See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276294680

Veterinary Ethics

Chapter · February 2015

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1

CITATIONS READS

4 17,958

2 authors:

Sharadhuli Iddi Kimera James Mlangwa

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
67 PUBLICATIONS   620 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   640 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated Human and Animal Disease Control for Tanzanian Pastoralists Facing Settlement View project

Securing rural Livelihood through Improved smallholder Pig production In Mozambique and Tanzania (SLIPP Project) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharadhuli Iddi Kimera on 04 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Veterinary Ethics
Sharadhuli I. Kimera* and James E. D. Mlangwa
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health, Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania

Abstract
Veterinary ethics is the application of ethical theories, principles, and rules by professionals and para-
professionals in resolving ethical dilemmas in the practice of veterinary care. In order to resolve ethical
dilemmas, a minimum understanding of and exposure to moral theories is essential. Aesculapian authority
and professionalism confer on veterinarians the right to treat animals and the expectation from the public
that veterinarians will act in the interest of the animal, client, and the public. Branches of veterinary ethics
are described with a greater focus on normative ethics, or theories are discussed. The fundamental
problem of veterinary professional ethics relating to the vet-patient-client triad and the complications
arising from the dualist nature of veterinary medicine pitting professionalism against commercial interests
are explored. Having laid the theoretical basis, the rest of the entry examines various issues with ethical
dimensions. Included are euthanasia, genetic manipulations, disease control by mass slaughters, comple-
mentary and alternative veterinary medicine/ethnoveterinary medicine, wildlife capture, veterinary public
health, and One Health ethical issues. The enforcement of fair competition practices is forcing a
reexamination of relationships between veterinarians leading to changes in professional ethics. Animal
ethics, research ethics, and animal welfare are dealt with in separate entries in the encyclopedia.

Keywords
Animal ethics; Animal welfare; Veterinary ethics; Philosophy; Ethical theories; Ethical principles; Ethical
rules; Aesculapian authority and professionalism; Branches of veterinary ethics; Ethical dimensions and
dilemmas

Introduction
Veterinary ethics is a field of ethics concerned with the practical application of ethical theories, principles,
and moral standards to the conduct of individuals involved in veterinary service delivery systems that are
meant to benefit animals, owners, and the public. Stephens (2012) considers veterinary ethics to be
composed of veterinary professional ethics and animal ethics, but Tannenbaum (1995) who defines
animal ethics as the moral obligations that people have for animals restricts veterinary ethics to the
provision of veterinary care. Given that there are other separate entries on animal ethics and animal
welfare which have ethical dimensions, this entry will largely follow Tannenbaum and focus on veterinary
professional ethics.
The entry will start by providing a background to veterinary ethics under the History and Development
section, and then key concepts and definitions will be provided. The relationship between veterinary
ethics and related fields will be explored, and the philosophical theories, principles, codes, standards, and

*Email: sikimera@gmail.com

Page 1 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

rules will be discussed including the different branches of veterinary ethics. The next major section will
cover the key ethical dimensions of veterinary professional ethics under the following subheadings:
tripartite relationships (uniqueness of veterinary profession), euthanasia, complementary and alternative
veterinary medicine/ethnoveterinary, public health issues, public infectious disease management strate-
gies, animal breeding and genetic selection, working in wildlife ecosystems, veterinary ethics in business
setting, and possible ethical challenges in the future (One health initiative).

