Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports AWF discussion forum
Animal hoarding: not just an animal welfare issue Opening the 2014 Animal Welfare Foundation discussion forum Tiffany Hemming, chairman of the charity’s trustees, noted that a high-quality cast of presenters had been assembled to cover a range of welfare issues. Topics included animal hoarding, improving animal welfare in veterinary practice, and a legal perspective on unnecessary suffering. Laura Honey reports WHEN does an animal shelter become a hoard? And why do people begin to hoard animals? These questions were addressed by Fiona McEwen, a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, who described how to spot signs that a shelter was becoming a hoard, as well as the psychological factors involved in animal hoarding. Introducing Dr McEwen to those attending the AWF Discussion Forum, which was held at One Great George Street in London on May 12, the session’s chair, John Blackwell, gave the following definition of animal hoarding: ‘The keeping of animals in multiple numbers, while failing to provide the minimal standards of care, and not recognising that failure to provide, and obsessively attempting to maintain or even increase those numbers’. There had not been much research on animal hoarding in the UK, said Dr McEwen, but the RSPCA was beginning to start monitoring cases, with the hope that a research effort would take off. Most of the current research had been done by the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) in the USA. Before 1981, there had been no formal recognition of the syndrome, but when the first paper appeared in the literature in 1981, looking at cases of animal hoarding in New York, it established that hoarding was not just an animal welfare issue, but that there was a psychological component that was important to consider also. Dr McEwen explained that it had been found that the prosecution of people who hoarded animals and the removal of animals in such cases only addressed the animal welfare component of the problem, and not the mental health component. ‘If that person ups and moves to a new area and starts collecting animals again, then you’ve not really solved that problem,’ she said. A stereotype of single, older women had generally been accepted as the character profile for animal hoarders, she continued. However, while there was some support for this in the literature, there had been reports of cases that did not fit that stereotype; for example, in people in ‘professional white coat jobs’. A preliminary classification system had been developed by HARC and animal
hoarders largely fell into three broad categories: ‘overwhelmed caregivers’ – people who had a very strong attachment to their animals and tended to see them as family members; ‘rescuer hoarders’ – people who saw it as their mission to go out and rescue animals, leading to a compulsion to acquire more animals; and ‘exploiter hoarders’ – people who tended to have sociopathic characteristics, meaning that they lacked empathy for other people and animals.
There were a number of factors associated with hoarding and they were often found to be associated with a childhood trauma and/or mental health disorders, said Dr McEwen. Early childhood experiences and adverse experiences seemed to present in the history of many hoarders. It had been found that it was important for young children to form a secure attachment to a primary caregiver; if this failed, they would form a relationship with a secondary
June 7, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 569
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Photographs: Charlotte Barnes
News & Reports
Fiona McEwen: prosecuting people who hoard animals addresses only the animal welfare aspects
attachment figure. ‘Pets can give predictable intimacy and security, without the fear of rejection that a child might get from a caregiver and so it has been speculated that an animal-child interaction often forms to replace human interactions,’ she explained. It had also been observed that hoarders often had emotional instability and that the human relationships that they formed were often inadequate at buffering life events characterised by emotional pain, loneliness and fear of abandonment. In contrast to this, animals provided unconditional love, acceptance and dependability, and this could lead to a compulsive, excessive caregiving to animals, which, in turn, led to a heightened sense of identity and self esteem.
As hoarding was a symptom of a mental health disorder, it was not sufficient to rely on removing animals or prosecution to solve the issue. A coordinated approach with other agencies and mental health services, together with continued monitoring, was needed to reduce recidivism, she said. Psychological and psychiatric assessment should form part of the process. Also, some hoarders might lack the mental capacity to make decisions, such as consenting to pet euthanasia, and it was important to recognise such cases so that an appropriate approach could be taken. Dr McEwen suggested that professionals working with animals should receive training in recognising human mental health disorders so that cases such as animal hoarding could be dealt with in the right way.
