Animal Rights and Pet Guardianship: A Threat to Veterinary Medicine
ANIMAL RIGHTS
The push for Animal Rights by such extreme organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of my greatest concerns for veterinary medicine’s future. A common misunderstanding circulating publicly is animal rights are designed merely for the protection of animals from cruelty and neglect. These are, of course, admirable aspirations. Alarming ideas emerge among PETA’s relatively reasonable mission statement, pro population control position, and pictures of abused pit bulls. The agenda is much larger. They believe no animal should be involved in the food, fiber, labor, or research arena. Animal rights activists place animal life equivalent to human life. From PETA’s website: “Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable.” In addition, extreme animal rights activists believe imposing pet status on our domestic friends is a violation of their rights.
No meat, no wool, no service animals, crippled medical research. These add up to a weakened economy, revoked freedom of handicapped people, and stunted medical research for many animal models of disease resulting in continued loss of human quality and quantity of life. Let’s get it straight: I hate animal suffering. I hate seeing livestock mistreated. I eagerly await better computer simulated models for medical research. However, I also hate human suffering. And if I had to choose between the two, I always have to side with human life. Rational people would save mom from a burning building before Fluffy.
NOTE: PETA does not condemn pet ownership.
GUARDIANSHIP
More concerning still, animal rights activists (the ones who don’t completely abhor pet status) seek to elevate pet owners to pet guardians. On the surface, the idea of gaurdianship seems like a step in the right direction in imposing harsher penalties on animal abusers. However, guardianship would place animals at the same LEGAL status as a child.
Hypothetical headache: Fluffy is dying from congestive heart failure. She’s now developed kidney failure. She’s on every medication possible for the treatment of her diseases but her condition is worsening. She arrives at the vet in severe respiratory distress because her lungs have filled with fluid. The normal treatment of diuretics won’t work because Fluffy has compromised kidney function. Present day common sense says this is a time to euthanize Fluffy. With gaurdianship, euthanasia is no longer an option. You can’t euthanize a child; You can’t euthanize a pet.
Worsening the hypothetical headache: Now let’s say there is a legal loophole in the definition of gaurdianship allowing for euthanasia. Who gets to make a decision? The guardian wants to keep trying to treat Fluffy but the veterinarian believes continuing treatment will result in unnecessary suffering. The guardian now faces accusations of cruelty. As with children, a third party animal services agency becomes involved to determine what course of action is in the best interest in the animal. Fluffy drowns in pulmonary edema during mediation.
ANIMAL WELFARE
The idea of animal welfare instead of animal rights provides a middle ground for responsible use and care of animals. The AVMA states, “Animal welfare is the ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well-being. Animal well-being is the condition in which animals experience good health, are able to effectively cope with their environment, and are able to express a diversity of species-typical behaviors. Protecting an animal’s welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.” Check out the rest of AVMA‘s definition and stance.
Very good blog entry Dr.Koehl, I look foward to more in the future!
1This is a great blog!! Keep it up. You have summed everything up very well.
2Thanks Jennifer. If you have a topic of particular interest please let me know!
3How do you feel about the treatment of animals in research/food production? I don’t have so much of a problem with the idea of meat as I do with the idea that the animals being raised for meat aren’t given a chance to live comfortably, are taken to slaughter under appallingly crowded conditions, and aren’t always stunned effectively prior to the slaughter. Classmates who have gone onto dental/medical school where they have used animals in some of the labs have lamented how the animals weren’t given appropriate pain medications after procedures (and sometimes during). I consider myself a reasonable person and get on well with people, but at the same time I have a very difficult time with the idea that becuase they serve a human function, we can justify using them in any which way. If animals in research help medicine, why can we not use them in the most sensitive manner possible, at least providing the same pain medication after a procedure as we would for ourselves. Is there any way that people can campaign for a middle ground, where you might still be using animals for research but not without adequate concern for pain management/comfort/etc? The animal welfare laws that dictate the care of lab animals seems to be more of a formality than anything. Do you see there being any reasonable progress on this front?
