Vet P.O.V. Animal rights vs. animal welfare in the veterinary world

February 7th, 2008  

Add Comment23 Comments

Well, when the Animal Right folks wanted to kill that cute little polar bear in Germany it pretty much set me against them, in spite of how many naked celebrities PETA gets to pose in fur ads.

It seems almost obvious to me that animal rights / welfare should be in the hands of people who know the most about the animals -- i.e. vets.

Hopefully the HSVMA can acquire as much publicity as as PETA. Again I suggest naked celebrities. Might as well go with the tried and true approach.

Larry February 7th, 2008 12:58:00 PM

Larry - Basing your opinion on a group of people or an ideology by what just one person/group does or says is idiotic.

We vegans/animal rights activists don't all agree with one another and have huge meetings to decide our stances. For example, I'm not too fond of PETA. Anyway, the main idea behind animal rights is preventing unnecessary suffering. Let's not lose sight of the issue. Also, I couldn't disagree more that the issue of animal rights should be in the hands of vets alone. Why? They are motivated by profit. What's my motivation? I seek only to prevent unnecessary killing.

Billy February 7th, 2008 01:33:00 PM

> Larry - Basing your opinion on a group of people or an ideology by what just one
> person/group does or says is idiotic.

Well, Billy, you're just plain mean. Unless you're a goat, then I can understand your vitriol.

I don't think most vets are purely, or even remotely, motivated by profit. You ever met a vet? Their clothes are shabby as hell.

Everyone I have ever met that has wanted to be a vet did so because they loved animals. OK, a few may have been but by the greed along the way. . .but I think most still love animals and know a hell of a lot more about them than the average animal rights group member.

One can argue animal right folks are purely motivated by altruism (although I think you just go to the meetings to pick up chicks) , but motivations do not equal actions.

The best motivations can lead to purely stupid actions by the uninformed. (eh tu PETA).

Larry February 7th, 2008 01:52:00 PM

I understand what Billy is saying with regard to disagreement among "animal rights activists." I'm certain they don't all think alike. But the more rational, moderate people in the field may wish to chose another descriptive phrase (I like "welfare"), as PETA has effectively claimed the "rights" turf (in the eyes of the public). I'm not saying I entirely agree with that concept, just that it is so. Most non-PETA people I've had any conversation with on the topic wouldn't have anything to do with them (myself included, based on the frankly bizarre things I've heard from the few PETA members I've spoken with on the topic of humans and animals; most of them seem to despise animals, and humans only slightly less so). They are fundamentalists, and as such, I don't want them in charge of anything about my life or the animals I care for.

Judy February 7th, 2008 01:57:00 PM

Billy, I see your point. I will not judge vegans/animal rights activists by your words here.

As a vet student, I feel out of place in my views - I don't want to align myself with the 3 animal rights activists in my class, but I disagree with everyone else on many issues, e.g. declawing cats. I feel like the extremist in many conversations until I hear the actual extremists talk, and I don't feel that anyone adequately represents my views. Actually, after applying for a Morris Animal Foundation grant and reading their animal use guidelines, I feel like their views are most in line with mine, but they are a think tank and not an advocacy group. Perhaps they should expand.

Julia February 7th, 2008 05:39:00 PM

Julia: There is a middle ground. Perhaps it doesn't include declaw bans right now (a position most vets still don't support) but it does include a lot of the welfare issues the AVMA currently ignores (primarily animal agriculture related). It seems you support my view that there are very few animal rightists among us--and that you tend to dislike their stance. But would you consider joining the HSVMA?

Dr. Patty Khuly February 7th, 2008 06:34:00 PM

I am an animal rights activists, but definitely do NOT agree with all of PeTA's views (especially their pit bull and feral cat views) and some other animal rights activists' views. We can't all be lumped into one group, and we all don't agree on everything, like Billy said.

Pam Holt, RVT February 7th, 2008 08:31:00 PM

So they did this poll, but what are the 78.1% doing to actively educate people on better, more humane treatment of animals or did they simply respond to the poll?

