 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
INTRODUCTION H&A RELATIONSHIP RECONSIDERED ARTICLES, PAPERS & PUBLICATIONS PHOTO GALLERY CURRICULUM VITAE SITE MAP |
Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship and Veterinary Practice Joanna Swabe
Introduction The exploitation of natural resources is a theme which pervades environmental discourse. Our great dependence upon, for instance, fossil fuels, mineral reserves and tropical hardwoods to sustain the modern western lifestyle has been the source of great consternation in recent decades. Accordingly, the over-use of these natural resources ranks high on the current environmental agenda and alternative renewable sources have been sought to replace them. However, when the exploitation of natural resources is discussed, there is a tendency to overlook the most obvious resource upon which humankind depends: animals. From our very hominid beginnings, we have exploited and manipulated other animal species to service not only our most fundamental, but also our less tangible needs. Animals have served a wide range of human requirements, from nutritional, economic and scientific to aesthetic, spiritual and affective. The deliberate exploitation of animal resources began some 10,000 years ago when our ancestors took the first tentative steps towards domestication and animal husbandry. Animal domestication exacted a fundamental change in the nature of human-animal relations, for it transformed this relationship from being simply one of hunter and prey, to one - to put it at its most simplistic - of master and servant. Through domestication, humans turned their attention from the dead to the living animal and, more importantly, the primary product of the live animal - its offspring (cf. Meadow 1989). In this way, a continual and renewable natural resource was established. Under the umbrella of human protection, domesticated animal species have flourished and multiplied in numbers, whilst their wild cousins have been pushed to, or completely over, the brink of extinction (cf. Budiansky 1992). We perhaps tend to overlook domesticated animals as a natural resource because they are often regarded as unnatural, man-made products. It is fair to say that such animals have suffered a great and irretrievable loss of evolutionary autonomy and genetic diversity as a consequence of domestication (cf. Clutton-Brock 1994). Domesticated species have certainly been transformed, often quite radically, into cultural objects; their size, shape, behaviour, coat texture and colour having been altered for the sake of utility or attractiveness. However, to disregard them - as many biologists have done - as being `outside' of nature, is erroneous. Placing domesticated animals on the side of culture, rather than nature, is misleading. The natural world and the human environment do not stand in diametric opposition, they are instead completely intertwined. Domestication is as much a product of evolution as human manipulation. Moreover, the distinction between the wild and the tame, and the natural and the cultural, is, in the case of animals, often a futile one. Human activities and urban development have encroached upon the natural habitats of undomesticated animals to such an extent that even the species - such as lions, tigers, elephants, rhinoceroses and gorillas - that we consider quintessentially wild live almost exclusively within culturally controlled environments. The national parks and nature reserves set up to preserve endangered species and their natural habitats are as much social institutions as zoos, although one does not conventionally think of their environments as being socially constructed. When we think about animals and the environment, we generally do not contemplate our relationship with the domesticated species which inhabit our everyday environments. In terms of environmental debate, only the problems created by the waste and pollution produced by domesticated animals come under consideration. These issues are generally discussed in terms of the consequences of modern intensive agricultural practice, rather than the human-animal relationship. Environmental discussions incorporating the nature of human-animal relations have instead tended to focus upon the plight of wild animals whose existence has been put in peril by the destruction of natural habitats and over-hunting. In this regard, only the most glamorous and attractive species which appeal to the human imagination and benevolence have become emblematic as the victims of human dominion or cruelty. For example, saving the whale, boycotting dolphin unfriendly tuna, safeguarding the cuddly panda and mighty tiger from extinction have been some of the much publicised causes of recent years. Closer to home, the plight of the otter and birds of prey, in addition to dwindling fish stocks, have been included on the European environmental agenda. But what of the domesticated animals which form an important constituent of our everyday lived environment? Aside from a handful of rare breeds, these species are in no danger of extinction whatsoever. To the contrary, they thrive within human society, threatened only - as individuals - by the butcher's knife, veterinarian's syringe or other human inventions such as automobiles. Because domesticated animals constitute such a crucial resource to human society, they have - as species - been accorded human protection and live within the bounds of human social organisation and everyday environment, rather than external to it. The manner in which animals have been utilised as a resource has diversified greatly since they were first domesticated. Human society has not only become increasingly more dependent upon animals to furnish us with a reliable and bountiful supply of meat, hide, gut and bone, but has also become more and more reliant on the secondary produce of live animals, namely, milk, natural fibres, manure and muscle power. Although the relationship between humans and other animals has also changed radically throughout the course of human history, it is during this century that the most profound changes in the relationship between humans and domesticated animals has occurred. The twentieth century has borne witness to the exploitation of animal resources upon a scale far grander than ever before. Most striking is the way in which the cleft between ourselves and agricultural animals has grown as these animals have increasingly been accorded the status of machines, through the development of the intensive farming practices deemed necessary to meet ever-growing human food demands. Whilst the divide between ourselves and food-producing animals apparently continues to expand, our identification with and dependence upon the smaller, more cuddly species which we keep as pets has also grown. We increasingly keep pets to satisfy our emotional, rather than material, needs and gain tactile comfort and trust from them which might not be found elsewhere in our modern lives.
