43,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Serie: UFAW Animal Welfare
- Sprache: Englisch
Companion Animal Ethics explores the important ethical questions and problems that arise as a result of humans keeping animals as companions.
- The first comprehensive book dedicated to ethical and welfare concerns surrounding companion animals
- Scholarly but still written in an accessible and engaging style
- Considers the idea of animal companionship and why it should matter ethically
- Explores problems associated with animals sharing human lifestyles and homes, such as obesity, behavior issues, selective breeding, over-treatment, abandonment, euthanasia and environmental impacts
- Offers insights into practical ways of improving ethical standards relating to animal companions
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 665
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Companion Animal Ethics
1.3 Why We Use The Terms ‘Companion Animals’ and ‘Owners’
1.4 The Structure of This Book
References
Chapter 1: History of Companion Animals and the Companion Animal Sector
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Early Human Relations to Companion Animals
1.3 Animal Companions in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
1.4 Europe and North America 1600–1950
1.5 From the 1950s to the Present
1.6 Are Companion Animals Benefactors or Social Parasites?
Key Points
References
Chapter 2: The Development and Role of the Veterinary and Other Professions in Relation to Companion Animals
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Veterinary Profession
2.3 Development and Role of Other Professions in Relation to Companion Animals
Key Points
References
Chapter 3: Human Attachment to Companion Animals
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What People Do with Their Companions
3.3 Relating to Companion Animals
3.4 Effects on Human Health
Key Points
References
Chapter 4: Companion Animal Welfare
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Theories About Animal Welfare
4.3 From Farm Animal Welfare to Companion Animal Welfare
4.4 Assessing the Welfare of Companion Animals
Key Points
References
Chapter 5: Theories of Companion Animal Ethics
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Contractarian Approaches – Companion Animals Are Only Indirectly Ethically Important
5.3 Utilitarian Approaches – Welfare, and Only Welfare, Matters
5.4 Deontological and Rights Approaches – Not Only the Consequences Matter
5.5 Contextual Approaches
5.6 Dealing with Multiple Ethical Approaches
Key Points
References
Chapter 6: Breeding and Acquiring Companion Animals
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Breeding and Rearing Puppies and Kittens
6.3 Welfare Concerns
6.4 Ethical Issues
Key Points
References
Chapter 7: Selective Breeding
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Selective Breeding of Dogs and Cats
7.3 Effects of Pedigree Breeding and Breed Standards on Welfare
7.4 Ethical Perspectives on Breeding
7.5 Possible Practical Solutions to Breeding of Healthier Cats and Dogs
Key Points
References
Chapter 8: Feeding and the Problem of Obesity
8.1 Introduction
8.2 How Is ‘Fatness’ Defined and Measured in Cats and Dogs, and How Many Animals Are Affected?
8.3 Is This a Welfare Problem?
8.4 Why Do Owners Allow Their Companion Animals to Become Fat?
8.5 Whether and How to Prevent and Treat Problems with Overweight Companion Animals
Key Points
References
Chapter 9: Companion Animal Training and Behavioural Problems
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Training
9.3 Behaviour Problems
Key Points
References
Chapter 10: Routine Neutering of Companion Animals
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Chemical Sterilisation
10.3 Surgical Neutering and Its Impacts on Animal Welfare
10.4 Neutering and Positive Welfare
10.5 Neutering and Ethical Theories
Key Points
References
Chapter 11: Performing Convenience Surgery: Tail Docking, Ear Cropping, Debarking and Declawing
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Convenience Surgeries
11.3 Ethical Perspectives on Convenience Surgeries
Key Points
References
Chapter 12: Treating Sick Animals and End-of-Life Issues
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Treating Sick Animals – Modern Veterinary Medicine
12.3 End-of-Life: Palliative Care and Euthanasia
12.4 Ethical Issues Relating to Veterinary Treatment
Key Points
References
Chapter 13: Unwanted and Unowned Companion Animals
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Why Do Companion Animals Become Unwanted?
13.3 Ethical Issues for Owners with Unwanted Companions: Shelters and Abandonment
13.4 Euthanasia of Unwanted Healthy Companion Animals
13.5 Unowned Animal Populations: Numbers and Relationships
13.6 Managing Unowned Populations
Key Points
References
Chapter 14: Ethics and Broader Impacts of Companion Animals
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Public Health and Zoonoses
14.3 Companion Animals and Use of Resources
14.4 Companion Animals, Sustainability, and the Environment
Key Points
References
Chapter 15: Other Companions
15.1 Introduction
15.2 The Welfare of Other Companions
15.3 Wild-Caught Birds and the Pet Trade
15.4 Ethical Approaches to Other Companions
15.5 Should Ownership of Some Species Be Restricted, or Completely Prohibited?
Key Points
References
Chapter 16: Companion Animals and the Future
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Changing Ethical and Political Frameworks
16.3 Changing Legal and Public Policy Frameworks
16.4 Changing Markets and Pressures on the Veterinary Profession
16.5 In Conclusion: What Might an Ethical Future Life with Companion Animals Look Like?
Key Points
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
vii
ix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Foreword
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Introduction
Figure I.1 A 1-year-old cross-breed dog being carried in a ‘Pooch Pouch’. In an accompanying article, the owner claimed that the dog loves it and it keeps him safe on the busy streets of New York; but critics claim the pouch is a ‘fashion statement’, which causes distress to the animals.
Chapter 1: History of Companion Animals and the Companion Animal Sector
Figure 1.1 Five eldest children of King Charles 1 of England, by Sir Anthony van Dyck (1637). In the picture are two dogs of breeds typically owned by aristocrats at the time, a mastiff and a toy spaniel.
