AR-News: recent letters in JAVMA

[AAVS]

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Recent Letters to
the Editor, January 1-15, 2004

(1/1/04) 

Thoughts on laboratory animal veterinarians

  I would like to comment on the excellent article by R. Scott Nolen in the
October 1, 2003 JAVMA (p 925
<http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct03/031001i.asp> ) on the supply of
laboratory animal veterinarians. I think Dr. Gaertner’s comments are
particularly astute and would like to expand on them. I made the transition
from private practitioner to laboratory animal veterinarian about 10 years
ago and can’t say enough good things about my career move. I feel I am
making an important difference in the welfare of the animals being used in
research. Laboratory animal medicine offers variety in job responsibilities
and species handled and allows me to work with cutting-edge science. The
work environment is very positive because my field focuses on preventative
medicine. If I’m doing my job, my animals stay healthy. The profession is
progressive and ethical and offers something for just about any interest in
medicine. Perhaps most important is that in laboratory animal medicine, the
veterinarian, not the animal owner, has the primary role in making welfare
decisions for animals.

  Despite this very positive experience, I have found it difficult to
communicate this impression of my career to other people. One well-meaning
person reacted with disappointment when I excitedly told her of being
accepted into a residency program. Members of the public are ambivalent
about the issue, showing concern at the idea of using dogs or monkeys for
studies but not for use of rats or mice. Fellow veterinarians often have the
most difficult time understanding the attraction to the laboratory animal
profession. Some do not understand the need for animals used for models or
the many ways in which animals used for models of human disease can be
managed humanely. Some do not believe the job could be interesting, not
understanding that the scope of a laboratory animal veterinarian’s job
extends far beyond individual animal care. We contribute not just to an
individual animal’s well-being and the well-being of an animal colony, but
also to human and animal welfare in general. I don’t expect that laboratory
animal medicine will suit every veterinarian’s needs, just like private
practice did not suit my needs. However, I believe any veterinarian who has
chosen to dedicate his or her life to overseeing research animal welfare and
provide high quality research models to the scientific community can
anticipate a challenging and rewarding career. They should hold their heads
up with pride at the professional choice they have made.


Dale M. Cooper, DVM, MS, DACLAM

Greenfield, Ind 

(1/15/04) 

Opinion on AVMA’s animal welfare efforts

  I have been reading the ongoing debate in JAVMA among veterinarians and
nonveterinary animal advocates (some referred to as animal welfare or animal
rights activists) on the AVMA’s positions on the treatment of farmed animals
(eg, forced molting of laying hens and sow gestation stalls), laboratory
animals (housing and experimental treatments), and the acceptance of certain
treatments of companion animals (tail docking and ear cropping), all while I
continue to read about the importance of the human-animal bond in articles
and advertisements in our journals.

  It seems some of our fellow veterinarians, veterinary associations, and
industry feel it is important to promote and embrace animal welfare as long
as it increases our client’s compliance with treatment recommendations that
then result in helping our businesses maintain and grow. However, when these
same clients see the bigger picture of how all animals deserve to live a
life free of suffering and act on their compassion by supporting animal
advocacy groups or protesting themselves, they are chastised by AVMA members
for their actions. 

  It is time the veterinary community started paying attention to the
hypocrisy of saying we care for the health and well-being of animals while
allowing our associations to continue to protect inhumane and antiquated
practices of animal husbandry. Believe me, the general public is seeing it.
I hear them every day in practice and in my community. It is only a matter
of time before the media start to use this to reprimand us publicly. We are
running out of excuses for defending the industries that continue inhumane
treatment of animals for research and profit.

  I have many clients and friends who are involved in animal welfare both
locally and worldwide. They are intelligent, compassionate, giving people,
and I am honored to be associated with them. Among them are scientists,
veterinarians, social service providers, farmers, politicians, parents,
teachers, and people from all walks of life. They are neither misinformed
nor misguided. They understand the suffering of animals from a scientific,
social, and worldly view.

  If the AVMA wants to maintain its credibility in representing its members
to its membership and the public, then it must start to shift its policies
to reflect its dedication to animal welfare. The public is already starting
to see the AVMA as a politically conservative, animal-industry driven
organization. I have to admit, I am feeling that way myself and have
seriously questioned my own membership the past few years. I encourage other
veterinarians to speak out on these issues to our associations. Let them
represent us as a whole. The world is changing how it views nonhuman
animals, and we have the opportunity to change with it. It can only make the
public appreciate our profession even more.