Ambivalence and Ambiguity in Human-Animal Interaction The relationship between humans and domesticated animals is replete with contradictions. Our association with other creatures can be characterised by both intimacy and exploitation. Our conduct towards other animals is often seen in very black and white terms: some species we keep and devour for food; upon others we lavish affection. In reality, however, the borders are rather more nebulous. It is true, for example, that dogs are commonly kept and cherished as pets. But it is also the case that these animals may be severely maltreated and abandoned by their owners, or even employed for sporting or scientific ends. Likewise, an animal destined for the dinner plate may receive a great deal of respect, care and affection throughout its lifetime, and will not at all be treated as if it were merely an animate unit of production. We must therefore exercise great care when making sweeping statements about the relationship between ourselves and other animals. One dog owner may dote upon his dachshund, another may beat it.(1) The human-animal relationship is thus beset with ambiguity and ambivalence. Both the manner in which we perceive animals and the way in which we treat them evidences the contradictory nature of this relationship. It is therefore hardly surprising that the animal rights and vegetarian movements routinely confront us with the inconsistencies in our conduct toward other species. Forcing us to, for example, question why we eat the flesh of pigs, whilst we are repelled by the idea of eating dog meat. This article, however, is not specifically concerned with unravelling the contradictions inherent to the human-animal relationship. Instead, it will explore these disparities in terms of how other species are treated in everyday life. The ambiguity and ambivalence which typically characterises our relationship with domesticated animals is most clearly reflected in settings in which human-animal interactions play a central role. Although, in recent years, the relationship between humans and other animals has received increasingly more attention within the social sciences, only a few authors have explicitly drawn attention to the ambiguities which pervade everyday human-animal interactions. For example, Wieder (1980), Lynch (1988) and Arluke (1988) discuss ambivalence towards animals within experimental laboratory settings. Similarly, Sanders (1995a) highlights the ambivalent nature of the guide dog trainers relationship with their canine pupils. However, perhaps the best settings within which ambiguity and ambivalence in the human-animal relationship can routinely be observed are those involving veterinary interaction. Veterinary settings provide interesting fora within which one can observe both a wide range of human- animal interactions and the professional activities of the veterinarian, who is, in essence, the mediator between the human and animal world.(2) Veterinarians are engaged in a broad spectrum of activities involving animals, ranging from the treatment of domesticated animals, both large and small, to meat inspection, wild animal medicine, laboratory animal science, veterinary pharmaceutics and public health management. However, when one thinks of veterinarians, one generally conjures images of Herriotesque animal doctors who rescue and care for sick and injured pets or farm animals. Such veterinarians, i.e. small and large animal practitioners, are the topic of this article, although, as shortly will become clear, they do not and cannot always live up to the romantic paragons of fiction. Although veterinary education has become increasingly more specialised throughout the past few decades, all veterinarians are qualified to treat both agricultural and pet animals. During the later stages of their training, prospective vets decide the course of their future vocation and elect to specialise in large or small animal practice. Generally speaking, small animal specialists will end up working in urban practices and large animal specialists in rural ones. Nonetheless, the rural veterinarian, although he has chosen to devote his attentions to treating livestock, is also often responsible for treating the pet animals of the local population; a substantial proportion of which, although resident in rural areas, are not directly involved in agriculture and share similar sentiments about their pets to their urban counterparts. By the same token, the urban veterinarian may at times also be required to treat large animals in city farms and maneges. The daily life of a veterinarian can therefore be extremely varied. The animal doctor who delivers a beef-bred calf by caesarean section in a cow shed in the early hours of the morning, may, only hours later, scrub up and don a pristine white coat to examine and treat the pet animals of the local community. True enough, the involvement in both small and large animal practice is largely dependent upon the size of a veterinary practice and its geographical location. If several veterinarians are working within a larger practice, there may be a far higher degree of specialisation resulting in some veterinarians dealing almost exclusively with livestock or small animals. Nevertheless, each vet is capable of filling the other's shoes if the necessity arises. For one interested in the disparity in treatment, both cultural and medical, of domesticated
animals, the small mixed rural veterinary practice is inherently the most fascinating; for there, often within
the course of a mere day, one may clearly observe the divergent conduct and attitudes towards different
species of animal, not to mention the great differences in the kind of veterinary treatment each type of
animal routinely receives. This article is based largely upon the fieldwork observations of the author in
veterinary practices, both urban and rural, within the Randstad. It will examine some of the routine
transactions and procedures which are part and parcel of everyday veterinary practice and will illustrate
how the contradictions which pervade the human-animal relationship are clearly visible in veterinary
situations. Moreover, this article will draw attention to some of the dilemmas that veterinarians are
routinely confronted with, which apparently often conflict with the interests of their animal patients.
Veterinary Dilemmas To understand the nature of veterinary work, one must forget the popular image of the intrepid animal doctor, battling to save the lives of sick and injured animals. Although veterinary heroics such as patching up accident victims and helping animals in labour are constituent - and the most fulfilling part - of their work, veterinarians spend most of their time performing extremely routine and unheroic deeds. In reality, veterinarians are endlessly preoccupied with performing highly routine procedures pertaining the management, control and prevention of disease and parasitic infection. Large animal practitioners are required to spend an inordinate amount of time engaged in taking blood samples for analysis by governmental agencies and inoculating livestock herds en masse against a wide variety of infectious diseases which may otherwise impede production and the livestock and meat trade. Likewise, the small animal practitioner is preoccupied with vaccinating the pet animal population. The bulk of routine veterinary work is thus preventative, rather than curative. It is aimed at preserving animal resources, to keep animals fit and healthy in order that they may efficiently service human needs, whatever those needs may be. Apart from disease control, the management of animal reproduction is a task situated high upon the everyday veterinary agenda. The veterinarian is responsible for controlling the size of animal populations and overseeing the (re)production of healthy and efficient animals. This work includes neutering pet animals and providing obstetric and post-natal care for animals. Further to this, the veterinarian is also entrusted the task of, what can best be described as, `routine animal maintenance'. In other words, they are responsible for the repair, rehabilitation or destruction of sick and injured animals. Non-therapeutic surgical interventions, such as dehorning, tail-docking, etc, to facilitate livestock management and control animal behaviour - or to accommodate the aesthetic whims of pet owners - are also routinely performed by veterinarians. Aside from this, the veterinarian will also treat dermatological conditions, advise on appropriate animal care, nutrition and housing, attend to dental problems and other matters relating to animal health and welfare. The veterinarian is, therefore, charged with the responsibility of helping animal owners maintain an abundant and healthy animal population. In short, veterinarians play a crucial, though much overlooked, social role by maintaining the animal resources upon which human society depends. The procedures that vets are asked to perform and decisions which they are required to make
about their animal patients often present a host of practical, moral and ethical problems. In some
instances, they are legally restricted from performing particular surgical interventions, such as declawing
cats or debarking dogs, and can evade having to deal with the ethical implications of such procedures.