History and Development

Veterinarians have largely been concerned with issues of professional conduct demanding that leaving
animal treatment in the hands of vets was ethical, and in the UK in 1948, they were granted sole authority
to treat animals. It is only in the late 1970s and 1980 that vets responded to emerging ethical issues in the
context of animal use and their welfare (animal ethics) (Rollin 2006).
In the development of veterinary ethics, the field has drawn heavily from medical ethics, research
ethics, animal ethics, and animal welfare. Key influences in the development of veterinary ethics have
included the changing nature of practice, technologies, livestock production systems, and the relation-
ships between veterinarians, animals, society, and the state.
Aesculapian authority and professionalism are two concepts at the core of relationship between
veterinarians and the development of veterinary ethics. Veterinarians like their medical counterparts are
believed by society to have a moral duty to take care of animals because they have “Aesculapian
authority” which refers to the trust placed upon the healing professions. This trust is based on the
following three key attributes of the professions. The first attribute is “sapiential authority” that is the
authority based on the perceived wisdom and superior knowledge in veterinary medical knowledge
possessed by veterinarians compared to their clients. The second one is “moral authority” which derives
from the principle that veterinarians are expected to act on behalf of the needs and best interests of their
patients and clients and are expected to provide both advice and guidance. The last attribute is that of
“charismatic authority”: historically, this authority is based on the belief that healers had divine or magical
powers to heal. The client therefore tends to have faith in the veterinarian and believes that the veterinarian
can help and solve the health problem in question. Aesculapian authority is socially conferred on the
healing professions with the expectation that these professions will perform to the expectations of the
public including meeting their moral obligations partly through self-regulation.
Aesculapian authority and professionalism give veterinarians a near monopoly in the provision of
veterinary services, but these can be abused by veterinarians (Rollin 2006). Governments in response
have set up statutory bodies to regulate the profession (quality control) through acts of parliaments. They
are responsible for the development, updating, and enforcement of administrative ethics framed in terms
of “codes of professional conduct.”
The importance of veterinary professional ethics is reflected in the oaths taken by veterinarians as they
enter the profession or as they are registered to practice. In most countries, the Veterinary Oath makes
reference directly to ethics, principles of veterinary ethics, professional ethics, the professional and ethical
standards of veterinary medicine, code of professional ethics, code of conduct, or practice of veterinary
science ethically. For example, in the USA, veterinarians swear to practice according to the principles of
veterinary medical ethics (AVMA), whereas technicians swear to adhere to the profession’s code of ethics
(veterinary technicians). In the UK and Ireland, the oaths do not mention ethics, but veterinarians are
obliged to abide to the codes of professional conduct set by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
(RCVS) and the Veterinary Council of Ireland, respectively. To the same extent, veterinarians also swear
to uphold animal welfare and well-being and/or reduce animal suffering.

Page 2 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

The recognition that animals are sentient beings in that they feel pain, they recognize their surround-
ings, and they express happiness and the fact that animals can bond with people have led people to
advocate for ethical treatment of animals, and this has in turn had effect on developments in veterinary
ethics (veterinarians are expected to relieve animal sufferings, do no harm to animals directly and
indirectly, etc.).

Conceptual Clarification/Definition: Key Concepts

Veterinary ethics is a subfield of bioethics. Bioethics is the study of ethics and philosophical implications
of certain biomedical technologies (procedures and treatments). Animal ethics is centered on uses of
animals by veterinarians and others. Another perspective of ethics is inherent in the concept of animal
well-being operationalized as animal welfare. It is widely recognized that assessments of animal welfare
involve a number of assumptions that are ethical in nature (Tannenbaum 1995; Sandoe and Christiansen
2008). Veterinarians are also stakeholders in research involving animals and their owners which has its
own ethical dilemmas giving rise to research ethics.

Branches of Veterinary Ethics

For practical purposes, veterinary ethics have been divided into four branches (Tannenbaum 1995) which
are (i) descriptive veterinary ethics, (ii) official veterinary ethics, (iii) administrative veterinary ethics, and
(iv) normative veterinary ethics which are briefly described as follows.

Descriptive Veterinary Ethics

Descriptive ethics deals with factual descriptions of moral behavior and belief systems. It includes
describing ethical reasoning and perspectives of stakeholders on ethical issues, for example, those aspects
of professional behavior and attitudes which members of the profession in a certain jurisdiction actually
consider to be right or wrong. It is therefore empirical that natural and social science methods are used in
studying the role and perception of ethics and ethical behavior in societies.

Official Veterinary Ethics

Official ethics are the official ethical standards which are formally adopted by organizations composed of
professionals, such as the Veterinary Association of Tanzania, and which are then imposed upon their
members. The harshest penalty for a violator is expulsion from the organization. Among the important
functions of official veterinary ethics are the promotion and protection of the profession’s image in light of
the obligation to self-regulate and self-accountability.

Administrative Veterinary Ethics

Administrative ethics are ethics administered by the government bodies which regulate veterinary
practice and the various activities in which veterinarians and animal health paraprofessionals engage.
The violation of administrative standards (e.g., codes of conduct) may result in prosecution (with civil or
criminal penalties), suspension from practice, or deregistration. These are therefore backed by law. The
main purpose of administrative ethics is to protect the public.