Pet wellbeing ‘MOTs’
‘The UK is a nation of pet lovers, which would lead us to believe that all aspects of our pets’ welfare needs are being met, but sadly evidence does suggest otherwise.’ So said Sarah Carr, head nurse for the community and education team at the PDSA, in another session at the forum. She explained that, in 2011, the first PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) report had been launched, with the aim of assessing and monitoring companion animal wellbeing at a population level and determining to what level the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was being adhered to. The report focused on the five welfare needs:
Sarah Carr: PDSA pet wellbeing ‘MOTs’ help to ensure that all aspects of an animal’s welfare are considered
the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to exhibit normal behaviour; the need to be housed with or without a companion; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Pet owners were surveyed on their knowledge of the five welfare needs in direct relation to their pet with the aim of reflecting animal wellbeing in the UK and to give guidance on what areas needed to be targeted. Worryingly, she said, the report had shown that pet owners were not sufficiently aware of the welfare needs of their pet, with only 45 per cent of owners saying that they felt familiar with the Animal Welfare Act. This decreased to 31 per cent when the survey was repeated
A legal perspective on unnecessary suffering ‘The term unnecessary suffering appears in a number of [pieces of] legislation around the world, and it is not necessarily the case that it means the same in every context or is applied in the same way in every context.’ So said Mike Radford (right), from the School of Law at the University of Aberdeen. In UK legislation, the term was used in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (England and Wales); the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Scotland); and the Animal Welfare Act 2011 (Northern Ireland). Under the legislation, unnecessary suffering had three components – suffering, necessity and a mental element. Suffering could be physical or mental, and it was up to a court to determine whether suffering had taken place, depending on the evidence that was presented. If the court established beyond any reasonable doubt that suffering had taken place, it then looked at the necessity of the suffering (that is, whether it could have been avoided and whether it was proportionate to the purpose). The court would then examine the mental element of the actions and ask whether a reasonable 570 | Veterinary Record | June 7, 2014
and sane person would have made the same judgement under the same circumstances. The offence of unnecessary suffering was similar in all three Animal Welfare Act jurisdictions, said Mr Radford, but he warned that the wording used in the English and Welsh and Northern Irish legislation could lead to confusion as it stated that ‘a person may be guilty of an offence if they cause a protected animal unnecessary suffering by an act or failure to act and they knew or ought reasonably
to have known that the act would cause the suffering or be likely to do so’. He suggested that this ‘failure to act’ clause implied that witnesses could be held accountable if they stood by and did nothing to help a protected animal. In response to this, Lord Trees asked Mr Radford if this meant that if a witness did not report an offence, or did not take action, they would be guilty of an offence themselves. Mr Radford replied that, to be found guilty, a person would have to be convicted by a court and somebody would have to bring a prosecution, which would be unlikely as there would be no evidence. He pointed out, however, that the Scottish legislation was clearer as it omitted the wording ‘failure to act’ and, therefore, a person would be guilty of causing unnecessary suffering only if they actually did something to positively cause that suffering. ‘The unnecessary suffering test is essential, but on its own it is not sufficient. Its shortcomings are that it is negative, it tells you what you must not do, but it doesn’t impose any positive duties,’ concluded Mr Radford.