In many situations, however, the veterinarian's own personal judgement is relied upon and he must make
weighty decisions as to what course of action should be taken. There are, of course, basic guidelines
that the veterinarian is professionally obliged to conform with. For example, article 1 of the Dutch
veterinary code (1992:10), states that a veterinarian should act in:
The first of these basic principles for veterinary conduct is perhaps the one which is the most inherently
problematic for veterinarians. The interests of the animal and its owner are not always reconcilable. The
course of action which a veterinarian must take is often dependent upon the species with which he is
dealing and its economic or emotional value, irrespective of the nature of the medical complaint and its
treatability. Particularly within agricultural situations, the veterinarian is well aware that material
considerations often overshadow the actual treatability of an animal's condition. To be involved in the
ministration of veterinary medicine to food-producing animals, particularly within the intensive farming
sector, necessarily means that the veterinarian must - to some degree - be complicit in putting the
interests of the animal owners above those of the animal. Consequently, the veterinary code has also
included a special clause to regulate veterinary conduct in such settings. Article 88 of the code
(1992:31) thus states that:
Notwithstanding such guidelines, the veterinarian is still required to perform surgery and make decisions which those more idealistically involved with animal welfare issues may consider somewhat dubious. However, the veterinary treatment of, particularly agricultural, animals is guided by practical and
financial considerations, rather than sentiments or idealism. The veterinarian is constantly aware that
animals are a resource which must either be maintained, or replaced if they are worn out, in addition to
being able to assess the client's ability or willingness to pay for services rendered. A consequence of this
is that certain decisions and procedures - as distasteful as they may seem to some - are standard to
veterinary practice. The following discussion will consider some of the procedures and decisions which
are routine to large animal practice and will contrast them with similar issues in small animal medicine.
The first issues which will be addressed is perhaps the most weighty one; namely, the grounds upon
which decisions to continue with veterinary treatment or to euthanise or slaughter an animal are made.
Secondly, standard non-therapeutic surgical interventions such as dehorning, tail-docking, declawing will
be discussed and finally, the issue of neutering will be examined in relation to the castration of pigs and
pets.
To Kill or Cure? As the above suggests, there is great variety in the value that people place upon animals in our society. To put it most crudely: some animals are treated as cherished members of the family for whom no time, energy and expense are to be spared, others are neglected, exploited or pragmatically used to meet human food demands. There is a clear divide between the type of patients that a veterinarian sees and the kind of treatment that animals receive; this being largely dependent upon the category of animal to which they belong, ie. pet or livestock. The attitudes of owners with regard to paying for and deciding to proceed with veterinary treatment also vary greatly. For some animal owners the decision to go ahead with a life-saving operation or drug therapy is a highly emotive and problematic one, for others it is very simple and is decided purely upon pragmatic grounds. Furthermore, the animal's condition need not actually be life-threatening for a decision to end the animal's life to be made. In small animal practice, ending an animal's life is commonly known as `euthanasia'. This term is seen as particularly problematic when used to refer to healthy animals being killed, from a moral point of view, unnecessarily.(3) Animal rights philosophers have strongly objected to the use of the term `euthanasia' as a blanket description for the deliberate killing of pet animals. They argue that the term is entirely inappropriate unless certain conditions are met: firstly, that the animal is killed by the most painless means possible; secondly, that the individual who ends its life truly believes that a painless death is in the animal's own interests; and finally, that the individual who euthanises it is motivated to euthanasia out of a concern for the animal's interests, good or welfare (Regan 1983:110-111). In veterinary practice, euthanasia is simply defined and understood as the `act of inducing a painless death' (Tannenbaum 1989:209). This term is, however, only deemed appropriate to the deliberate killing of pet animals: farm animals are simply slaughtered, not euthanised. Both of these terms in themselves say much about societal attitudes to and treatment of animals. Unlike the majority of their clients (unless they are involved in farming, hunting or abattoir work), veterinarians are specialists in death for they are routinely required to put animals to sleep in the course of their work. Dealing with the death of animals is an almost unavoidable part of the job. The task of performing euthanasia is, however, not one which veterinarians greatly relish for it is inherently problematic: firstly, since performing it brings serious ethical dilemmas to the fore, and secondly, because of the possible emotional responses of the clients whose animal is being euthanised (for which vets are inadequately trained and must, as a consequence, deal with in a very ad hoc manner).(4) Euthanasia consultations must be handled particularly carefully to ensure that the medical procedure is performed correctly (so that their competence as a practitioner is not brought into question) and that the clients' needs are adequately met and responded to (so that clients are content and may return to the practice with other animals in the future) (Swabe 1994). Pet animals have seemingly acquired a unique position in human social organisation and are often accorded an almost quasi-human status; sometimes, it has been argued, being treated as substitutes for people or other human relationships (cf. Serpell 1986). Whilst this may be so in extreme cases where, for example, acute grief may follow the demise of an animal (cf. Voith 1981; Fogle 1981), it is more plausible that the majority of pet owners' relationships with their pets is supplementary to human contact rather than substitutional of it; animals perhaps offering a kind of relationship that people do not provide and must, therefore, seek elsewhere (cf. Endenburg 1991: 16). Nevertheless, people are often rather attached to their animals and when these animals become ill veterinary treatment is sought. People are frequently prepared to spend vast amounts of money to keep their beloved animals alive and well for as long as possible. Sometimes this can go to extremes when an animal's quality of life is significantly reduced and an owner refuses to consider euthanasia as a viable option, even though it is both in his or her interests financially and in the animal's interests with regard to its enjoyment of life and physical