Veterinary Medical Ethics Déontologie vétérinaire Ethical question of the month — January 2016 The most fundamental requirements of adequate animal care include the provision of food and water. There is little sympathy for a livestock producer who does not provide feed and water for his or her animals. However federal livestock transportation regulations in Canada state that cattle may be transported for up to 52 hours without access to feed or water. Does the geographic size of the country and the limited number of slaughter plants justify this dichotomy between the acceptable standards of care expected from livestock producers and transporters?
Question de déontologie du mois — Janvier 2016 Les exigences les plus fondamentales des soins adéquats aux animaux incluent la fourniture des aliments et de l’eau. On éprouve peu de sympathie pour un éleveur de bétail qui ne fournit pas d’eau ni d’aliments à ses animaux. Cependant, les règlements fédéraux sur le transport du bétail au Canada stipulent que le bétail peut être transporté jusqu’à 52 heures sans avoir accès à des aliments ou à de l’eau. L’étendue géographique du pays et le nombre limité d’abattoirs justifient-ils cette dichotomie en matière de normes de soins acceptables que doivent respecter les éleveurs et les transporteurs de bétail? 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, 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 / JANUARY 2016
11
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 2015 Commercial fisheries and most aquaculture farms harvest fish by removing them from the water thus suffocating them. There appears to be little outrage regarding this practice by animal rights organizations. Some vegetarians switch to eating fish in place of more traditional meat sources believing it to be more humane. There is an increasing focus on monitoring humane slaughter practices for commercial livestock. Is there a rational or scientific basis for treating fish differently than mammals in this regard?
Question de déontologie du mois — Novembre 2015 Les pêcheries commerciales et la plupart des entreprises aquacoles procèdent à la récolte des poissons en les retirant de l’eau, ce qui les suffoque. Il semble y avoir peu d’indignation concernant cette pratique de la part des organismes de défense des droits des animaux. Pour remplacer les sources de viande traditionnelles, certains végétariens se tournent vers le poisson parce qu’ils croient que ces animaux sont traités de façon moins cruelle. En outre, on réclame une surveillance accrue des pratiques d’abattage sans cruauté pour le bétail commercial. Y a-t-il une justification rationnelle ou scientifique pour traiter les poissons différemment des mammifères à cet égard?
Treatment of fish — a comment Pure and simple: No. The issue is really no longer debatable. The overriding principle is that “the only legitimate boundary to our concern for the interests of other beings is the point at which it is no longer accurate to say that the other being has interests,” (1) in other words, is not capable of suffering. Fish have centrally organized nervous systems which are structurally and chemically comparable to those of mammals, and they demonstrate pain behavior and distress in similar ways, even if they cannot vocalize such. A considerable time ago an expert panel came to the unequivocal conclusion that the evidence for pain in fish is as strong as the evidence for pain in other vertebrate animals (2).
Intensive aquaculture practices can be even more harmful to the environment, to humans, and to fish than intensive agriculture practices involving mammals and birds. This is no more evident than in the sorry history of British Columbia’s salmon farms. But that is a topic for another day. John B. Delack, PhD, DVM, Saskatoon SK
References 1. Singer P. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. New York, New York: New York Review of Books, 1990:171. 2. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Report of the Panel of Enquiry into Shooting and Angling. London, UK: RSPCA, 1980: paragraphs 15–57.