Obviously you can't answer that, but I'd be curious to know how many actually act upon getting things changed versus those that just talk about it. Doing and just saying that they are for something is like comparing a elephant to a parakeet IMO.

Stacy February 8th, 2008 11:25:00 AM

Well, for a start most probably have positive effects on the welfare of actual specific animals every day?

emily February 8th, 2008 02:48:00 PM

I am once again troubled by the way the phrase animal rights is being used.

Am I for animal rights? I don't know. Rights are a legal concept. But I suppose I am inclined to think that animals SHOULD have some legal rights.

I urge everyone to read a book called "Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights." This book is not a rant about vivisection or factory farming or anything else. It is a rational, reasoned and thought-provoking look at WHAT we think entitles a being to rights, and takes a look at intelligence and other qualities of various animals in the context of an assessment of whether they should have "rights" as well understand them. It's not the only angle to look at this issue from, but it definitely provokes thought.

I don't like this constant distinction here between "animal welfare" and "animal rightISTS" and the promoting of the demonization of "animal rights" as a concept. I think that "animal rights" movement has been painted with one broad brushstroke, as though everyone who considers themselves in favor of animal rights is throwing bombs at labs. And that's not true.

And -- if your veterinary school is still practicing unnecessary terminal surgeries on animals as a "teaching tool" maybe it SHOULD be protested. Actually, it SHOULD be protested.

I am not saying I'm against all animal experimentation, but I am certainly for a reduction to the lowest amount necessary and being done in the most humane manner possible, and that is not the case today in spite of decades of awareness-raising on this issue.

Does that make me an "animal rightIST?"

And YES, I am against the AETA vehemently. NO ONE should destroy property or harm individuals in their protests -- this goes without saying -- but we already have laws against that kind of criminal behavior. It is unconstitutional to create "super" penalties based on the issues one is advocating for. That law will be struck down sooner or later as utterly unconstitutional. Support for it was yet another low for AVMA.

Stefani February 9th, 2008 12:25:00 AM

I believe animal rights and animal welfare as concepts are easily confused and certainly overlap. In my view, however, they are concepts distinguishable not by degree of radicalism and unlawful behavior, as the HSUS would have us believe, but by how each philosophy views the moral differences between humans and animals. I believe that animals do deserve some rights and protection under the law. But that does not make me an advocate of the "animal rights" movement any more than being a Democrat makes anyone more likely to believe in democracy than a Republican. The animal rights movement in the US distinguishes itself by putting animals morally on par with humans, much as children would be viewed under the law. Ultimately, there is no place for animal use (viewed essentially as slavery) under any circumstances if you take the philosophy to its natural conclusion. While I may agree with PeTA and HSUS on many issues, the movement as a whole trends towards an end game I can't abide. I believe that keeping my eye on the big picture is important when I choose to align myself with any group, regardless of their stance on issues I may believe they do good work on.

Dr. Patty Khuly February 9th, 2008 08:37:00 AM

I found this interesting editorial about the AVMA's positions here: http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000531

If this website is to be believed, SHARK - an anti-rodeo organization -- is a good example of how the "mainstream" anti-animal industries tell total lies about these kinds of advocacy organizations in order to demonize them. According to this website, they condemn violence of every kind, yet when they went to demonstrate along the route of the Olympic torch, the FBI was called in and passed on false reports that this group was making bomb threats, which they were not doing according to this. See http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000514.

Arguments against animal "rightists" and demonization of those affiliated with that term are very often used to simply stifle and criminalize animal advocacy speech and activities -- including animal welfare advocacy when those interests threaten somebody's profits or threaten to expose cruel practices. When they can't succeed through a court of law in stifling that speech, they do what they have apparently been so successful at -- conducting a smear campaign against the speakers so that they lose all credibility and no one will listen to them. The easiest way to do that in our post 9-11 world is to irresponsibly and falsely label someone a "terrorist." The word terrorist has lost all real meaning, and instead of successfully fighting and containing the true terrorists who want to bomb US cities, we've turned this term in on our own people, using it as a convenient and emotionally exploitative tool to intimidate and stifle any speech that threatens the interests or comfort level of any organized entity with political power and monied interest -- including and oddly most especially -- "animal industries." That is very unpatriotic.