condition. In stark contrast to the vast amounts of money and emotional energy spent on preserving pets' lives as long and painlessly as possible, within agricultural settings, the decision to proceed with veterinary treatment, particularly operative, is wholly dependent upon the value of the animal, its age, its future potential economic capacity, the nature of its injury or sickness and so on. More often than not it seems that the value of the animal and the cost of the treatment are irreconcilable. The farmer is therefore best off by cutting his losses and sending the beast to the slaughterhouse. In this way he is no worse off and has the funds with which he can purchase a new healthy and productive animal to replace the condemned one. Unlike pet-owners, farmers quite literally cannot afford to be sentimental towards or overly attached to their animals - their very subsistence depends upon these animals since they often are their primary, or only, source of income. This, however, does not necessarily mean that farmers are callous or brutal towards their animals. To the contrary, they often display considerable warmth towards and respect for their animals, particularly to those which are ailing. Nevertheless, the decisions that they make with regard to their animals are generally determined by pragmatism. The severity of an animal's condition is not always immediately recognisable and a course of treatment may be advised and followed before it is decided whether the animal should undergo lengthier and more expensive treatment (which also cannot necessarily be guaranteed to work) or be slaughtered. Such preliminary veterinary treatment can, however, render an animal temporarily unsaleable for human consumption since the veterinary drug residues will have contaminated the animal's flesh and milk. A period of time must pass before the drugs have worked their way out of an animal's system. The animal is thus unproductive, yet must be kept until the time when its milk or flesh becomes uncontaminated and can be sold for meat or its milk used. It is commonplace for agricultural animals to be sent to the slaughterhouse instead of being operated upon or receiving a course of drug treatment is commonplace. Even horses, which occupy that ambiguous no-man's land between pet and agricultural animal, are vulnerable to ending up at the abattoir, rather than under the veterinary surgeon's knife. Parents are often unwilling to pay the unforseen costs of the pet ponies they buy for their children. Moreover, riding schools and racing stables are quick to rid themselves of animals which no longer function optimally. One of the few circumstances where animals are operated upon is when their young cannot be born naturally due to complications caused by the position of the unborn animal in the womb or due to it being too large to be born conventionally. Caesarean sections are the only way to save both mother and young and are regularly performed in cattle, most particularly in those that are beef-bred. The operations are costly, at around f 350 plus visitation fee, but given that adult cattle are generally worth between f 1000 and f 2000 for slaughter, surgical intervention is financially viable for the farmer. The live animal is naturally far more valuable than the sum it yields through slaughter. The milk and progeny which a cow produces makes it a far more precious commodity alive than dead. Their general value of cattle to farmers depends upon whether they are beef or dairy animals, or if they have recently calved (ie. they can produce larger quantities of good quality milk). Caesareans are, however, seldom performed on other kinds of farm animal. For example, when ewes experience difficulty in labour, rather than calling in a vet to perform an emergency caesarean farmers will instead send the animal to the slaughterhouse even though a perfectly healthy and living lamb may still be inside. Again it is a question of economics rather than sentiment: sheep are worth, depending upon their age and weight, on average f 110 to f 180 (for slaughter) and the cost of an operation would greatly exceed their monetary value. Since there is no guarantee that the lamb will be brought out alive, from the farmer's point of view, it is better to make a small profit by sending it to the abattoir than by incurring more expense by seeking veterinary treatment. Of all their daily chores, most of which are routine and preventative in nature eg. mass inoculation, blood-tapping etc., veterinarians seem to enjoy performing caesarean sections: firstly, since it involved bringing new life into the world (even though as vets themselves realise in relation to beef cattle they are being born to die); secondly, when a calf is born by caesarean section there is a greater chance that it will be born alive. Calves attempting to fight their way out naturally can die of exhaustion, while in the case of veterinary assisted `natural birth', if the calf dies the farmer can, often unreasonably, hold him responsible for its death. The vet's presence at the birth makes him accountable. With caesarean sections they are more or less assured of receiving their client's gratitude rather than complaint. Thirdly, and finally, from a financial point of view, caesarean sections on cattle are inevitably very profitable. The increasing need for caesarean sections in beef bred cattle has recently raised some serious ethical dilemmas. The issue, at least for veterinary ethicists and animal welfare interest groups, is not whether or not the operation should be performed at all - from a veterinary perspective it is essential to try to save two lives - but whether it is ethically acceptable that calves must almost inevitably be born in this way, and the health of their mothers be endangered as a consequence, as a result of breeding practices which produce unnaturally heavy and large calves designed specifically for meat production (Rutgers 1993: 159-169). Similar issues are also at play in small animal practice in relation to dog breeding practices. English Bulldogs, for example, have been bred to be so large in order to comply with ideal breed standards that breeders have produced dogs so oversized and out of proportion that difficulties often occur during labour (CSS Report 1988: 47). Whilst profit can certainly be made by performing caesareans on such animals, the question remains whether veterinarians should be confronted with such situations at all when they could be prevented altogether by the adoption of, what animal welfare experts consider to be, more responsible breeding practices. To what extent these ethical dilemmas actually influence the activities of the practising
veterinarian is another matter. Veterinarians are generally perfectly well aware of the ethical issues
surrounding their profession. However, they do not conceive of them as being particularly problematic,
nor do they allow them to interfere with their daily work. Their attitude to such problems is largely
pragmatic. For the practising veterinarian it is simply a question of supply and demand: farmers require
the veterinarian's professional services, he will provide them at a fair price to the best of his abilities
within, though occasionally outside of, the legal parameters of his profession.
