Steven McCulloch

The RCVS codes of conduct: what's in a word?

In 2012, the RCVS introduced a new Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, replacing the Guide to Professional Conduct which had existed until then. Is a common Code relevant for the veterinarians many roles? Theres more to think about here than just the change of name, write Steven McCulloch, Michael Reiss, Peter Jinman and Christopher Wathes

Comments on the dilemma in the March issue: Legal status and malpractice

In the dilemma discussed in the March issue of In Practice, Simon Coghlan described a scenario whereby an expert in animal law has requested you to lend your veterinary expertise to a project appealing for a law change regarding pets. The change would legally recognise emotional damages arising from veterinary malpractice and pet owners could sue for compensation of up to £10,000 (IP, March 2018, vol 40, pp 78-79). You wonder whether you should help out?

A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making

Simple Summary Animal health and welfare policy in the UK often raises important ethical questions. Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling and the use of wild animals in circuses are good examples of controversial policy issues. In the UK, animal health and welfare advisory bodies such as the Farm Animal Welfare Committee do no not have adequate expertise to inform the moral dimensions of such policy issues. This paper proposes a body to be termed the “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing ethics Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). We conclude that the Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent of government and its members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A six-stage ethical framework is proposed that would help the Council to reach conclusions about such issues as whether badgers should be culled in an attempt to control bovine TB and whether wild animals should be permitted to perform in circuses. Abstract Substantial controversy is a consistent feature of UK animal health and welfare policy. BSE, foot and mouth disease, bovine TB and badger culling, large indoor dairies, and wild animals in circuses are examples. Such policy issues are inherently normative; they include a substantial moral dimension. This paper reviews UK animal welfare advisory bodies such as the Animal Health and Welfare Board of England, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the Animals in Science Committee. These bodies play a key advisory role, but do not have adequate expertise in ethics to inform the moral dimension of policy. We propose an “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). The Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent from government and members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A pluralistic six-stage ethical framework is proposed: (i) Problematisation of the policy issue, (ii) utilitarian analysis, (iii) animal rights analysis, (iv) virtue-based analysis, (v) animal welfare ethic analysis, and (vi) integrated ethical analysis. The paper concludes that an Ethics Council for Animal Policy is necessary for just and democratic policy making in all societies that use sentient nonhuman species.

Comments on the dilemma in the September issue: Too hot to handle?

In the dilemma discussed in the September issue of In Practice, a new client at your equine practice asks you to treat a horses tendon injury with thermocautery, or firing. How should you respond? (IP, September 2016, vol 38, pp 414-415). Madeleine Campbell suggested one possible way forward was to try to persuade the client that there was no logical or ethical justification for the procedure that they were requesting. This could include discussing the lack of evidence that firing had any therapeutic effect and the evidence that it caused harm, and explaining that any anecdotally reported benefit was likely to be done in the enforced period of rest following firing, rather than the procedure itself. It could be worth mentioning the clients and the vets obligation not to cause unnecessary harm under the Animal Welfare Act. Alternative therapies should be explored with the client, and referral offered if appropriate.

Comments on the dilemma in the March issue: Questioning morals

In the dilemma discussed in the March issue of In Practice, a dairy client with a large herd asked you to bring out an equine booster on your upcoming visit. The clients disabled daughter had been riding their eight-year-old pony at local pony events, to great success. The daughter had been invited to partake in the Pony Club summer camp. Everything on the passport was fine; however, you discovered that the flu booster was out of date by two days. As the pony would have to recommence the course of treatment, it would not be ready to ride in time for the summer camp. The owner was upset and asked you to falsify the certificate (IP, March 2016, vol 38, pp 150–151). Richard Brown suggested that it was worth having a calm conversation with the client to find a solution. Phone calls could be made to colleagues or the organisers of the summer camp; it was possible that the organisers might agree to a special isolation and quarantine protocol for this pony. The club might also have spare ponies that the daughter could ride. The client should be informed that if you were to falsify the certification, there could be serious consequences. Once the immediate situation was resolved, it might be worth having a conversation with owner about ensuring their animal was up-to-date with its vaccination to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Comments on the dilemma in the February issue: ‘Changing established protocols

In the dilemma discussed in the February issue of In Practice, a client had questioned your practices vaccination protocol for their pet dog and cat. You had attended a CPD event recently in which it was suggested that reduced vaccinations and antibody monitoring might be the most appropriate regime, but this was not common in the local area (IP, February 2016, vol 38, pp 94-95). Hanne Stabursvik noted that changing vaccination protocols was a big move, and suggested that this should not be done in an ad-hoc manner. Clients must be considered, and there were some that would not understand why vaccination was being reduced. Strong leadership was needed from professional bodies to support changes such as these, and educational material should be made available. She suggested that, until a profession-wide change to vaccination protocols had been approved, it might be better to hold off making changes. If clinicians were particularly keen on this change, they could lobby the governing bodies, and even the vaccine manufacturers, to help drive the move.