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports in 2012 and rose slightly to 38 per cent in 2013, demonstrating that there was a real need for improvement. ‘A lack of education and awareness of the basic welfare needs of our pets means that many pet owners can be misguided with their affection towards their companion animals,’ said Ms Carr. During routine consultations with clients, veterinary professionals naturally gravitated towards focusing on pet health, even though this was only one of the five welfare needs, she continued. To help overcome this, the PDSA had developed a pet wellbeing ‘MOT’, to help its vets structure a 15-minute consultation to touch on all five of the welfare needs with owners and make sure that they were aware of all of them. The MOTs were offered to any animal, but were generally offered to those attending a clinic for first or second vaccinations, boosters, flea and worm checks or weight checks. They were also used in cases of rehomed or rescued animals, or pets new to the practice. ‘To help structure the consultation, we have an MOT sheet,’ Ms Carr explained. This was a prompt sheet of questions to ask a client to gain insight into the pet’s
welfare. Notes were made in a booklet that the owner could take away with them and a traffic light system was used to grade how well a particular welfare need was being met. Red indicated that action was required in the particular area; amber meant that there was room for improvement; while if the welfare need was scored green, it meant that the owner was doing a good job in that area. The booklet also provided guidance on how owners could improve their pet’s welfare if they received a red or amber score, and the client was given education leaflets to help with this. Pet wellbeing MOTs could be beneficial to owners as they provided clear and concise information on how they could improve their pet’s quality of life. A research project had found that 93 per cent of clients believed that the MOTs were useful in getting them to evaluate their pet’s quality of life and 97 per cent felt that it would actually help them to improve it. Practices could also benefit from them, as they helped to give effective and clear advice to clients on how they could improve their pet’s welfare, while at the same time building client trust and bonding them to the practice.
Improving pet wellbeing would continue to be a challenge until there was a deeper understanding of what pets needed to lead happy and healthy lives, said Ms Carr. ‘Our pet wellbeing MOTs are just one of the steps that we are taking in trying to improve animal welfare. One day, through initiatives like these, we hope to achieve our vision of a healthy life for all pets.’ Following Ms Carr’s presentation, Bradley Viner asked whether the PDSA had plans to release a template of the pet wellbeing MOT so that other practices could adapt it and implement it. Ms Carr said that there had been discussions about sharing a template with the rest of the veterinary profession; the template would not be heavily branded so that it could be easily adapted and tailored to the needs of each practice. n Video recordings of the presentations at the AWF Discussion Forum were made by the Webinar Vet and are freely available at www.youtube.com/user/BVAAWF and www.thewebinarvet.com/ doi: 10.1136/vr.g3687
June 7, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 571
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Animal hoarding: not just an animal welfare issue Veterinary Record 2014 174: 569-571
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3687 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/23/569
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports AWF discussion forum
Animal hoarding: not just an animal welfare issue Opening the 2014 Animal Welfare Foundation discussion forum Tiffany Hemming, chairman of the charity’s trustees, noted that a high-quality cast of presenters had been assembled to cover a range of welfare issues. Topics included animal hoarding, improving animal welfare in veterinary practice, and a legal perspective on unnecessary suffering. Laura Honey reports WHEN does an animal shelter become a hoard? And why do people begin to hoard animals? These questions were addressed by Fiona McEwen, a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, who described how to spot signs that a shelter was becoming a hoard, as well as the psychological factors involved in animal hoarding. Introducing Dr McEwen to those attending the AWF Discussion Forum, which was held at One Great George Street in London on May 12, the session’s chair, John Blackwell, gave the following definition of animal hoarding: ‘The keeping of animals in multiple numbers, while failing to provide the minimal standards of care, and not recognising that failure to provide, and obsessively attempting to maintain or even increase those numbers’. There had not been much research on animal hoarding in the UK, said Dr McEwen, but the RSPCA was beginning to start monitoring cases, with the hope that a research effort would take off. Most of the current research had been done by the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) in the USA. Before 1981, there had been no formal recognition of the syndrome, but when the first paper appeared in the literature in 1981, looking at cases of animal hoarding in New York, it established that hoarding was not just an animal welfare issue, but that there was a psychological component that was important to consider also. Dr McEwen explained that it had been found that the prosecution of people who hoarded animals and the removal of animals in such cases only addressed the animal welfare component of the problem, and not the mental health component. ‘If that person ups and moves to a new area and starts collecting animals again, then you’ve not really solved that problem,’ she said. A stereotype of single, older women had generally been accepted as the character profile for animal hoarders, she continued. However, while there was some support for this in the literature, there had been reports of cases that did not fit that stereotype; for example, in people in ‘professional white coat jobs’. A preliminary classification system had been developed by HARC and animal
hoarders largely fell into three broad categories: ‘overwhelmed caregivers’ – people who had a very strong attachment to their animals and tended to see them as family members; ‘rescuer hoarders’ – people who saw it as their mission to go out and rescue animals, leading to a compulsion to acquire more animals; and ‘exploiter hoarders’ – people who tended to have sociopathic characteristics, meaning that they lacked empathy for other people and animals.