Figure 1.2 Dogs, cats and budgerigars per 100 inhabitants in the UK. Based on information from the Pet Food Manufacturers Association (n.d.) and from the UK Office for National Statistics (2012).
Chapter 2: The Development and Role of the Veterinary and Other Professions in Relation to Companion Animals
Figure 2.1 Pet owners awaiting treatment from the PDSA Caravan in the 1940s.
Figure 2.2 (a) An anaesthetized dog undergoes an MRI scan of its brain in a modern Veterinary Hospital. (b) MRI of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel with Chiari malformation and secondary syringomyelia. Due to the abnormally shaped skull in this breed, there is an increased risk of pressure building up causing an abnormal flow of cerebrospinal fluid; affected dogs often have neck pain, and frequently scratch the neck and shoulder areas.
Chapter 3: Human Attachment to Companion Animals
Figure 3.1 Centenarian lady with her pet cat. Companion animals are increasingly viewed as family members, to spend time and do enjoyable things with, confide in, love and take care of.
Figure 3.2 For explanation of components, see preceding text.
Figure 3.3 Human attachment to animals can become extreme, as seen with animal hoarding. Many individuals who accumulate large numbers of animals often have good intentions, but become overwhelmed; in other cases, hoarding can be exploitative, and associated with a lack of empathy.
Chapter 4: Companion Animal Welfare
Figure 4.1 Cats kept indoors: a safe but frustrated life?
Chapter 5: Theories of Companion Animal Ethics
Figure 5.1 The question of whether or not cats should be allowed to outdoors is contested. Many outdoor cats predate wildlife, raising ethical concerns about the welfare of individual birds and rodents and broader environmental issues such as species protection.
Chapter 6: Breeding and Acquiring Companion Animals
Figure 6.1 Barack Obama, while still a senator, campaigned against puppy mills by being portrayed in the Lincoln Memorial holding the three-legged former puppy mill breeding dog, Baby.
Figure 6.2 Miniature breed dogs in a puppy mill in the United States. Such animals are often in poor physical health; the dogs here have alopecia, and deformed feet with overgrown nails from standing on the mesh floors, which lack any bedding.
Chapter 7: Selective Breeding
Figure 7.1 Male German Shepherds (Alsatians) at different times. (a) Tell von der Kriminalpolizei SZ 8770, who became a German winner in 1910. (
Rasmussen & Bertelsen
, 1980.) (b) Quax vom Aegidiendamm, a highly successful Danish show dog from the early 1970s.
Chapter 8: Feeding and the Problem of Obesity
Figure 8.1 Body Condition Score chart. Many such charts are available to help owners of cats and dogs recognize whether their companion animal is in a healthy body condition.
Figure 8.2 ‘Mighty Mike’, a rescue dog. (a) Initially weighing 60 kg, Mike suffered from a ruptured cranial cruciate ligament in the left hind leg. (b) Shortly after having surgery to stabilise his left knee, weighing 50 kg. (c) Mike required surgery for the same condition in his other knee several months later. He is shown here, fully recovered, weighing 36.6 kg.
Chapter 9: Companion Animal Training and Behavioural Problems
Figure 9.1 Clicker training of cats. In this instance, the training was to address a behaviour problem where one cat felt intimidated by the other. Through the training, the intimidated cat gained more confidence and was able to tolerate the company of the other cat.
Figure 9.2 Causal factors affecting the level of behaviour problems in dogs and cats.
Chapter 10: Routine Neutering of Companion Animals
Figure 10.1 Cat spay. The procedure is often performed through a small flank incision, and both the ovaries and uterine horns are exteriorised and removed.
Chapter 11: Performing Convenience Surgery: Tail Docking, Ear Cropping, Debarking and Declawing
Figure 11.1 A Doberman puppy with cropped ears. The ears are bandaged after the surgery to encourage them to stay erect.
Figure 11.2 Cat being declawed: the nail and last bone of each digit are surgically removed.
Chapter 12: Treating Sick Animals and End-of-Life Issues
Figure 12.1 Advances in veterinary care mean that surgical techniques previously only available for humans are now routinely used in animals. This young Burmese cat suffered severe fractures of both front legs (a), but was comfortable and walking the following day, after having bilateral external skeletal fixators applied (b).
Figure 12.2 Euthanasia of a stray cat with severe head injuries. The cat was initially given first aid; however, the owner could not be found, and due to the severity of the injuries, the cat was euthanased the following day. An injection of Euthatal (Pentobarbital sodium) is being administered via an intravenous catheter into the cephalic vein.
Chapter 13: Unwanted and Unowned Companion Animals
Figure 13.1 Dogs that have been abandoned or relinquished to this Rescue Organisation in the United Kingdom are routinely brought to the local veterinary practice for health checks and neutering, prior to being rehomed.
Figure 13.2 Trap-neuter-release program in Portugal. The cats are being monitored during recovery following castration.
Chapter 14: Ethics and Broader Impacts of Companion Animals
Figure 14.1 Feral cat colony. Many of the cats are in reasonable body condition, although obviously scarred from fighting.
Chapter 15: Other Companions
Figure 15.1 Large parrot (Macaw) in a cage. Parrots are gregarious birds, living in the wild in large flocks. They are very popular pets, but are rarely kept in suitable environments.
Chapter 16: Companion Animals and the Future
Figure 16.1 A man playing with dogs at a park in Shanghai, China. In an effort to control the soaring pet population and control rabies, the city is slashing its steep fees for dog registration and setting a limit of one dog per family.