An ethicist’s commentary on treatment of fish When my son was 6 years old, he expressed a desire to go fishing, as some of his friends did. Although I myself did not fish, I always raised him to make his own decisions. He went along with the group and, as luck would have it, he caught his limit within a half hour. Since he was happily excited throughout the entire activity, I assumed he had enjoyed himself, so I asked him if he wanted to go again. “No daddy, never again!” Surprised, I asked him why not. “Because I don’t think it is right to get pleasure from something else’s pain.” Thirty years later, he remains true to his dictum. A short while later, one of my colleagues, ironically an anatomist, was commenting on my efforts to alleviate pain and suffering in laboratory and farm animals. “Well,” he said, “At least I don’t have to worry about your going after fishing.” Attendant on those two incidents, I felt it obligatory to investigate the question of whether fish felt pain. I discovered that from an anatomical point-of-view, fish possessed the requisite neurological equipment entailed by feeling pain. Furthermore I learned that fish could be conditioned by the use of electric shock. And finally, I realized that the “exciting fight” a fish hooked by an angler provided to fishermen was very likely a result of pain and something resembling fear in higher animals, eventuating in the struggle to escape. Five years later, while preparing an anthology 12
on proper use of laboratory animals, I received a chapter on fish from well-known fish veterinarian Michael Stoskopf; eloquently arguing that fish felt pain. A moment’s reflection reveals that from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is every reason to believe that pain is a very successful mechanism to ensure survival. In 2010, researcher Victoria Braithwaite published a seminal book entitled “Do Fish Feel Pain?” a question she unequivocally answers in the affirmative. Since breathing is essential to survival, one can assume that the same sort of very horrific experience all vertebrates have when deprived of air is replicated in fish. To be sure, Braithwaite’s work is not universally accepted among scientists. But, from a moral point-of-view, it unequivocally militates in favor of giving fish the benefit of the doubt, if only from consideration of cost/benefit. If they do experience pain, fear, etc., death by suffocation is a major harm. The key point relevant to our question is that there are alternative ways to kill fish. Many fishermen carry a billy club that they use to kill fish as soon as the animal is landed. From the point-of-view of commercially farmed fish, there are a variety of other methods that could assure a humane death. Let the industry recall that concern for animal welfare can make or break a product as far as consumers are concerned — CVJ / VOL 57 / JANUARY 2016
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
witness the public opposition to eggs from battery cages, pork from facilities using sow stalls, and veal from anemic, tethered, isolated calves. There is a serious chance of major controversy regarding farmed fish if it becomes widely known that these animals die by suffocation. Such controversy can decimate an industry. More than 20 years ago, there was a sharp reduction in the sale of live lobsters in Britain, as consumers refused to
14
drop them in boiling water, believing that lobsters felt pain. The previous level of lobster purchase was more or less restored only when the industry developed stunners rendering the animals insensate, analogous to the way cattle are slaughtered.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 57 / JANUARY 2016
Question de déontologie du mois — Janvier 2016 Les exigences les plus fondamentales des soins adéquats aux animaux incluent la fourniture des aliments et de l’eau. On éprouve peu de sympathie pour un éleveur de bétail qui ne fournit pas d’eau ni d’aliments à ses animaux. Cependant, les règlements fédéraux sur le transport du bétail au Canada stipulent que le bétail peut être transporté jusqu’à 52 heures sans avoir accès à des aliments ou à de l’eau. L’étendue géographique du pays et le nombre limité d’abattoirs justifient-ils cette dichotomie en matière de normes de soins acceptables que doivent respecter les éleveurs et les transporteurs de bétail? 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, 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 / JANUARY 2016
11
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 2015 Commercial fisheries and most aquaculture farms harvest fish by removing them from the water thus suffocating them. There appears to be little outrage regarding this practice by animal rights organizations. Some vegetarians switch to eating fish in place of more traditional meat sources believing it to be more humane. There is an increasing focus on monitoring humane slaughter practices for commercial livestock. Is there a rational or scientific basis for treating fish differently than mammals in this regard?
Question de déontologie du mois — Novembre 2015 Les pêcheries commerciales et la plupart des entreprises aquacoles procèdent à la récolte des poissons en les retirant de l’eau, ce qui les suffoque. Il semble y avoir peu d’indignation concernant cette pratique de la part des organismes de défense des droits des animaux. Pour remplacer les sources de viande traditionnelles, certains végétariens se tournent vers le poisson parce qu’ils croient que ces animaux sont traités de façon moins cruelle. En outre, on réclame une surveillance accrue des pratiques d’abattage sans cruauté pour le bétail commercial. Y a-t-il une justification rationnelle ou scientifique pour traiter les poissons différemment des mammifères à cet égard?