Animal Mutilation A consistent trait in humankind's relationship to other animals is that if an animal does not satisfy human requirements it is simply altered either through a process of selective breeding (cf. Clutton-Brock 1987) or by surgical intervention. As the above discussion on beef bred cattle and bulldogs suggests, selective breeding enables specific and desirable characteristics, be they physical or behavioural, to be `artificially' generated. Human interference in the genetic make-up of other species has inevitably led to great problems for animal well-being, particularly when mutant genes, which if left up to nature would probably die out, are deliberately selected to change an animal in order to produce a new breed (cf. Robinson 1982; Macdonald 1985; Tabor 1991). Sometimes such deliberate selection can seem fairly innocuous, for instance when genes are selected to produce a particular coat colour, but more often than not genes are selected to produce specific facial features (eg. ones which are paedomorphic), shape and size that are attractive to humans, yet can seriously impair the animal's well-being (Serpell 1986 & 1989; Voith 1981). The extent of human intervention through breeding can be illustrated by looking at the great diversity within one particular species: the dog. Today, after centuries of selective breeding, an adult dog can weigh between 2 and 100 kilogrammes, in contrast to the wolf, the closest wild species to dogs, whose natural body weight can vary between 20 and 50kg (Bouw 1991). Agricultural animals have also undergone similar and radical changes throughout the centuries, the result being that they now bear little resemblance to their wild conspecifics in either behaviour or appearance. Along with selective breeding, surgical interventions to alter the appearance or functioning of an animal are also commonplace. It is possible that with advances in genetic engineering such mutilations will be unnecessary in the future since the genetic factors which produce, for example, horns in cattle could be isolated and a race of hornless cattle be bred which might obviate the need for horn removal altogether (cf. De Waal 1987: 77). Whilst this would mean that cattle would suffer less pain, the question remains whether such genetic manipulation would inhibit their natural and social behaviour. Dehorning is a fairly unpleasant practice which is performed upon a routine basis largely in human interests. Dairy cattle are habitually dehorned to prevent the goring of other cattle and their human handlers. Injury would involve more expense and possible loss of productivity for the farmers. The problem has ensued largely from too many animals being housed and able to walk freely around in a limited space. Injuries occur as they jab each other whilst sorting out their social hierarchies (ibid). Dehorning is usually performed upon young calves whose horns have not yet developed. It involves burning out the root of the horn, under mild anaesthesia, so that blood vessels and nerve endings are sealed off and horn growth is prevented. Hair and skin will eventually grow over the burned area and will, after a few days, cause the animal no further discomfort. There is consensus amongst veterinarians that this the kindest way of removing horns. Sawing them off later is perceived to be more painful and traumatic for the animal, although burning them out also inflicts a degree of pain. Dehorning adult cattle, however, is not only painful, but it can also impede milk productivity which is certainly not in the farmer's interests (Tannenbaum 1989: 257). Dehorning adult cows is in fact a rather unpleasant affair, even when a local anaesthetic is used to deaden the pain. The animal's head must be kept as still as possible during the sawing. This involves considerable force being exercised to restrict the animal's movement. The horns are sawn off using a `garrote' like implement, which, as it is abrasively pulled across the horn, produces a billow of smoke from the friction. If the animal struggles too much during this, there is a greater chance that the dehorning will not be as `clean' as it should be. This results in an uneven cut and excessive bleeding from the remaining stump. A small blow-torch is used to seal off the blood vessels that have been severed by the cut. This, in turn, produces a foul stench of burning hair and blood. When the bleeding has been curtailed, an antiseptic is sprayed onto the horn's remains. Even when the cow does not struggle, blood may still pour from the wound and the horn removal may still be very painful for her. There can also be no guarantee that the local nerve-block has worked effectively, this adds extra distress and pain to the animal being dehorned. However, it is unclear whether the animals resist dehorning because they are insufficiently anaesthetised or simply because they are distressed by being held fast against their will. Sometimes even the nerve-block itself is very painful for the animal. This can be used as an effective argument for dehorning without anaesthesia (Tannenbaum 1989: 256-257). In short, the dehorning of both adult cows and young calves is essentially a cost-cutting exercise to prevent farmers from having to incur extra veterinary expenses and risk loss of productivity. It does not necessarily have to be performed by a veterinarian, but if an anaesthetic is to be used then it technically becomes the veterinarian's responsibility for, unlike the farmer, he is licensed to use narcotic substances on animals. In practice, as veterinary informants report, this legal control of narcotics is not quite so strictly adhered to. Firstly, narcotics and other `illegal' substances (eg. hormone preparations) can obtained from across the borders (i.e. Belgium) where drug controls, at least until recently, have not been so stringent, and secondly, clients are sometimes illicitly supplied with the controlled substances so that they can perform dehorning, most particularly of calves, themselves as `humanely' as possible. This means that the vet can avoid performing a task that he finds unpleasant and the farmer does not have to incur extra veterinary expense by calling the vet in to perform it. The outcome of this, however, can sometimes clearly be seen when one wanders around a cow shed for one often comes across cows with a single horn and a hairy bump where a horn might have grown - a result of the farmer's ineptitude at dehorning. Another mutilation practice which is common to intensively farmed animals is the docking of pigs' tails. This practice is prohibited, and also unnecessary, in free-range farming. Again it is largely performed as a cost-cutting exercise to prevent cannibalism and tail-biting injuries which might require veterinary treatment and, as a consequence, loss of profit and productivity. This practice is widely condemned as unnecessary mutilation since it ignores the underlying causes of the animals' aggression towards one another (cf. De Waal 1987: 82). Their boredom and stress comes primarily from their unnatural confinement, concrete flooring, lighting conditions, constant tethering in restrictive stalls etc. Supporters of intensive pig farming have claimed that these living conditions lead to increased productivity, improved disease control, better sanitation and greater general efficiency in swine management and production (Tannenbaum 1989: 253-254). Animal mutilation by surgical intervention is not solely inflicted upon agricultural animals, but also upon pet animals, although procedures such as tail docking, ear cropping, declawing and debarking have in recent years come under increasing attack and have been greatly restricted and deemed an unacceptable infringement of the animal's rights. The above mentioned surgical alterations are not performed for any therapeutic purpose, instead they are performed entirely for cosmetic purposes or for the convenience of the owner. Tail docking originally developed as a practical measure to allow working dogs to perform their tasks more efficiently. Moreover, from Roman times onward, it was believed that tail-docking would afford a degree of protection against canine rabies. However, as the primary function of such animals as workers has largely been supplanted by their roles as companions, this practice has become more embedded in notions of how each breed should physically appear; the functional aspects of tail docking have faded or have been lost to history. Tail docking is extensively viewed as a purely cosmetic mutilation which has a negative impact on the animals. Dogs use their tails to communicate with others, opponents to tail docking have, therefore, argued that it is cruel since it deprives the docked animal of this function. Likewise, ear cropping is also objected to not only because it is unnecessary, apart from an aesthetic point of view, but is of no direct benefit to the animal and again, like tail docking, it deprives the animal of being fully able to communicate with others using its ears. Although both practices are forbidden in this country, one can frequently observe dogs on the streets whose ears have clearly been trimmed and tails that have been docked. These procedures are performed illegally, often by non-veterinarians and without adequate anaesthetic or pain-killers. Pain is thus the price of achieving ideal breeding standards (De Waal 1987:35-6). Likewise, the declawing of cats and `debarking', ie. the devocalisation of dogs, is banned in the
Netherlands (although widely performed in other western countries eg. USA). In this country, these
procedures can legally be performed if they are the only viable alternative to euthanasia. Veterinary
ethicists and animal welfare experts consider both procedures to be a painful infringement of the animal's
integrity and prevent it from behaving naturally (cf. Tannenbaum 1989; Rutgers 1993; De Waal 1987).