Figure 16.2 Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on 29 August 2005, killing an estimated 250,000 animals, and causing $108 billion worth of damages. Many pet owners refused to leave without their pets: this owner risked his own safety to rescue his dog.
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
UFAW, founded in 1926, is an internationally recognised, independent, scientific and educational animal welfare charity that promotes high standards of welfare for farm, companion, laboratory and captive wild animals, and for those animals with which we interact in the wild. It works to improve animals lives by:
Funding and publishing developments in the science and technology that underpin advances in animal welfare;
Promoting education in animal care and welfare;
Providing information, organising meetings and publishing books, videos, articles, technical reports and the journal Animal Welfare;
Providing expert advice to government departments and other bodies and helping to draft and amend laws and guidelines;
Enlisting the energies of animal keepers, scientists, veterinarians, lawyers and others who care about animals.
Improvements in the care of animals are not now likely to come of their own accord, merely by wishing them: there must be research…and it is in sponsoring research of this kind, and making its results widely known, that UFAW performs one of its most valuable services.
Sir Peter Medawar CBE FRS, 8 May 1957
Nobel Laureate (1960), Chairman of the UFAW Scientific Advisory Committee (1951–1962)
UFAW relies on the generosity of the public through legacies and donations to carry out its work, improving the welfare of animals now and in the future. For further information about UFAW and how you can help promote and support its work, please contact us at the following address:
Universities Federation for Animal WelfareThe Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts AL4 8AN, UKTel: 01582 831818 Fax: 01582 831414 Website:www.ufaw.org.ukEmail: [email protected]
UFAW's aim regarding the UFAW/Wiley-Blackwell Animal Welfare book series is to promote interest and debate in the subject and to disseminate information relevant to improving the welfare of kept animals and of those harmed in the wild through human agency. The books in this series are the works of their authors, and the views they express do not necessarily reflect the views of UFAW.
Companion Animal Ethics
Peter Sandøe
Professor of Bioethics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Sandra Corr
Reader in Veterinary Surgery, University of Nottingham, UK
Clare Palmer
Professor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, USA
This edition first published 2016. © Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 2016.
Series Editors: Robert C. Hubrecht and Huw Golledge
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 1606 Golden Aspen Drive, Suites 103 and 104, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting a specific method, diagnosis, or treatment by health science practitioners for any particular patient. The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. Readers should consult with a specialist where appropriate. The fact that an organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. No warranty may be created or extended by any promotional statements for this work. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any damages arising herefrom.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for.
ISBN: 9781118376690
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image: Bottom Right – WENN © Alberto Reyes; Bottom Left – Reproduced with permission from Polfoto.
Foreword
Humans have been domesticating animals and keeping some of them as companions for thousands of years. Over the past century, the industrialized Western world has seen a huge increase in the number of companion animals, especially dogs and cats; and this increase has been accompanied by a number of ethical and welfare issues specific to those companion animals. Those who keep animals as companions usually have no wish to harm the animals in their care, but the way we treat companion animals is, whether we like it or not, affected by both tradition and culture, and because humans and animals have for the most part evolved separately, compromises sometimes have to be struck between the best interests of the animal and those of the owner. So, how should individuals and society address these compromises? What ethical principles should we use to determine how to interact with companion animals? How do we decide what really matters and how we should treat companion animals? How do we decide whether new and sometimes painful or stressful treatments developed for humans should be used on companion animals? How do we deal with issues where a decision in the best interests of one companion animal impacts adversely on other animals whether in our control or in the wild?
The science of animal welfare has proven extraordinarily useful in providing the evidence to help us with such questions, but decisions on appropriate behaviour are ultimately dependent on society reaching a consensus on what should be done. This is where ethics helps make clear what the issues are, alerts us to the dangers of relying on custom and past behaviour and helps us to work through the implications of adopting a particular ethical position. This is the first book that has set out to provide a comprehensive ethical analysis of this topic, and the authors are admirably placed to guide the reader through this forest, being eminent and respected in the fields of both ethics and the science of animal welfare. We are very grateful to them for undertaking the task and for providing us with this excellent and very readable account combining a synthesis of the existing literature and the authors' original perspectives on the issues. It will be an excellent addition to the UFAW/Wiley Series.
Robert Hubrecht
January 2015
Acknowledgements
In this book, we explore the important ethical questions and problems that arise as a result of humans keeping animals as companions who live with us in our homes. These ethical issues are not only important but also highly complex. To do justice to this complexity, we draw on a wide range of disciplines to underpin our arguments, including history, psychology, ethical and political theory, and the veterinary, behavioural and social sciences. In addition to incorporating a significant body of published research, we have also been greatly helped by our colleagues.
Four of these colleagues, Brenda Bonnett, Andrew Gardiner, Iben Meyer and James A. Serpell, have contributed so much, through advice and written input, to certain chapters that we have acknowledged them as co-authors of those chapters. We are immensely grateful for their contributions.
Many other friends and colleagues have given advice and/or have commented on specific chapters. In particular, we would like to thank Charlotte Reinhard Bjørnvad, Stine B. Christiansen, Lise Lotte Christensen, Björn Forkman, Merete Fredholm, Gail Golab, Ayoe Hoff, T. J. Kasperbauer, Sara Kondrup, Vibeke Knudsen, Helle Friis Proschowsky and Cecilie Agnete Thorslund. Special thanks are due to Geir Tveit for helping us to check the references and to Sara Kondrup for helping us make the index.