Stefani February 9th, 2008 10:16:00 AM

Stefani: I, too am anti-AETA. And I'm against blanket condemnation of groups that take what's commonly regarded to be an animal rights position. According to many, I'm an animal rights activist. In fact, the AETA law could theoretically be used against me for my condemnation of pet shops in my county. Walking into pet shops and discouraging sales based on my assessment of the animals' health? Ditto that. According to this law I'm a terrorist animal rights activist. Imagine!

Dr. Patty Khuly February 11th, 2008 08:48:00 AM

Even as a person largely not abolitionist (although I would be happy to abolish many specific animal uses that are currently legal) I see animal rights groups as having an important role in our overall society. Groups and people with this perspective can apply kinds of pressure that more centrist groups can't without 'losing their seat at the table'. We need both hard-line principle- and softer consensus-driven approaches. I would say it is probably good to have more of the latter, especially from professions like vets. But then when stalemate and inertia take over sometimes it takes a dose of something stronger to make some progress.

emily February 11th, 2008 02:41:00 PM

Amen, Stefani. Amen, as well, Emily. You are absolutely right. A movement for animals needs moderates and radicals: the radicals push the agenda, radicalizing moderates by appreciable degrees, while the moderates, in comparison to radicals, come to be seen as more acceptable, even as their agendas do become more progressive. Without radicals, HSUS wouldn't be able to move into areas like factory farming and still see a gain in support in mainstream America. 20 years ago, HSUS daring to discuss factory farming would've provoked enmity among fans of "domesticated" (pet) animals.

It pains me to read this post of yours, Dr. Khuly, as I generally want to show "Yay!" and stand up and clap when I read your posts. You are absolutely right when you characterize the distinction between rightists and welfarists as one that centers on, well, rights. Which is curious, because, if you believe that a focus on rights for animals is the primary distinction between the two groups, and if you think animals should have some rights, then you fall more on the rights end of the spectrum than on the welfarist end. And "spectrum" is the right word: there aren't really two groups ("rightists" and "welfarists" with all the heterogeneity that implies) any more than there are two groups of religious people (religious and non-religious). There are people who believe in God but in a personal way, there are people who subscribe to animistic spiritualisms--are the former "religious" but the latter not? It is a spectrum.

You also characterize the distinction as a moral one: you argue that there is a "moral difference" between humans and non-human animals. What does that mean, though? That humans are morally superior to non-human animals? Morality is a human construct, so, um, yeah, I guess humans are then going to be morally superior. But do you want to base your assessment of the issues on a speciesist view? How can you make objective opinions on the issues when you begin always already with an investment in "man as the measure of all things"? (Montaigne: "For why should a gosling not say thus: 'All parts of the universe have me in view: the earth serves for me to walk on, the sun to give me light, the stars to breathe their influence into me'.")

Rights are "natural" rights: they inhere in individuals by the simple fact that those individuals exist. To measure rights according to some arbitrary unit like intelligence or morality is to see issues of human rights suddenly move into uncomfortable terrain: murderers become worthy of medical (and, why not, cosmetic) experimentation by virtue of their moral shortcomings, people in vegetative states become good candidates for vivisection.

Aimee February 12th, 2008 01:21:00 PM

Aimee: Don't worry too much about me. With arguments like yours I may yet find my way. ;-)

Dr. Patty Khuly February 13th, 2008 08:45:00 AM

Like Julia, I'm a veterinary student who is interested in animal welfare and has been having trouble finding a national group whose goals I support. (There is a student group at my school that has been great.)

