Letters to the Editor Courrier des lecteurs The legal aspects of cosmetic surgery – A comment Dear Editor, In Bernard Rollin’s May 2013 Veterinary Medical Ethics column in (CVJ 2013;54:430) he commented on breed or industry standards as not being an ethical excuse for tail docking and ear cropping. To date, the only defense veterinarians had against cruelty to animal charges being recommended against them for ear cropping and tail docking was that it was considered to be a generally accepted practice of veterinarians. However, position statements of the CVMA and College of Veterinarians of BC (CVBC) state that cosmetic surgery is no longer an acceptable practice and has no benefits to the animal. The Chief Prevention and Enforcement Officer for the BCSPCA and a senior crown counsel reviewed the cosmetic issue recently, including the CVBC position statement, and agreed with the proposition that a good argument could be made that a veterinarian who performed these types of surgeries was in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act) and that the “generally accepted” exception was no longer valid. As such, charges could be recommended against veterinarians performing cosmetic surgery in this province even though it is not yet banned by the CVBC.
Recent changes have also occurred in British Columbia based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, which requires that veterinarians must report to a BC SPCA constable if they suspect any distress of an animal. Given the above, not only could veterinarians who perform cosmetic surgery be placing themselves at risk of potential animal cruelty charges, but there is a duty on the part of veterinarians to report their colleagues if they suspect they have done it. The CVBC is making inroads into drafting of bylaws banning ear cropping and hopefully tail docking, but veterinarians who continue to perform cosmetic surgery should be aware that they may already be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am confident that cosmetic surgery will soon be a thing of the past in Canada for the reasons stated in Bernard Rollin’s column of “our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities.” Sincerely, Ken Langelier, OBC DVM Island Veterinary Hospital Nanaimo, British Columbia
Use of undercover cameras — A comment Dear Editor, I feel compelled to respond to Bernard Rollins’ comments (Can Vet J 2013;54:630–631) in his reply to the April 2013 ethical question of the month regarding the use of undercover camera, and more specifically his comment encouraging video footage of slaughter houses to be available to consumers. Although I agree that people should know where their food comes from, to reveal the graphic nature of an abattoir has the potential to cause a drastic repercussion in an already floundering beef industry. Revealing slaughter procedure would have had a significantly less “shock and awe” effect on people 50–100 years ago, when a lot more people were from rural areas and were well aware of where their food came from.
Cinematography has the ability to be educational rather than horrifying. Exposing urbanites to scenes on film meant to reveal the horror of an abattoir could be likened to teaching a population that has long forgotten how to swim by taking them out to the middle of a lake and pushing them in without so much as letting them get their feet wet beforehand. H.J. Rumney, BSc (Bio), BSc (Agr), DVM Midland, Ontario
Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful. CVJ / VOL 54 / OCTOBER 2013
913
Recent changes have also occurred in British Columbia based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, which requires that veterinarians must report to a BC SPCA constable if they suspect any distress of an animal. Given the above, not only could veterinarians who perform cosmetic surgery be placing themselves at risk of potential animal cruelty charges, but there is a duty on the part of veterinarians to report their colleagues if they suspect they have done it. The CVBC is making inroads into drafting of bylaws banning ear cropping and hopefully tail docking, but veterinarians who continue to perform cosmetic surgery should be aware that they may already be in violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. I am confident that cosmetic surgery will soon be a thing of the past in Canada for the reasons stated in Bernard Rollin’s column of “our ability to transcend historically sanctified absurdities.” Sincerely, Ken Langelier, OBC DVM Island Veterinary Hospital Nanaimo, British Columbia
Use of undercover cameras — A comment Dear Editor, I feel compelled to respond to Bernard Rollins’ comments (Can Vet J 2013;54:630–631) in his reply to the April 2013 ethical question of the month regarding the use of undercover camera, and more specifically his comment encouraging video footage of slaughter houses to be available to consumers. Although I agree that people should know where their food comes from, to reveal the graphic nature of an abattoir has the potential to cause a drastic repercussion in an already floundering beef industry. Revealing slaughter procedure would have had a significantly less “shock and awe” effect on people 50–100 years ago, when a lot more people were from rural areas and were well aware of where their food came from.
Cinematography has the ability to be educational rather than horrifying. Exposing urbanites to scenes on film meant to reveal the horror of an abattoir could be likened to teaching a population that has long forgotten how to swim by taking them out to the middle of a lake and pushing them in without so much as letting them get their feet wet beforehand. H.J. Rumney, BSc (Bio), BSc (Agr), DVM Midland, Ontario
Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful. CVJ / VOL 54 / OCTOBER 2013
913