About 4 years have passed since we made the first outline for the book. Since then, working on the book has taken up a significant part of our time. While it has been enjoyable, it was also at times a struggle, due to conflicting commitments. Much of the work has been conducted at odd hours, in evenings, on weekends and during vacations; this has been a strain on our family and friends, and we are grateful for their patience.
Finally, Peter would like to thank the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen for financial and other kinds of support that, among other things, enabled him to go to University of Pennsylvania for two research visits; he would also like to thank James A. Serpell for hosting him during these visits. Clare would like to thank Texas A&M University for a Faculty Development Leave in Autumn 2012 that allowed her some time to work on the book. Sandra would like to thank Professor Christopher Wathes (OBE) for encouraging and developing her interest in ethics.
Peter Sandøe
Sandra Corr
Clare Palmer
Introduction
I.1 Introduction
I.2 Companion Animal Ethics
I.3 Why We Use The Terms ‘Companion Animals’ and ‘Owners’
I.4 The Structure of This Book
I.1 Introduction
Companion animals can be a source of pleasure, fun, exercise, comfort, fascination and consolation. Choosing to live with animal companions can be life enriching, even when it comes with some expense and inconvenience. Most of those who live with animal companions believe this to be a two-way relationship: as well as being fed and cared for, the animal companions also derive pleasure, satisfaction and comfort from living with people.
This seems, therefore, to be a win–win situation: what is good for people is also good for the animals; the animals are cared for, and they help to create human happiness. Put like this, there does not seem to be much need for a book on companion animal ethics. But things are not that simple. For instance, it is not always clear what is good for animal companions, and what is good for animals may be in conflict with what is good for the people with whom they live. Animal companions can also be the source of very different human responses than pleasure and consolation, such as anxiety, fear or distress. So, there is a need for ethical reflection regarding our relationship with companion animals.
In this short introductory chapter, we first elaborate on why we think there is a need for ethical reflection about companion animals and then explain our ethical approach. In the following section, we will try to explain what we mean by ‘companion’ animals and why we have chosen to focus on them, rather than on the wider group of pet animals. Finally, we will briefly outline the structure of the book.
I.2 Companion Animal Ethics
Even those who are well informed about veterinary and animal science and who have kept animals as companions for many years are sometimes unsure about what is in the best interests of their animals. Those without such knowledge and experience may be even more uncertain. For example, someone may be doubtful as to whether neutering is in the best interests of their male dog or whether their cat should be let out to roam. To complicate matters, popular ideas about companion animals' interests may not reflect the findings of current behavioural and veterinary research.
People may also find it difficult to balance potentially conflicting concerns for the well-being of their animals. If a dog or a cat is seriously ill, for example, due to a malignant type of cancer, an owner may find it difficult to weigh the interest of the animal in living (and their own desire for the animal to remain alive) against a concern to prevent their companion from suffering. This may lead to a dilemma between continuing veterinary treatment and euthanasing the animal. The owner may ask the vet for advice, but she or he may have similar doubts.
In other cases, different people may have strong and conflicting views about the significance of companion animals and how we should treat them. These conflicting views are often rooted in different ideas about animals' moral status, whether there is something special about companion animal species and what we do and do not owe to them. For example, some people consider painlessly killing stray and feral cats and dogs to be ethically unproblematic. Others claim that healthy dogs and cats have a right to life, whether owned or not. Similarly, some people see no moral problem in docking dogs' tails to make their appearance meet breed standards, whereas others find tail docking a morally unacceptable violation of the dog's bodily integrity.
Thus, living with companion animals gives rise to uncertainties about what is in the animals' best interests, moral dilemmas in weighing different human and animal well-being concerns and ethical disagreements concerning the moral significance and appropriate treatment of companion animals. These uncertainties, dilemmas and disagreements are the subject of this book (Figure I.1).
Figure I.1 A 1-year-old cross-breed dog being carried in a ‘Pooch Pouch’. In an accompanying article, the owner claimed that the dog loves it and it keeps him safe on the busy streets of New York; but critics claim the pouch is a ‘fashion statement’, which causes distress to the animals.
(Alberto Reyes/Wenn)
Despite the millions of cats, dogs and other animals kept as companions around the world, the ethical aspects of this unique relationship have not previously been the subject of a comprehensive ethical analysis. As a result, although the ideas of animal welfare and the approaches to ethics that we discuss here are well established, the present book breaks new ground. In particular, previous work on animal ethics has tended to focus on higher-level theoretical questions, rather than on the more practical ethical issues that arise from our day-to-day engagement with the animals in our homes.
We believe that thinking through some of these everyday ethical issues – issues that can be incredibly important in individual animal lives, as well as our own human lives – is a critical step in developing and applying animal ethics. Partly because much of this material is new and cannot be taken for granted, and also for practical reasons of space, we have been selective in terms of the topics and frameworks we discuss. Consequently, there are omissions and places where we are, of necessity, somewhat brief. However, we hope that what is included will provide a useful resource and a starting point for future work.
This book, unlike many in the field of animal ethics, does not advocate any particular ethical position, beyond the widely accepted idea that the lives and experiences of sentient animals should count for something in our ethical decision making. We take a pluralist perspective, presenting a variety of approaches to human and animal welfare, to animal ethics and to particular ethical problems raised by companion animals. Although we, as the authors of this book, have our own (often divergent) views, we have attempted to present the arguments in a balanced way, though there may be places where we have not always succeeded in putting our sympathies to one side. We hope to show that at least some disputes about our ethical relations with companion animals may flow from different understandings of animal welfare or different approaches to ethics, but that – considered from those perspectives – they are at least comprehensible and rational.