Furniture destroying cats and incessantly barking dogs might be a nuisance to their owners, but
operating on them to solve the problem has been deemed unacceptable since such surgery is considered
to be against the interests of animal well-being. All of the surgical procedures described are painful and
deprive pet animals of their natural function. In recognition of this they have been highly restricted and
veterinarians (should) no longer perform them unless they are of therapeutic value (eg. when a dog's tail
is broken); yet such practices continue unabated in agricultural settings and have not been legislated
against. In the following section a rather more consequential animal mutilation - castration - will be
discussed.
Of Pigs and Pets: The Case of Emasculation Animal neutering provides a most pertinent illustration of the vast differences in the (veterinary) treatment of food-producing and pet animals. Perhaps the most startling veterinary procedure which one may witness in an agricultural setting is the castration of piglets. It is common practice in pig farming for virtually all male pigs, apart from those used for breeding, to be castrated between the approximate age of seven and fourteen days. The rationale behind this is that castration prevents the animal's flesh from being tainted by an unpleasant taste and odour which is offensive to many consumers and would render the pig's flesh unsaleable. The export of meat from uncastrated pigs is also not permitted under EC regulations and can only be used in the production of meat products under very specific conditions (De Waal 1987: 82). Castrated animals are also perceived to be less aggressive and easier to handle. Although this practice is more or less ubiquitous to swine management, it is also widely considered to be an unnecessary mutilation which incurs unnecessarily high costs for pig production (Tannenbaum 1989: 253); a sector of modern agronomy which is currently suffering from great economical problems. Pig castration is considered to be both cruel and unnecessary for two main reasons: firstly, the way in which it is performed (as described below) causes considerable pain and stress for the animals and secondly, it is pointless, most particularly in view of intensive factory farming production, because few pigs ever reach maturity and are sent to the slaughterhouses at too young an age for the adult hormones which might taint the flesh to be activated (Johnson 1991: 131). In view of this, in 1987 the European Parliament adopted a policy towards animal welfare and intensive farming methods which recommended that this practice, amongst others, be stopped (Singer 1975/1990: 143- 144). The Dutch government, in particular, is a chief advocate in the need to change the EC's policy on the castration of piglets. They argue that contaminated boar meat could instead be detected by abattoir controls and meat inspection (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij 1992:13-4). The only benefit which this practice has to offer is that it renders pigs more tractable and easier for farmers to manage. In spite of the EC directive and the support of the Dutch government for its abolition, the castration of pigs in the traditional manner continues unabated. The procedure is performed entirely without anaesthetic. The piglets are held up in the air by their hind legs and the scrotum is sliced open to expose the testicles which are then pulled out and swiftly removed using a scalpel. Still held upside down, a diluted iodine solution is splashed on their behinds to sterilize the wound. If one is witness to piglet castration, it is clear from the animals' deafening screams that it causes them great distress and pain - it has been established that this pain can continue for around five days after the actual castration has occurred (De Waal 1987: 82). Further to this, there is also the chance of infection, eg. abscesses, tetanus, and the spread of infectious diseases such as swine-plague, from the implements used (ibid). Although opposed by the European Parliament, this procedure is, however, perfectly legal and does not even have to be performed by a trained vet. In the Netherlands, this practice is often performed by specialist para-veterinarians known as castrators, but also by unqualified farmers. It is an unrestricted practice which can be performed regardless of the age and size of the pig, although it is habitually done at the age of seven to fourteen days. Anaesthetic is too costly and there is always the risk that the animal might die as a result. Castration in this manner costs approximately f 2 per pig in addition to the vet's visiting fee. Whilst this appears to be relatively inexpensive, when one considers the annual expense that would be incurred by the castration of hundreds of piglets it is clear that it is a very costly exercise, most particularly given the procedure's apparent futility.(6) Veterinarians also report that piglet castration is one of the most unpleasant and offensive aspects of their work. However, if they refuse to perform such procedures, even though they themselves find them distasteful and ethically questionable, they risk alienating or upsetting clients, which might in turn result in a loss of income, respect and standing in the local farming community. Within small animal practice, neutering is the most common surgical intervention. Although the castration of pet animals, particularly tom cats, is a very simple procedure, it is generally done with the utmost care, sterility and at fair expense to the owner under mild anaesthetic. Sterilisation is rather more complex since it is a more interventive surgical procedure and requires a full anaesthetic. Again it is performed under sterile conditions, using all the modern technology and equipment available. Sterilisation of female animals is also not really an issue in farming since female animals are used exclusively for breeding and milk production, this procedure is therefore limited to small animal practice. The contrast between the castration of pigs and pets is quite striking. One might not be too far off the mark to suggest that if pets were castrated in the same fashion as pigs their would be widespread condemnation of the practice. As far as pigs are concerned, progressive pig farmers too have also articulated their surprise that animal rights campaigners have as yet not made a determined attack on pig castration (Singer 1975/1990: 146). An entirely different set of rules is at play when one's average household pet, ie. cat, dog, rabbit or guinea pig, is neutered. It is sometimes believed to be a violation of an animal's natural right to procreate and bear young and it is often only performed after an animal has had one litter and has briefly experienced its natural `privilege'. There appears to be little scientific evidence to support this belief that animals should bear at least one litter before being sterilised. It has been widely argued that since it is unlikely that the animal will have any concept of what he or she is missing, neutering does it no harm (cf. CSS Report 1988). In view of the enormous surplus of animals, pet abandonment etc., it is logical that pet procreation and population be controlled. Since pets cannot voluntarily control their own fertility, human owners are required to take responsibility for them by having them neutered.(7) Neutering is also advised to hinder the onset of various disorders of the reproductive organs to which various breeds of animal are often prone. Furthermore, it has also been employed recently as a solution to allow dangerous breeds, eg. Pit-Bull Terriers, to gradually die out. The desire to prevent unwanted litters often provides the grounds for the neutering of an individual animal, but neutering is also often performed entirely for the owner's convenience. Uncastrated tom cats, for example, habitually spray pungent urine which is both offensive in smell and often damages furniture, carpets, etc. When castrated, they largely stop this undesirable behaviour and can become far more sedate and submissive than ever before. In short, a castrated cat makes a far more ideal pet than one left fully intact. Neutering is often performed this way as a form of behavioural control since it often makes animals less aggressive and reduces their proclivity to stray or fight with other animals. It could also be said that by neutering their animals, humans have ensured that their pets will never, in a sense, really grow up: they will retain more infantile behavioural characteristics that seem to be particularly attractive to humans (cf. Voith 1981), they will not become sexually active and they will better appeal to human idealisations of what pets should be. Moreover, the control of animal sexuality, in addition to the restriction of pet animals' eating, hunting and toilet behaviour, could be viewed as an attempt to `civilise' them, to regulate and constrain their natural functioning so that it is no longer offensive to us. The `natural' behaviour of pet animals has been transformed so that it bears greater semblance to that of humans and, as a consequence, it is not so reminiscent of our own suppressed animality. It can easily be argued that pet-neutering is performed in the interest of the animals themselves,