What if it was your dog

You have a client with a difficult decision to make about the treatment of their pet dog. They turn to you and ask: ‘What would you do if it was your dog?’ Some practitioners believe this question can help move the management of the case forwards. Others, for various reasons, are reluctant to answer it directly. What is the best way to respond?

Sustainability, animal welfare and ethical food policy: a comparative analysis of sustainable intensification and holistic integrative naturalism

In the second half of the twentieth century, agricultural production in the UK intensified, driven first by food security and then economics. Since the 1960s and 1970s both animal welfare and environmental advocates have criticised intensive agriculture. Intensive livestock means confinement, high stocking densities and rapid growth rates, often causing animal suffering. European society demonstrates preference for food from animals reared compassionately in a sustainable way. Livestock agriculture causes 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change. Furthermore, the human population is set to reach 9 billion by 2050, meaning greater demand for food, water and energy. In response a UK Government-commissioned report has recommended ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture as a central policy initiative. However, livestock agriculture is a major cause of global warming and intensification might in fact lead to an increase in emissions. This paper proposes an alternative position, holistic integrative naturalism, which argues for more fundamental change in policy prescriptions. These include addressing underlying fundamentals including population growth, excessive consumption of animal products, and economic policy. Philosophically, the ideas of sustainable intensification and holistic naturalism may be based on different conceptions of human nature. Sustainable intensifiers have faith in scientific progress, hold an anthropocentric worldview and see humankind as rightful master of the world. Holistic naturalists are sceptical about science and technology, hold a more biocentric worldview and see humankind as steward of the natural world.

Veterinary and Animal Ethics: Proceedings of the first international conference on veterinary and animal ethics, September 2011

Contributors vii Foreword by John Webster x Preface xiii Session I Principles of Veterinary and Animal Ethics 1 Patrick Bateson 1 The History of Veterinary Ethics in Britain, ca. 1870 2000 3 Abigail Woods 2 The Idea of Animal Welfare Developments and Tensions 19 Peter Sandoe and Karsten Klint Jensen 3 Lessons from Medical Ethics 32 Carolyn Johnston 4 Veterinary Ethics, Professionalism and Society 44 Stephen A. May Session II Justifying Ends The Morality of Animal Use 59 Judy MacArthur Clark 5 Justice of Animal Use in the Veterinary Profession 63 Martin C. Whiting 6 Telos 75 Bernard E. Rollin 7 Agriculture, Animal Welfare and Climate Change 84 Steven P. McCulloch 8 Ethics and Ethical Analysis in Veterinary Science: The Development and Application of the Ethical Matrix Method 100 Kate Millar 9 The Ethics of Animal Enhancement 113 James Yeates Session III Ethical Analyses of Animal Use 133 Peter Jinman 10 Wildlife Medicine, Conservation and Welfare 135 James K. Kirkwood 11 Veterinary Ethics and the Use of Animals in Research: Are They Compatible? 155 Colin Gilbert and Sarah Wolfensohn 12 Production Animals: Ethical and Welfare Issues Raised by Production-focused Management of Newborn Livestock 174 David J. Mellor 13 Companion Animals 188 Sandra A. Corr 14 Ethical Analysis of the Use of Animals for Sport 201 Madeleine Campbell Session IV Cultural, Political, Legal and Economic Considerations 217 John Webster 15 Global Cultural Considerations of Animal Ethics 219 Michael C. Appleby 16 Animal Ethics and the Government s Policy: To Guard and Protect 229 Sophia Hepple and Nigel Gibbens 17 Veterinary Ethics and Law 245 Marie Fox 18 Ethical Citizenship 261 Bjorn Forkman 19 Principles, Preference and Profit: Animal Ethics in a Market Economy 271 John McInerney Debate: Is It Better to Have Lived and Lost than Never to Have Lived at All? 286 Patrick Bateson Index 300

Financially strapped owner with a suffering cat

A two-year-old male cat has presented out of hours at a private clinic for depression and straining to urinate. Handling and being picked up in particular causes it to vocalise. Examination reveals a blocked bladder and the signalment, history and clinical presentation together suggest urolithiasis. Unfortunately, the owner does not have the £600 to £1000 required to stabilise, catheterise and hospitalise her pet for the weekend. The owner is upset because if she could afford the treatment, her pet would likely live a full life afterwards. It is also a difficult situation for the veterinary surgeon, who may have to euthanase the animal for these reasons, but what other options could the practitioner consider?