This book draws on a wide range of supporting scientific material, particularly from psychology and veterinary, behavioural and social sciences. In order to ensure that this book is as informative and up to date as possible, we invited experts in relevant fields to join us in co-authoring several chapters, to improve the quality and accuracy of the empirical material we discuss.
I.3 Why We Use The Terms ‘Companion Animals’ and ‘Owners’
Humans use animals in various ways, mostly linked to tangible outputs or services, such as for food or fur, riding, guarding or modelling human diseases. However, some animals are kept in people's homes where they appear to serve a less clearly defined purpose – typically these animals are referred to as ‘pets’.
As Grier (2006: p. 8) comments, the term ‘pet’ has ‘a complex history and obscure origins’. In the sixteenth century, ‘pet’ was used to describe both people who were indulged or treated as favourites and tamed animals kept for pleasure or companionship (Grier 2006: p. 9). In some cases, the term ‘favourite’ was also used for animals kept for human company.
Recently, however, the term ‘pet’ has become controversial, on the grounds that it fails to respect animals' own dignity or integrity. For instance, Linzey and Cohn (2011) argue that calling animals ‘pets’ is derogatory and insulting and that we should instead use the term ‘companion animals’. The Companion Animal Welfare Council in the United Kingdom takes a similar perspective (CAWC, n.d.). Grier (2006: p. 10), on the other hand, while acknowledging these opinions, continues to use the term ‘pet’ on the grounds that ‘it is in wide use’ and that people have a ‘practical understanding of its meaning’.
In thinking about this book, we recognised the arguments on both sides: while ‘pet’ is the most widely used and understood term, we also accept that it may have demeaning connotations. However, we were persuaded by another set of arguments – that ‘pet’ and ‘companion animal’ are not straightforwardly interchangeable terms, but rather that we should think of ‘companion animals’ as a subset of those animals commonly called ‘pets’. We take the term ‘pet’ to encompass a very broad range of animals alongside whom people choose to live and consider ‘companion animals’ to be a subset of ‘pets’, with whom we have a special interactive bond.
Let us consider this more systematically. Although the term ‘pet’ can be used in different ways, some features seem to be widely accepted as characterising the human/pet relationship. Grier (2006: p. 10) draws on Keith Thomas' characterisation of pets in England between 1400 and 1800: pets were distinguished by being allowed in the house, being given individual names and never being eaten. This is a useful starting point, although some animals widely regarded as pets, for example, fish in a tank, may well not be given individual names. Varner (2002) drawing on Barnbaum (1998) suggests a further set of characterisations, with which it is worth engaging.
First, Varner suggests, we expect a pet's owner to regard it affectionately. He seems right that this is normally the case – a ‘pet’ is not usually an object of hate, fear or disgust to its owner (in the way that, say, an invading cockroach may be regarded). Still, it would presumably be possible to keep a pet – say, a snake or a stick insect – because one is fascinated by it or curious about it, rather than because one felt affection for it.
Second, Varner suggests, a pet should live in or close to the home (this was also part of Thomas' characterisation of a pet). To rule out plants, Varner adds that for something to be a pet, it should be mobile, and thus, either voluntarily choose to remain in the home or be prevented from leaving. We decided to restrict our definition of ‘pet’ still further, to animals that actually live in the home, thereby ruling out horses.
We recognise that some readers will see the exclusion of horses as a significant omission from the book. While some people do regard horses as pets or companion animals, and they can be kept near to (though very rarely in) one's home, they also to a very large degree have other roles. Firstly, for many people, horses are primarily kept for sport. Secondly, the keeping of horses is still in many respects linked to an agricultural context. For example, in many places, even in industrial Western nations, often the very same horses that are kept by private individuals are eventually slaughtered and used for human or animal food. So, although there is much to be said about horses and ethics, we will not say it here.
Third, Varner proposes, a pet must be the kind of being that lives a life different in kind from the owner, in terms of its capacities, occupations and so on; this rules out keeping another human as a pet.
Fourth, a pet should have interests – its life can go better or worse for it; it has a welfare or a good of its own – and it should depend in significant ways on its owner to help fulfil those interests. So, a pet cannot be a robot, such as a Tamagotchi, which cannot, for instance, have ‘poor welfare’.
Although this characterisation of a pet rules out plants, pests, human beings and robots, it includes most animals voluntarily kept by people in their homes: mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects and arachnids. While keeping such animals as pets certainly does raise ethical issues, the focus of this book is narrower: we are interested in animals kept primarily as companions. Even if one has affection for one's pet tarantula, it is, as Varner (2002) notes, a stretch to call it a companion. Insects and fish, likewise, may be kept for many reasons, but rarely primarily for their companionship. As argued by Varner (2002: p. 452), while a companion animal has all the characteristics shared by pets, it has additional characteristics that make it more than a pet.
However, this raises questions about what we mean by ‘companionship’. Likewise, there is no generally accepted definition of ‘companion animal’. The US-based animal welfare organisation, the ASPCA (n.d.) somewhat circularly defines companion animals as ‘domesticated or domestic-bred animals whose physical, emotional, behavioural and social needs can be readily met as companions in the home, or in close daily relationship with humans’.
What seems critical to this definition is the emphasis on relationship and reciprocal engagement. Varner (2002) takes the term ‘companion’ to imply a ‘significant degree of social interaction’ between the owner(s) and the animal. Although somewhat vague, this involves humans and animals recognising and responding to one another as specific individuals (rather than, for instance, a fish swimming to the top of the tank to pick up food thrown in by anyone). For humans, companionship normally includes seeking out the company of the particular animal for comfort, consolation, play and so on, and this is likely to be reciprocal in the case of companion animals.