as much as in the interest of humans, given that the excess of pets causes much distress and suffering to
many thousands of unwanted animals each year. In this way, the neutering of pets can be justified as a
necessary and fairly harmless evil, as long as it is performed using anaesthetic in as sterile conditions as
possible. Pig castration, on the other hand, has been shown to be an unnecessary cruelty, yet it
continues unabated and largely unbeknownst to consumers. Although people are generally unaware of
the circumstances of their food's production, they are conscious that the animals who provide it will
inevitably have suffered somewhere along the line in the process which transforms living flesh into meat.
The human interest is, however, largely in ensuring a cheap and reliable supply of this foodstuff for the
dinner plate, rather than with questioning the morality of how it got there (cf. Serpell 1986: 11). Yet if
the domesticated species which are commonly kept as pets were castrated in this way (and had the
same living conditions as pigs) there would - one may speculate - most likely be an outcry. The question
remains as to why this is so? In short, the most probable answer is that it is simply the divergence of
affective needs and economic utility(8) that generally separate the pigs from the pets; we depend upon
pets to satisfy our emotional needs, rather than our appetites. This is the fundamental root of the great
disparity in our attitudes towards and treatment of various species of animal and is the reason why pets
and pigs are neutered in such different ways and why this, to the vast majority, is apparently
unproblematic.
Concluding Remarks The contradictions and ambivalences in the relationship between humans and other animals are clearly embedded in routine veterinary practice. These ambiguities, however, are far from a product of recent years. To the contrary, they have permeated the human-animal relationship throughout the course of human history. Thomas (1983), Serpell (1986) and Davids (1989), for example, have superbly illustrated the nature of these ambivalences in centuries past. They examine the historical reasons why we cherish some species and devour others, exploring the coexistence of divergent and ambiguous attitudes towards animals within human societies. The boundaries which circumscribe the nature of human conduct towards other species have, therefore, always been in continual flux. Moreover, the ever-changing relationship between humans and other animals has been inextricably intertwined with the changing nature of relations between individuals in society. Since the dawn of agrarianisation, the chains of interdependencies within human society and between humans and other animals have continued to grow, mutate and diversify. As a result of industrialisation, urbanisation and commercialisation more people - and animals - have become dependent upon each other in more ways than ever before; and, as a consequence, people have been required to become increasingly more aware of each other's needs and conduct towards one another than was necessary in the past. It can be argued that this increased level of social and economic interdependency has led to a gradual change in human sensibilities. Furthermore, this growing awareness of and dependency upon others has led to a greater capacity for empathy and insight into the actions and requirements of other human beings (cf. Elias 1994). A framework has thus evolved grounded upon the nature of these interdependencies, which, to some extent, delineates and constrains the nature of human interactions and, perhaps more arguably, human-animal interactions. Alongside these changes has been a gradual transformation in thought, particularly since the dawn of the Enlightenment. The consequence of this for animals is that they have increasingly been accorded the status of sentient beings and have become the subjects of human empathy, leading to an increasing concern for animal welfare. The latter development can also be interpreted as a broader social response to the diminishing contrasts between individuals and increasing sensibilities towards others that have taken place in western societies since the early modern period. It could, however, be argued that these sensibilities have been extended only to a few selected species, namely those which are kept and cherished as pets. Food-producing animals appear to have experienced a quite different fate. During this century, increasing human food demands have necessarily resulted in the intensification of livestock farming practices. Livestock animals are today kept and bred in a fashion, and upon a scale, hitherto unknown, leading some (e.g. Singer 1975) to comment that rather than becoming more empathic or compassionate towards such animals, we have instead increasingly transformed them into protein-producing machines. Whilst it is fair to say that the cleft between pets and agricultural animals is today massive, it would be erroneous to assume that our present attitude towards and treatment of livestock has been unaffected by broader and long-term social and psychological transformations. Firstly, the farmers and veterinary surgeons who, respectively, keep and treat food-producing animals live within, rather than outside of, society. They too have been far from immune to these broader social transformations and consequent changes in attitudes to animal sentience and well-being. These changes have, therefore, to some extent, influenced the way in which they interact with and treat animals, both in a literal and medical sense. Secondly, since the nineteenth century, the maltreatment of other creatures has borne increasingly strong penalties and social sanctioning. State institutions and pressure groups have actively exerted their influence on all animal owners, including farmers, in order to protect animal welfare, reflecting wider societal concerns for the nature of human-animal interactions. Subsequently, human conduct towards other animals - including veterinary activities - is today more greatly scrutinised and regulated than ever before, particularly within livestock farming. Alongside the sociogenetic and psychogenetic changes which have influenced attitudes to animals, veterinary procedures - such as those described above - have also undergone considerable changes throughout history. Undoubtedly these changes have, to some extent, also been motivated by changing sentiments towards animals and their sentience. Additionally, medical advancements, improved surgical equipment and an increasing concern for hygiene have led to the modification of established practices such as castration and dehorning, thus reducing the level of distress and risk of infection which an animal might endure as a consequence of veterinary intervention. Yet human, particularly urban, sensitivities often cause people to balk at the procedures which are today standard to rearing food animals. Even in small animal practices, some owners possess such a delicacy of feeling that they cannot bear the sight of their pets being inoculated or their temperature being taken rectally. Finally, within such a discussion of human attitudes and sensibilities to animals, we should not
lose sight of the fact that the role of domesticated animals in human society is, and has always been,
highly specific: animals are a natural resource. We are highly dependent upon some animal species to
service our most fundamental nutritional needs, yet we are reliant upon others to provide us with
company, warmth and entertainment. In essence, the role of veterinarians is to service those needs, to
ensure that this animate natural resource is sustained so that we, as humans, can maintain the animal-
dependent lifestyle to which we have become so accustomed.