There were a number of factors associated with hoarding and they were often found to be associated with a childhood trauma and/or mental health disorders, said Dr McEwen. Early childhood experiences and adverse experiences seemed to present in the history of many hoarders. It had been found that it was important for young children to form a secure attachment to a primary caregiver; if this failed, they would form a relationship with a secondary
June 7, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 569
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Photographs: Charlotte Barnes
News & Reports
Fiona McEwen: prosecuting people who hoard animals addresses only the animal welfare aspects
attachment figure. ‘Pets can give predictable intimacy and security, without the fear of rejection that a child might get from a caregiver and so it has been speculated that an animal-child interaction often forms to replace human interactions,’ she explained. It had also been observed that hoarders often had emotional instability and that the human relationships that they formed were often inadequate at buffering life events characterised by emotional pain, loneliness and fear of abandonment. In contrast to this, animals provided unconditional love, acceptance and dependability, and this could lead to a compulsive, excessive caregiving to animals, which, in turn, led to a heightened sense of identity and self esteem.
As hoarding was a symptom of a mental health disorder, it was not sufficient to rely on removing animals or prosecution to solve the issue. A coordinated approach with other agencies and mental health services, together with continued monitoring, was needed to reduce recidivism, she said. Psychological and psychiatric assessment should form part of the process. Also, some hoarders might lack the mental capacity to make decisions, such as consenting to pet euthanasia, and it was important to recognise such cases so that an appropriate approach could be taken. Dr McEwen suggested that professionals working with animals should receive training in recognising human mental health disorders so that cases such as animal hoarding could be dealt with in the right way.
Pet wellbeing ‘MOTs’
‘The UK is a nation of pet lovers, which would lead us to believe that all aspects of our pets’ welfare needs are being met, but sadly evidence does suggest otherwise.’ So said Sarah Carr, head nurse for the community and education team at the PDSA, in another session at the forum. She explained that, in 2011, the first PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) report had been launched, with the aim of assessing and monitoring companion animal wellbeing at a population level and determining to what level the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was being adhered to. The report focused on the five welfare needs:
Sarah Carr: PDSA pet wellbeing ‘MOTs’ help to ensure that all aspects of an animal’s welfare are considered
the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to exhibit normal behaviour; the need to be housed with or without a companion; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Pet owners were surveyed on their knowledge of the five welfare needs in direct relation to their pet with the aim of reflecting animal wellbeing in the UK and to give guidance on what areas needed to be targeted. Worryingly, she said, the report had shown that pet owners were not sufficiently aware of the welfare needs of their pet, with only 45 per cent of owners saying that they felt familiar with the Animal Welfare Act. This decreased to 31 per cent when the survey was repeated
A legal perspective on unnecessary suffering ‘The term unnecessary suffering appears in a number of [pieces of] legislation around the world, and it is not necessarily the case that it means the same in every context or is applied in the same way in every context.’ So said Mike Radford (right), from the School of Law at the University of Aberdeen. In UK legislation, the term was used in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (England and Wales); the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Scotland); and the Animal Welfare Act 2011 (Northern Ireland). Under the legislation, unnecessary suffering had three components – suffering, necessity and a mental element. Suffering could be physical or mental, and it was up to a court to determine whether suffering had taken place, depending on the evidence that was presented. If the court established beyond any reasonable doubt that suffering had taken place, it then looked at the necessity of the suffering (that is, whether it could have been avoided and whether it was proportionate to the purpose). The court would then examine the mental element of the actions and ask whether a reasonable 570 | Veterinary Record | June 7, 2014
and sane person would have made the same judgement under the same circumstances. The offence of unnecessary suffering was similar in all three Animal Welfare Act jurisdictions, said Mr Radford, but he warned that the wording used in the English and Welsh and Northern Irish legislation could lead to confusion as it stated that ‘a person may be guilty of an offence if they cause a protected animal unnecessary suffering by an act or failure to act and they knew or ought reasonably
to have known that the act would cause the suffering or be likely to do so’. He suggested that this ‘failure to act’ clause implied that witnesses could be held accountable if they stood by and did nothing to help a protected animal. In response to this, Lord Trees asked Mr Radford if this meant that if a witness did not report an offence, or did not take action, they would be guilty of an offence themselves. Mr Radford replied that, to be found guilty, a person would have to be convicted by a court and somebody would have to bring a prosecution, which would be unlikely as there would be no evidence. He pointed out, however, that the Scottish legislation was clearer as it omitted the wording ‘failure to act’ and, therefore, a person would be guilty of causing unnecessary suffering only if they actually did something to positively cause that suffering. ‘The unnecessary suffering test is essential, but on its own it is not sufficient. Its shortcomings are that it is negative, it tells you what you must not do, but it doesn’t impose any positive duties,’ concluded Mr Radford.