We take this kind of reciprocal engagement to be the hallmark of human/animal companionship, and as the vast majority of the animals with whom we have such mutual relations are dogs and cats, they are the main focus of this book. However, other animals may be companions, and these are discussed in Chapter 15.
Some readers may think it an omission that we do not discuss in detail the relations between humans and working animals kept in the home, such as guide dogs, guard dogs and some hunting dogs. Although much of what we say about dogs kept as companions also applies to working dogs, we concluded that they raise special ethical questions beyond the scope of this book. For similar reasons, we decided to exclude companion animals used for various forms of animal-assisted therapy.
Another important terminological question relates to what we should call those people who live with and look after companion animals. Again, the terms used here have recently become controversial. Linzey and Cohn (2011) reject the term ‘owners’ in favour of ‘carers’. ‘The Guardian Campaign’ run by the international animal rights and rescue organisation, In Defense of Animals (IDA), promotes a switch to the language of guardianship from the language of ownership. IDA (n.d.) argues that ‘since other animals, whether domesticated or wild, are living beings, they ought not to have owners, only guardians, friends, caretakers, protectors, family or respectful observers’. The popularity of the term ‘guardian’ is slowly growing in the United States at least; a few US cities and Rhode Island have now incorporated the term into their animal-related ordinances.
While we have no objections to either ‘carer’ or ‘guardian’ and are sympathetic to the arguments, we were reluctant to use terms not currently in widespread use. Legally speaking, companion animals are the property of the people who look after them. While many of those who defend animal rights, in particular, find the idea of companion animals as property offensive and immoral, changing the terminology does not change the legal situation. So, we decided to use the more traditional term, ‘owners’, in this book.
We also recognise that relations people have with their animal companions, and the kinds of animals they keep as companions, vary significantly across cultures. In some cultures, for instance, dogs are regarded as belonging to an entire human community and are fed by a number of different households. For example, this often seems to be the case for unowned street dogs in India, which are also legally protected (see, for instance, Srinivasan 2013). Some cultures tame and keep members of local wild species as companions – for instance, long-tailed macaques on Angaur Island in Polynesia. These relationships, while clearly important, raise their own ethical issues. We did not want to deal superficially with such issues, nor to attempt to tackle them without sufficient cultural knowledge. So, we decided to limit the scope of this book to the keeping of animal companions in what we (very roughly) call the industrialised West, focusing on Europe, Australasia and North America. This is where all the authors are located, and Companion Animal Ethics reflects this location.
Finally, we decided not to make either serious cruelty towards or neglect of companion animals a focus of this book (although we do say a little about this in Chapters 3 and 4). Serious cruelty and neglect of companion animals are, virtually universally, ethically condemned and, in many places, are already illegal. We wanted instead to discuss the ongoing ethical uncertainties, dilemmas and disagreements about living with companion animals, rather than issues about which everyone already agrees and to which we could make little new ethical contribution.
I.4 The Structure of This Book
The book begins with three chapters that establish the context and background for thinking about ethics and companion animals. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of the development of human relations to companion animals. Chapter 2 outlines the development of the veterinary and other animal-related professions with a focus on how these professions influence and deal with ethical issues relating to companion animals, and Chapter 3 explores the nature of the human–companion animal bond, including the ways in which humans are psychologically attached to companion animals, and the effects of keeping companion animals on human health. The next two chapters examine two essential concerns for companion animal ethics: ideas of animal welfare (Chapter 4) and different approaches to thinking about ethics (Chapter 5). Chapters 6–13 then consider particular ethical issues raised by breeding and rearing, pedigree selective breeding, diet, training and behaviour, convenience surgeries and neutering. We also consider ethical issues raised by unwanted animal companions, including the euthanasia of healthy animals; and by the veterinary treatment of sick animals. Chapter 14 considers how to deal with broader negative impacts of animal companions in terms of zoonoses, environmental effects and the use of resources. Chapter 15 considers special ethical issues raised by companion animals other than cats and dogs. Finally, in Chapter 16, we speculate on the future of the companion animal sector in terms of ethics, law, policy and the market.
References
ASPCA (n.d.) Definition of companion animal. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [Online] Available from:
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/definition-of-companion-animal
[Accessed 9 July 2014].
Barnbaum, D. (1998) Why Tamagotchis are not pets.
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children
13
(4), 41–43.
CAWC (n.d.) Companion: what are companion animals? Companion Animal Welfare Council. [Online] Available from:
http://www.cawc.org.uk/companion-animals
[Accessed 9 July 2014].
Grier, K. (2006)
Pets in America: a history
. Durham, NC, The University of North Carolina Press.
IDA (n.d.) The guardian campaign. In Defense of Animals. [Online] Available from:
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/the-guardian-campaign/
[Accessed 30 May 2014].
Linzey, A. & Cohn, P. (2011) Terms of discourse.
Journal of Animal Ethics
1
(1), vii–ix.
Srinivasan, K. (2013) The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
38
(1), 106–119.
Varner, G. (2002) Pets, companion animals and domesticated partners. In: Benatar, D. (ed.)
Ethics for everyday
. New York, McGraw-Hill, pp. 450–475.