Joanna Swabe, 1996 ©
Notes
References Arluke, A. (1988) `Sacrificial Symbolism in Animal Experimentation: Object or Pet?' Anthrozoös. 2:2, pp.98-117. Bouw, J. (1991) `Domesticatie'. ARGOS: Bulletin van het Veterinair Historisch Genootschap. Speciale Uitgave, Zomer 1991, pp.23-8. Budiansky, S. (1992) The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. London: Wiedenfeld & Nicolson. Clutton-Brock (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated Animals. London: Cambridge University Press. Clutton-Brock (1994) `The Unnatural World: Behavioural Aspects of Humans and Animals in the Process of Domestication.' In Manning, A. & Serpell, J.(eds) Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives. London: Routledge. pp. 36- 38. Council for Science and Society Report (CSS) (1988) Companion Animals in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davids, C.A. (1989) Dieren en Nederlanders: Zeven Eeuwen Lief en Leed. Utrecht: Matrijs. DeGroot, A. (1984) `Preparing the Veterinarian for Dealing with the Emotions of Pet Loss.' In Anderson, B.K., Hart, B.L. & Hart, A.L. (eds) The Pet Connection: Its Influence on Our Health and the Quality of Life. University of Minnesota Press. pp.283-291. Diktaat Interne Ziekten der Kleine Huisdieren (1985) Euthanasie. Vakgroep Geneeskunde van het Kleine Huisdier. Elias, N. (1994) The Civilizing Process. [Translated by Jephcott, E.] Oxford: Blackwell. Endenburg, N. (1991) [1939] Animals as Companions: Demographic, Motivational and Ethical Aspects of Companion Animal Ownership. Ph.d. Thesis: Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Fogle, B. (1981) `Attachment-Euthanasia-Grieving.' In Fogle, B. (ed) Interrelations between Pets and People. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. pp.331-344. Garcia, E. (1986) `Dealing with Pet Loss and Client Grief.' Norden News: Topics in Veterinary Medicine. 61:2, pp.5-10. Harris, J. (1983) `A Study of Client-Grief Responses to Death or Loss in a Companion Animal Veterinary Practice.' In Katcher, A.H. & Beck, A.M. (eds) New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp.371-76 Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Diergeneeskunde (1992) Code voor de Dierenarts Lommers, H. & Amsterdam, H. van (1993) Het is Stil in Huis: Afscheid Nemen van je Huisdier. Lisse: Etiko Uitgevers. Lynch, M. (1988) `Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Science and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences.' Social Studies of Science. 18, pp.265-289. Macdonald, D. (ed) (1985) Honden. (Original Title: The Complete Book of the Dog; translated from English by Cornelder, H.) Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum. Markt Berichten (1996) Vee & Vlees. Number 6, 8th February. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1992) Intensieve Veehouderij. Den Haag: Info-tiek Brochure. Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Robinson, R. (1982) Genetics for Dog Breeders. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Rutgers, L.J.E. (1993) Het Wel en Wee van Dieren: Ethiek en Diergeneeskundig Handelen. Ph.d. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Sanders, C.R. (1994a) `Biting the Hand that Heals You: Encounters with Problematic Patients in a General Veterinary Practice'. Society and Animals. 2:1, pp.47-66. Sanders, C.R. (1994b) `Annoying Owners: Routine Interactions with Problematic Clients in a General Veterinary Practice.' Qualitative Sociology. 17:2, pp.159-170. Sanders, C.R. (1995a) `Killing with Kindness: Veterinary Euthanasia and the Social Construction of Personhood.' Sociological Forum. 10:2, pp.195-214. Sanders, C.R. (1995b) Ambiguity, Individuality and Trainers' Interactions with Guide Dogs. Unpublished Paper Presented at the Symposium International Society for Anthrozoology, Geneva, Switzerland. Serpell, J. (1986) In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Serpell, J. (1989) `Pet-keeping and Animal Domestication: A Reappraisal.' In Clutton-Brock, J. (ed) The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman. pp.10-21. Singer, P. (1975/1990) Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. (Revised Edition) New York: New York Review. Swabe, J. (1994) `Preserving the Emotional Order: The Display and Management of Emotion in Veterinary Interaction.' Psychologie en Maatschappij. 68:3 pp.248-260. Tabor, R. (1991) Cats: The Rise of the Cat. London: BBC Books. Tannenbaum, J. (1989) Veterinary Ethics. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins. Thomas, K. (1983) Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. Harmondsworth Penguin. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde (1986) Euthanasie Gezelschapdieren. 3, p.840. Voith, V. (1981) `Attachment between People and their Pets: Behaviour Problems that Arise from the Relationship between Pets and People'. In Fogle, B. (ed) Interrelations between Pets and People. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. pp.271-294. Waal, D. de (1987) Welzijn van Dieren in Nederland. 's-Gravenhage: LNO Reeks, Staatsuitgeverij. Wieder, L.D. (1980) `Behaviouristic Operationalism and the Life-World: Chimpanzees and
Chimpanzee Researchers in Face-to- Face Interaction.' Sociological Inquiry. 50, pp.75-103.
Want to see more articles on human-animal relations? |
|||
|
Disclaimer: The author is not responsible for the content of external internet sites |
||||