Treatment of fish — a comment Pure and simple: No. The issue is really no longer debatable. The overriding principle is that “the only legitimate boundary to our concern for the interests of other beings is the point at which it is no longer accurate to say that the other being has interests,” (1) in other words, is not capable of suffering. Fish have centrally organized nervous systems which are structurally and chemically comparable to those of mammals, and they demonstrate pain behavior and distress in similar ways, even if they cannot vocalize such. A considerable time ago an expert panel came to the unequivocal conclusion that the evidence for pain in fish is as strong as the evidence for pain in other vertebrate animals (2).
Intensive aquaculture practices can be even more harmful to the environment, to humans, and to fish than intensive agriculture practices involving mammals and birds. This is no more evident than in the sorry history of British Columbia’s salmon farms. But that is a topic for another day. John B. Delack, PhD, DVM, Saskatoon SK
References 1. Singer P. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. New York, New York: New York Review of Books, 1990:171. 2. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Report of the Panel of Enquiry into Shooting and Angling. London, UK: RSPCA, 1980: paragraphs 15–57.
An ethicist’s commentary on treatment of fish When my son was 6 years old, he expressed a desire to go fishing, as some of his friends did. Although I myself did not fish, I always raised him to make his own decisions. He went along with the group and, as luck would have it, he caught his limit within a half hour. Since he was happily excited throughout the entire activity, I assumed he had enjoyed himself, so I asked him if he wanted to go again. “No daddy, never again!” Surprised, I asked him why not. “Because I don’t think it is right to get pleasure from something else’s pain.” Thirty years later, he remains true to his dictum. A short while later, one of my colleagues, ironically an anatomist, was commenting on my efforts to alleviate pain and suffering in laboratory and farm animals. “Well,” he said, “At least I don’t have to worry about your going after fishing.” Attendant on those two incidents, I felt it obligatory to investigate the question of whether fish felt pain. I discovered that from an anatomical point-of-view, fish possessed the requisite neurological equipment entailed by feeling pain. Furthermore I learned that fish could be conditioned by the use of electric shock. And finally, I realized that the “exciting fight” a fish hooked by an angler provided to fishermen was very likely a result of pain and something resembling fear in higher animals, eventuating in the struggle to escape. Five years later, while preparing an anthology 12
on proper use of laboratory animals, I received a chapter on fish from well-known fish veterinarian Michael Stoskopf; eloquently arguing that fish felt pain. A moment’s reflection reveals that from an evolutionary point-of-view, there is every reason to believe that pain is a very successful mechanism to ensure survival. In 2010, researcher Victoria Braithwaite published a seminal book entitled “Do Fish Feel Pain?” a question she unequivocally answers in the affirmative. Since breathing is essential to survival, one can assume that the same sort of very horrific experience all vertebrates have when deprived of air is replicated in fish. To be sure, Braithwaite’s work is not universally accepted among scientists. But, from a moral point-of-view, it unequivocally militates in favor of giving fish the benefit of the doubt, if only from consideration of cost/benefit. If they do experience pain, fear, etc., death by suffocation is a major harm. The key point relevant to our question is that there are alternative ways to kill fish. Many fishermen carry a billy club that they use to kill fish as soon as the animal is landed. From the point-of-view of commercially farmed fish, there are a variety of other methods that could assure a humane death. Let the industry recall that concern for animal welfare can make or break a product as far as consumers are concerned — CVJ / VOL 57 / JANUARY 2016
D É O N TO LO G I E V É T É R I N A I R E
witness the public opposition to eggs from battery cages, pork from facilities using sow stalls, and veal from anemic, tethered, isolated calves. There is a serious chance of major controversy regarding farmed fish if it becomes widely known that these animals die by suffocation. Such controversy can decimate an industry. More than 20 years ago, there was a sharp reduction in the sale of live lobsters in Britain, as consumers refused to
14
drop them in boiling water, believing that lobsters felt pain. The previous level of lobster purchase was more or less restored only when the industry developed stunners rendering the animals insensate, analogous to the way cattle are slaughtered.
Bernard E. Rollin, PhD
CVJ / VOL 57 / JANUARY 2016
