything but the utmost compelling reasons, such as amelioration of intractable suffering.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
653
V E T E R I N A RY M E D I CA L E T H I C S
San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). He came up to me after my talk, shook my hand and told me he had resolved not to let animals die under his aegis. He served a wealthy and morally responsible community, and soon cut the euthanasia rate drastically. Shortly thereafter, he was tapped to head the Maddie Fund, a billion-dollar bequest devoted to end the killing of healthy animals. He recently retired, leaving an unparalleled legacy of animals saved from euthanasia. It is worth remembering that “the perfect home” is a mythic construct by which real homes should not be judged. Such ridiculous criteria, as are described in the current case, are a travesty. No one with an ounce of sensitivity would affirm that a dog is better off dead than living in a home with access to a heated garage. Almost no one adopts aggressive dogs, yet there