Chapter 1History of Companion Animals and the Companion Animal Sector
Co-author: James A. Serpell PhD
Marie A. Moore Professor of Animal Ethics and Welfare, Director, Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Early Human Relations to Companion Animals
1.3 Animal Companions in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
1.4 Europe and North America 1600–1950
1.4.1 Breeding
1.4.2 Diet
1.4.3 Training
1.5 From the 1950s to the Present
1.6 Are Companion Animals Benefactors or Social Parasites?
1.1 Introduction
Many households in the industrialised Western world own companion animals. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA, 2012) reported that just over a third of US households kept one or more dogs in 2011, and just under a third kept one or more cats (AVMA, 2012: p. 1). Figures are similar, though somewhat lower, in the European Union (EU) where, in 2010, just over 25% of households had at least one dog, and just under 25% had at least one cat, according to the European Pet Food Industry (FEDIAF, 2010). In most Western countries, the number of households keeping dogs and cats has been steadily growing for decades.
The AVMA (2012) also gives us information on people's attitudes to the animals in their homes. Two-thirds of US dog owners see their dogs as members of the family; most of the rest, according to the survey, view them as ‘companions’ or ‘pets’. Over half the owners see cats as family members. For both species, the younger the owners, the more likely they are to view their animals as family members (AVMA, 2012: p. 14). According to a survey prepared for a pet food company in 2000, nearly half of American dog owners have taken their dog on vacation, and a similar number have celebrated their dog's birthday (Ralston Purina, 2000). Thus the general trend is not only to allow dogs and cats into the family home but also – in these respects, at least – to treat them as members of the family.
Many owners of companion animals put their money where their mouth is. Thus they both demand, and can access, a growing supply of expensive products and services, including organic dog and cat food, elaborate day-care facilities, special overnight hotels, and advanced veterinary care. It's difficult to pin down the exact sums involved here, as different surveys produce different figures; but all show that animal companions are costly. According to the AVMA (2012: p. 57) in 2011, the average US dog owner spent $378 on veterinary services alone. The American Pet Products Association puts expenditure much higher: $655 on routine and surgical veterinary visits, $254 on food, $274 on kennel boarding and $359 on other products and services, in total more than $1500 per year. The amount spent by the average cat owner is smaller, but not by much according to the American Pet Products Association (APPA, n.d.). Although there may be significant local variations, it is reasonable to claim that the trend to spend increasing amounts on dogs, cats and other companion animals is representative of the industrialised Western world as a whole.
Yet this, surely, raises interesting questions. The number of animal companions is growing, while the costs of keeping them are increasing. Why would so many contemporary households – in particular, urban and suburban households in industrial societies – decide to spend their scarce resources on sharing their lives and homes with members of other species? How did our relationship with animal companions develop such that this could come about, and why? Could companion animals be some kind of substitute for the animals that people formerly lived alongside in rural, agriculturally based societies? Is keeping animal companions a symptom of changing family and household structures, and perhaps increasing loneliness? Or is it, instead, a way of expanding relations to nature that has been made possible by growing wealth? Are companion animals giving their owners tangible benefits or are they, rather, a diversion from other, more important, things?
In this chapter we will try to address these questions in two ways: first, we will sketch an outline of some key historical developments that led to current Western attitudes to animal companions. Second, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, we will consider whether animal companions do benefit their owners, and if so, in what ways and how much.
As we noted in the Introduction, the scope of this book is limited to the Western nations, in particular to Europe, Australasia and North America. Although living with animals as companions is practiced globally, the practice takes so many different forms internationally that – unfortunately – we do not have space to discuss them all in sufficient detail.
1.2 Early Human Relations to Companion Animals
There is sound evidence to show that humans have lived alongside domesticated animals for more than 10,000 years. But there is still considerable dispute about how, when and why animal domestication first occurred (and even what we should take domestication to mean). It is widely agreed, however, that dogs were the first animals to be domesticated, though even here there is uncertainty over whether dogs as opportunistic scavengers ‘domesticated themselves’ or whether they were deliberately drawn in or captured by people (see Cassidy, 2007: p. 7).
However domestication began, it is likely that dogs soon became useful to people in a practical sense, in particular by warning of intruders, tracking down prey animals, and finding wounded animals that escaped during hunts. But we do not know whether dogs were more than this; not just helpers and guards, but also objects of human affection. There is some archaeological evidence that prehistoric humans had affectionate feelings for dogs. In 1978, at a late Paleolithic site in northern Israel, for instance, a tomb was uncovered where about 12,000 years ago a person had been buried with a dog or wolf puppy. The hand of the dead person, who was around 50 years old, was placed on the animal's shoulder. It is likely that the dog was sacrificed when the person died in order that it could accompany the person onwards in his or her spiritual journey (Davis & Valla, 1978). There are many other cases, across the globe, where dogs appear to have been buried after death, a practice that was rarely adopted with other animals, with the exception of the mummification of cats in Egypt. In fact, the archaeologist Morey notes that, across many cultures, dead dogs seem to have been treated rather like dead people (Morey, 2006: p. 164).
The history of the emergence of cats as human companions is even less clear than that of dogs, in part because of uncertainty over whether and how cats could have been useful to people. Genetic evidence suggests that all current housecats come from Felis s. lybica wildcat populations in the Middle East, and there is some archaeological evidence to suggest that they became human companions as long as 10,000 years ago (Driscoll et al., 2009). It's likely that certain human-tolerant cats came to live near humans to feed on small rodents and trash, that humans in turn tolerated them, and that gradually these bolder cats diverged from their wild relatives (Driscoll et al., 2009). However, it was in Egypt around 3700 years ago that cat domestication really seems to have spread, with cats living in homes, being represented in art, and being bred (Driscoll et al., 2009). From Egypt, the practice of living with domesticated cats seems to have spread across the world.