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports in 2012 and rose slightly to 38 per cent in 2013, demonstrating that there was a real need for improvement. ‘A lack of education and awareness of the basic welfare needs of our pets means that many pet owners can be misguided with their affection towards their companion animals,’ said Ms Carr. During routine consultations with clients, veterinary professionals naturally gravitated towards focusing on pet health, even though this was only one of the five welfare needs, she continued. To help overcome this, the PDSA had developed a pet wellbeing ‘MOT’, to help its vets structure a 15-minute consultation to touch on all five of the welfare needs with owners and make sure that they were aware of all of them. The MOTs were offered to any animal, but were generally offered to those attending a clinic for first or second vaccinations, boosters, flea and worm checks or weight checks. They were also used in cases of rehomed or rescued animals, or pets new to the practice. ‘To help structure the consultation, we have an MOT sheet,’ Ms Carr explained. This was a prompt sheet of questions to ask a client to gain insight into the pet’s
welfare. Notes were made in a booklet that the owner could take away with them and a traffic light system was used to grade how well a particular welfare need was being met. Red indicated that action was required in the particular area; amber meant that there was room for improvement; while if the welfare need was scored green, it meant that the owner was doing a good job in that area. The booklet also provided guidance on how owners could improve their pet’s welfare if they received a red or amber score, and the client was given education leaflets to help with this. Pet wellbeing MOTs could be beneficial to owners as they provided clear and concise information on how they could improve their pet’s quality of life. A research project had found that 93 per cent of clients believed that the MOTs were useful in getting them to evaluate their pet’s quality of life and 97 per cent felt that it would actually help them to improve it. Practices could also benefit from them, as they helped to give effective and clear advice to clients on how they could improve their pet’s welfare, while at the same time building client trust and bonding them to the practice.
Improving pet wellbeing would continue to be a challenge until there was a deeper understanding of what pets needed to lead happy and healthy lives, said Ms Carr. ‘Our pet wellbeing MOTs are just one of the steps that we are taking in trying to improve animal welfare. One day, through initiatives like these, we hope to achieve our vision of a healthy life for all pets.’ Following Ms Carr’s presentation, Bradley Viner asked whether the PDSA had plans to release a template of the pet wellbeing MOT so that other practices could adapt it and implement it. Ms Carr said that there had been discussions about sharing a template with the rest of the veterinary profession; the template would not be heavily branded so that it could be easily adapted and tailored to the needs of each practice. n Video recordings of the presentations at the AWF Discussion Forum were made by the Webinar Vet and are freely available at www.youtube.com/user/BVAAWF and www.thewebinarvet.com/ doi: 10.1136/vr.g3687
June 7, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 571
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on January 3, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Animal hoarding: not just an animal welfare issue Veterinary Record 2014 174: 569-571
doi: 10.1136/vr.g3687 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/23/569
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
