Practitioners opine on animal welfare issues

Members of the American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA)animal welfare and ethics taskforce remain hopeful that their new position statements on such controversial issues as declawing and convenience euthanasia will provide leadership and guidance for the veterinary profession and the public.

Several veterinarians told DVM Newsmagazine they welcome the arrival of the AAHA's official positions on animal welfare issues, as long as the ultimate decision remains with the veterinarian.

"This gives the practitioner one more level of authority or, better yet, the backing of a well-respected professional organization," says Dr. Michael Dill of Ocean Springs, Miss. "It's really more of a universal way of thinking, or at least it should be."

Practitioners like Dill expound on their professional experiences with devocalization, declaws and convenience euthanasia.

Dill wrote a paper earlier this year discussing why he won't consider convenience euthanasia as an option.

Convenience euthanasia

"Our stance on this matter is bigger than our clinic," Dill says.

"At our practice, we absolutely do not perform convenience euthanasia," he adds. "There has to be a significant medical or traumatic problem. When you jump through all the hoops and nothing is working and they're endangering the people around them, then, at that point, I certainly don't think it's a convenience anymore."

But at the other end of the spectrum is the occasional new client who has moved to an apartment that refuses pets and wants Dill to euthanize the animal. "We won't do that. In most cases, these animals are adoptable.

"When we do get such a request for what appears to be convenience euthanasia, we really try to exhaust all options. If it comes down to it, we always reserve the right to refuse to do the service," Dill says.

Dr. Charles Hickey of Richmond, Va., says national associations need to "take a stand" one way or another on issues such as declawing and ear cropping but he would be against outright bans on certain practices, though AAHAhas not taken such a position.

Declawing

"I agree that most of the time declawing is unnecessary, but sometimes we have immunocompromised or elderly clients who own cats," says Hickey. "Declawing the cat or having pads on the feet can help protect the people in certain circumstances.

"If it comes to the situation where they have to make the decision to get rid of the cat or they are considering euthanasia versus having it declawed, it's a viable option to have the cat declawed to keep it alive."

Dr. Charles Lippincott, retired practitioner in Medford, Ore., wrote a paper on the benefits of canine devocalization in the 1990s.

Canine devocalization

He says that when he was practicing, debarking was acceptable under specific circumstances.

"In an urban area, lots of animal pollution occurs, such as barking," says Lippincott. "When you're in a high-rise with people who live in close proximity, a dog may bark when the owner goes to work all day. It drives people crazy. They do what they can to limit it. The first thing is usually going to an attorney."

The owner receives papers urging to euthanize or get rid of the dog or devocalize it.

The courts used to widely accept devocalization, according to Lippincott, who only would use lasers for the procedure.

"It was basically done to save the animal's life from being euthanized or taken out of the family and placed. It's horrendous for a family to lose their pet.

"Devocalization was never done just to be doing something," he says.

To clarify how veterinarians largely perceive the issue, Lippincott says, "Vets are totally involved with people and their pets. People who did debarking - at no time was it considered unethical. We were thrilled to be able to save the animal's life. It's always a responsible feeling of what is best for the pet.

"The climate has changed. Political correctness is spilling over into animal care. Right or wrong, it has changed what things are being done."