From ancient times it has also been common to keep other animals, not least birds, as companions. For example, there is ample evidence from ancient Greece that people kept a number of bird species in cages for company, and according to Kitchell (2011: p. 19) next to dogs, birds ‘may have been the second most common type of pet in ancient Greece’.
Living affectionately with animals also seems to have been common in many hunter-forager societies across the globe. Evidence for this can be found in reports from early European explorers, missionaries and, later, anthropologists, who describe the affection with which dogs and other animals in the households of peoples living as hunters, gatherers and horticulturalists were regarded (Serpell, 1996: Chapter 4). Among these peoples, keeping some animals for company, not food, seemed to be the norm rather than the exception; humans were unwilling to sell or give away their animals, and became distraught with grief when the animals were taken away from them by force (Serpell, 1996: Chapter 4). These attachments are seen as strange by the European authors who write about them, and who express amusement or astonishment at the degree of affection so-called primitive peoples expressed towards animals (Serpell, 1996: Chapter 4). These accounts themselves suggest, however, that while attachments to animals were not widely accepted in Europe, they were nonetheless widespread elsewhere. Keeping animals as companions seems to be a widely practiced part of human life; it may be the European failure to do so until relatively recently that requires explanation.
1.3 Animal Companions in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
Christian theology shaped Europe's cultural and political climate from medieval times, and its influence was persistent. Prior to 1600, at least, a dominant view held within Christian orthodoxy was that close relations between humans and animals were theologically and morally troubling, and were best avoided. Of course, different theological traditions had somewhat divergent approaches here, and there were some notable exceptions. The best known of these is St Francis of Assisi, who famously called animals his brothers and sisters, and as Hughes (1996: p. 313) notes, friendships with animals were not unusual among religious ascetics.
A key idea that strongly influenced the dominant Christian tradition of keeping animals at a distance was the belief that humans had a unique status in nature. This idea was supported in multiple ways. One of the most influential was Aristotle's argument that humans, like other animals, have a nutritive and sensitive soul, but that they differ from animals by also having an intellectual or a rational soul. Medieval theologians linked this idea with a second powerful concept of separation, drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that man is created in God's image:
Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
(Genesis 1: 26)
This idea of separation was reflected and revitalised in early modern philosophy in the work of René Descartes (1596–1650). Descartes divided the world into souled and soulless beings, arguing that animals lacked souls while humans possessed them. Since Descartes equated the soul with the mind and consciousness, his view entailed the conclusion that animals lack consciousness and rational thought, and that their actions and responses were purely the result of mechanistic processes. Although Descartes' work is open to more subtle interpretation (see Cottingham, 1978) the claim that animals are essentially mechanisms, lacking both agency and feelings (including the capacity to feel pain) was influential not only in terms of reinforcing the existing view of human supremacy, but also serving as a licence to deny that animals could have morally relevant needs.
That humans have a unique status vis-à-vis the animals does not, by itself, imply anything about whether or not humans should enjoy their company – just as the assumption that flowers lack sentience should not debar us from enjoying their beauty. The claim that humans ought to maintain a clear boundary between themselves and other animals follows from a different aspect of a Christian view of human nature: the idea that to get close to God, humans should suppress and forsake the animal sides of their natures. The historian Keith Thomas maintains that humans were taught ‘to regard their bodily impulses as “animal” ones, needing to be subdued’ (Thomas, 1984: p. 38). Lust, in particular, was seen as belonging to human's problematic nature; and one of Thomas's sixteenth-century sources is quoted as saying that lust made men ‘like … swine, goats, dogs and the most savage and brutish beasts in the world’ (Thomas, 1984: p. 38). A tacit premise here seems to be that by enjoying the company of animals, a human being will excite his or her ‘animal side’. Bestiality therefore was a particularly heinous sin, since it ‘was the sin of confusion; it was immoral to mix the categories’ (Thomas, 1984: p. 39).
However, the idea of ‘mixing the categories’ of human and animal was regarded as more broadly problematic, beyond having sex with them. According to Thomas ‘in early modern England even animal pets were morally suspect, especially if admitted to the table and fed better than the servants’; and he quotes a moralist from the early seventeenth century as saying: ‘Over-familiar usage of any brute creature is to be abhorred’ (Thomas, 1984: p. 40).
Thomas reproduces the following story of a pious woman from the sixteenth century who on her deathbed regrets the way she and her husband have privileged their female dog:
She … said “Good husband, you and I have offended God grievously in receiving many a time this bitch into our bed; we would have been loathe to have received a Christian soul … into our bed, and to have nourished him in our bosoms, and to have fed him at our table, as we have done this filthy cur many times. The Lord give us grace to repent it” … and afterwards she could not abide to look upon the bitch any more.
(Thomas, 1984: p. 40)
Being too close to dogs, or treating them better than some people, was seen as problematic. Occasionally, dogs were even demonised, although in this respect, the dog's situation during the Middle Ages seems to have been better than that of cats.
There is considerable uncertainty as to the roles cats played in medieval Europe. We have evidence that they were skinned, though this may not mean that they all were kept for their skins; many may have led essentially feral lives, while others were kept as companions (O'Connor, 1992). It is clear, though, that cats were sometimes portrayed as the personification of the devil, and this served as a justification for their persecution. Serpell notes that on feast days, cats were tortured and killed in violent ways as a way of symbolically driving out the Devil:
By associating cats with the Devil and misfortune, the medieval Church seems to have provided the superstitious masses of Europe with a sort of universal scapegoat; something to blame and punish for all of life's numerous perils and hardships.
(Serpell, 2000: p. 12)