Looking at HSVMA, I'm worried about some of their stances. They seem to take an unnuanced approach to issues. "Slaughtering horses for food is bad and the AVMA supports it." My understanding is that the AVMA actually says that allowing horses to be slaughtered locally is preferable to their being shipped out of America to be slaughtered (where we can't regulate slaughterhouse conditions.) I'd like to see a third approach, one that attacks the problem at its base (why are there unwanted horses that people are trying to dispose of?) rather than arguing about how to legislate slaughter.

I'll watch the HSVMA to see what it ends up actually doing, but I'd really like to see a group out there that is looking at what the societal pressures are that lead to factory farming, and trying to figure out how to change America's demand for cheap meat rather than trying to introduce more legislation which is nearly impossible to enforce.

Companion animals are a whole separate issue which Nathan Winograd seems to be bringing HSUS around on.

I'd love to talk to Julia directly but am a little hesitant to put my email address out here publicly.

Dr. Khuly, thanks for a great blog.

Jessica February 14th, 2008 11:18:00 AM

From my past conversations, I have to tread carefully with comment. I have misused terms of welfare, rights, and guardianship, not knowing or feeling those words have a defined 21st century meaning.

Since my experience with Pocket, here in New Hampshire, I have found myself up against various sort of issues and pre-conceived notions. For instance, serious "hunters & farmers" view companion animal legislation as one step closer to infringing on their beliefs. My comment to them (their are ethical guidelines in hunting & farming too) is that a well-placed bullet or a natural death would have been far kinder.Some of them view me as an animal rights activist.

To a select "few", I am not taking a "middle ground" on my experience. A few have reminded me of factory farming, slaughter of horses, the gamit. To them, I am an animal rights or welfare activist. Gosh, I don't know how taking a companion animal to a bonafide licensed veterinarian and clinic, could even compare to taking her to a "slaughterhouse"---but it has been said to me.

All I can state from personal experience, that a living animal deliberately made to suffer and provided a murderous and cruel end of life, has no place in this world. It is only a fraction away from human cruelty, and in this regard, I can attest to that also.

For Jessica & all the students of the profession, whether techs, assistants. Is there any justifiable reason to have this situation happen?

And as far as membership in the AVMA, most clubs or associations "expel" members not adhering to guidelines and code of ethics.....and this is by no means a "legal" issue. Why doesn't that happen more often?

search "Pocket's Story from NH" or click on my name for background details---for these comments

Barbara A. Albright February 15th, 2008 08:41:00 PM

please i need help if any one out there can . my animals well dogs and puppies were takin from my home because they have mange witch i was treating and the puppies were getting alot better but the local animal enforcement came into my home and arressted me and impounded my babies !!!! are there such laws for you to treat your animal with out chemicals that the vets want to use us as humans have the right to natral tretment so do our animals?????? PLEASE HELP OR OPIONS FOR HELP PLEASE I LOVE MY DOGS AS MY CHILDREN AND WE ARE KNOW SEPERATED !!!!!!
THANK YOU

Michelle Wright April 8th, 2008 11:51:00 AM

i LOVE animals they r myt comfort zone!!

josette November 19th, 2008 02:34:23 PM

we have an ozbourne family between 2 familyz. my dogss names r ozzy and sharon and josettes 1 dog is named jack!! how hilarious and her cats name is kelley!!! he he he

Ozzy M. November 19th, 2008 02:37:00 PM

so ya u shuld sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo totally comment us bout our absulutely postively AMAZING OZBOURNE FAMILY!!!! THANK U FOR ALL OF U THT R HOPEFULLY GOING TO!!! IM SOOO POSITIVE! :D

josette l. December 1st, 2008 02:17:33 PM

the thing is we are people that want to protect unecessary cruelty to animals, i have to agree that vets are mostly in it for love of animals with the moderate few that may think they will earn more than what they think. however if everyone put their differences aside and realised that the most important thing here is these suffering animals then a lot more action will be taking place.

Lucy March 5th, 2010 03:49:07 PM

Add Commment

Your Name:

CAPTCHA Verification