4I think there is variability in the treatment of lab animals. Many institutions do take good care of the animals (ie, good husbandry, pain relief, humane euthanasia). Every research institution should adhere to their Institutional Animal Use and Care Committee standards (IACUC) which outline the procedures and protocols on research on lab animals. Most laboratories, and at least the responsible ones, will use the “least offensive” type of research model the particular study will allow. Policies typically require a lesser animal be used whenever feasible, which really means if the study can be done with fruit flies, don’t use a macaque.
I do think any laboratory animal subjected to painful procedures be given pain medications so long as the study won’t be skewed by it. The sad fact is animal models are much more accepted than human ones. I remind you of all the human drug recalls in the past 10 years that have ambulance chasers drooling. Those folks are upset that redundant randomized blinded trials weren’t completed and that they were “guinea pigs”. When it comes to human health, most people would rather see a mouse model of juvenile cancer than a human one.
5Thanks for the response. I understand what you mean, and I am not naive enough to think that society as a whole woudl be AS concerned about the treatment of animals or their use in trials as they would with humans. You do mention the IACUC standards. Do you feel as though these are sufficient? What independent (very amateur) research I have done lead me to beleive that there really isn’t any kind of real, enforceable standards. It seemed to me like there was too much opportunity for people to justify lax behaviour. Also, how well are even these lax standards enforced? I know that theoretically we might have all these things in place and responsible labs should follow them, but do they truly? And what happens when they don’t?
Sorry to plague you with questions, but I am thrilled to have found your blog, and even more thrilled that you actually respond to the postings on it and I’m trying to make the most of it. I don’t remember exactly when/where I had read this, but I had read that rodents and possibly birds were not considered “animals” in terms of welfare standards and laws. Is this the case?
How far are we from the prospect of lab animals being given playtime or some other enrichment activities, even if the tests/procedures do still have to continue? Is this being done in certain places? Do you think it’s possible that there’s a trend towards this becoming more likely across the board?
I know it might not be likely to eliminate their use at this point, but I would like to think that it’s reasonable to hope that the average concerned person would some day be satisfied that at least they are treated as well as they can given the circumstances and no expense is spared in keeping them comfortable. From my experience with the pharmaceutical industry, I know better than to trust them to initiate this. I am hoping that there are others involved that can push for it.
Thank you.
6I’m not lab animal vet and learned very little about policy in vet school so I can’t be a terribly accurate source. To the best of my knowledge, IACUC standards are created by each individual institution. The standards are written by a panel of researchers, PhDs/MDs/DVMs, and administrators. As far as who enforces them, that’s a good question. The committee is supposed to enforce them, but I’m not aware of other independent or government run agencies that inspect animal laboratories to make sure animals are being treated humanely. The people who physically perform the research (read: inject/poke/measure/euthanize) are typically well-educated, and based on what I know from a veterinary technician who used to work at Pfizer, they do their jobs well. Corners are typically cut by lay people without the education to what the standard of care should be.
I’m not sure the big name companies and institutions are actually treating their research subjects as poorly as you imply. It would be financial suicide for any of these corporations to break IACUC protocol. Loose lips sink ships and any disgruntled employee could blow the whistle. The media is all over these types of stories and would harp a company into bankruptcy. I’m not naive enough to think all labs treat their research subjects humanely, but I do believe we are making strides in promoting more humane treatment of lab animals. I think we just need to look at where we were 25 years ago and see the progression.
Primates, at least at the Wistar Institute at UPenn, are provided environmental enrichment. These policies are more than likely in place at other institutions but I am not well versed.
I understand utopian ideals and emotion are not enough to spur folks to do what’s right when what’s right costs more money and time. I don’t trust the government’s ability to enforce any sort of welfare standards unless a veterinarian led lab animal-specific action group was formed (much like the veterinarians who work for the USDA).
“Is there any way that people can campaign for a middle ground, where you might still be using animals for research but not without adequate concern for pain management/comfort/etc?” Yes! You can start a campaign! Check out AVMA political internships in Washington, DC.
7Thanks again for the response and info. I’m hoping the cases I know of are one-off and not indicative of the industry standard (in terms of research animals). On a side note, do you know anything about the conditions of the calves for veal? From what I do know it sounds absolutely dreadful, but I am hoping that it’s not as bad as what is publicized. If it is, even having a vet run the USDA isn’t necessarily enough.
8