Roberta L. Boyden, DVM

Eugene, Ore 



More confusion on precautionary principle

  It was with amusement and general agreement that I read Dr. Eric Gonder’s
comments (JAVMA, November 15, 2003, p 1416
<http://www.electronicipc.com/JournalEZ/mo/detail.cfm?code=04290022231001> )
concerning open-mindedness in veterinary medicine. Dr. Gonder pokes fun at
philosophers and politicians but does not address the reality that we as
veterinarians operate in a world larger than the science in which we were
trained. As special interest groups continue to vocalize their minority
views louder than the silent majority of commonly accepted practices,
veterinarians should take the lead in areas that impact the art, as well as
the science of, veterinary medicine.

  The art of veterinary medicine includes those ‘soft’ areas like animal
welfare. Animal welfare is a developing science, currently based more on
philosophic ideals than hard science.1 Conventional animal agriculture in
the United States developed from a traditional worldview that was more
widely held than within recent years. Now, minority views concerning food
animal production are being forced on an unsuspecting public because of
well-financed political activity at vulnerable leadership positions. If the
silent majority took the time and thought to express their opinion, and if
that opinion were disseminated as effectively as minority opinions, then
there might develop a more balanced view toward animal welfare than that
currently being pushed by special interest groups. It would be bold for all
voices on animal welfare to clearly express their philosophic foundations so
that we all could judge the validity of listening to them until we have the
science to silence the debates.


Philip A. Stayer, Sanderson
Farms Inc, DVM, MS, ACPV

Laurel, Miss 



  1.   Estevez I. Animal welfare in modern agriculture. In: Reynnells R, ed.
The science and ethics behind animal well-being assessment. One in a series
of educational programs presented by the Future Trends in Animal
Agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA, 2003;4–7.

Dr. Gonder responds:

  I agree with Dr. Stayer that we in food animal production must clearly
articulate our standards, our philosophy, and the results of changes in both
whenever possible, even if it takes time from our day jobs. For too many
years, those of us who produce food have been counseled to avoid discussing
these issues in the obviously vain hope that society would perceive the
environmental, social, and moral costs that would be imposed by philosophic
positions that effectively restrict choices in food availability. Whoever
would have believed that shipments of genetically modified grain given to a
country stricken by famine would be refused even though not a single case of
human harm related to that product has ever occurred? Who in good faith can
then look at the precautionary principle with other than a jaundiced eye?
And why is the precautionary principle never invoked to promote the status
quo in animal agriculture?

  People in food production have been slow to realize that we are a minority
now—something less than 2% of the population. We have to begin acting more
like a minority—educating, building coalitions, writing, and talking. In
some cases, the messages are straightforward—the environmental damage from
decreased agricultural efficiency must be carefully assessed; the number of
people affected by increased food prices must be carefully reviewed, and the
effects of actions promoted by those with limited understanding of (or
antipathy to) agriculture must be explained. Activism is essential.

  Since I attempt to be a voice on animal welfare, as Dr. Stayer suggests, I
should clarify my philosophic position. I don’t believe in abusing animals,
but realize that my standards may be different than others—I can accept
that. I do not believe a pig is a human is a rat. My family’s history in
agriculture reaches back beyond our ability to trace it. As such, I believe
we are stewards of our environment, but that we should use that environment
to promote human welfare rather than using (or abusing) humans to promote
the more abstract concept of environmental welfare. I have an inkling of
what a hungry human feels—I’m much less certain that I am morally advanced
enough to begin to dictate whether eggs at $2 per dozen are superior to eggs
at $1 per dozen or whether the hens producing the $2 eggs are happier. I am
also a firm believer that people should be permitted the widest variety of
choices possible. So there you have it—am I an ethical provider of wholesome
economical food or a mass murderer? Of course, to some it may depend on
whether I’m slaughtering poultry, digging turnips, or starving humans.


Eric Gonder, Goldsboro Milling Co,
DVM, PhD, DACPV

Goldsboro, NC


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/attachments/20040205/024f01b3/attachment.html