Normative Veterinary Ethics

Normative ethics describe the search for “correct” norms of professional veterinary behavior and
attitudes. This is the most fundamental branch as it gives the philosophical underpinning of ethics to
which one may appeal in solving ethical dilemmas and to which both official and administrative branches

Page 3 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

draw their principles to develop standards, codes, and rules. Normative ethics raises questions of interest
for descriptive ethics. Normative ethics is about values, whereas descriptive ethics is about facts
(Sugarman and Sulmasy 2010).

Role of Theory
Professionals should have some capabilities in ethical reasoning so that they can distinguish which
practices are ethical and which are not or be able to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad in
complex situations (Bowden and Smythe 2008). When there is more than one mutually exclusive courses
of action with ethical dimensions, an ethical dilemma occurs. Professionals would need some basic
knowledge of moral philosophy to guide them out of such situations.
The relationship between ethical rules, codes, standards, principles, and theories is hierarchical based
on the degree of specificity and purpose. Ethical rules are specific statements about ethical behavior; they
prescribe action to be taken. Ethical principles are broader than rules serving as the foundation for rules.
They stand as models of behavior and good practice and are found in ethical theories. Ethical theories
provide a justification for how ethical decisions are made and assist in resolving conflicts among
principles or rules. Codes which are similar to standards are compilations of ethical rules and are therefore
often prescriptive (Newman and Brown 1996).

Normative Ethics
Normative ethics provides the concepts and principles used to solve applied ethics dilemmas. Normative
ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. The Golden Rule which
reads “People should do to others what they would want others to do to them” is a classic example of a
normative principle. One can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. It is a
single principle against which all actions are judged. Other normative theories focus on a set of
foundational principles or a set of good character traits. Out of the about 15 theories in existence
(Singer 1993), three major ethical theories – virtue, deontological, and teleological theories – dominate
the field (Bowden and Smythe 2008).

Virtue Ethic Theories

Virtue ethics theories emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy. What one ought to
be rather than what one is not ought to be is fundamental to these theories. Virtue ethics does not primarily
aim at identifying universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. It typically extols people
to “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.” A virtuous person is one who is kind (across time
and space) but without an ulterior motive such as aiming at gaining something. When faced with ethical
dilemmas, an appeal to the advice of those believed to be exhibiting the virtues may be made. In veterinary
ethics, virtue theories guide veterinarians to ask themselves what their professional role models (from the
ethical point of view) would do in a given situation or to contact them for guidance.
There are two kinds of virtues: moral views which relate to a person’s character and intellectual virtues
that relate to a person’s intellect. Intellectual virtues based on rationality are used for reasoning by the
virtuous person to decide how to be, whereas moral virtues guide the choice of the right action (Arries
2005; Gardiner 2003).
Its downside as a theory is that it provides a self-centered conception of ethics and does not sufficiently
consider the extent to which one’s actions affect other people. Secondly, it has no clear principles for
guiding action, and the ability to cultivate the right virtues depends on factors beyond a person’s control.

Page 4 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Deontological Theories
Many people feel that human beings have clear obligations, such as to not commit murder. Duty theories
base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These are deontological theories (deon is
the Greek word for duty), in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. There are four
central duty theories.
Firstly, people have duties toward others; these can be divided between absolute duties, which are
universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts between people.
Absolute duties are of three sorts: avoid wronging others, treat people as equals, and promote the good of
others. Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty to
keep one’s promises.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a “right” is a justified claim
against another person’s behavior, but rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one
person implies the duties of another person. Three foundational rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness from which more specific rights including the rights of property, movement, speech, and
religious expression are deduced. These rights are natural, universal, and equal and are inalienable.
A third duty-based theory emphasizes a single principle of duty obliging us to “Treat people as an end
and never as a means to an end.” That is, people should always be treated with dignity and never be used as
mere instruments.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory emphasizes prima facie duties which are believed to reflect
our actual moral convictions; these duties are fidelity, the duty to keep promises; reparation, the duty to
compensate others having harmed them; gratitude, the duty to thank those who help us; justice, the duty to
recognize merit; beneficence, the duty to improve the conditions of others; self-improvement, the duty to
improve our virtue and intelligence; and non-maleficence, the duty to not injure others. In veterinary
ethics, these theories and principles give rise to the do’s and don’t do’s found in professional and
administrative ethics to which veterinarians are expected to conform.

Teleological Theories
It is common for people to determine their moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of their
actions. Correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences.
An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. The
theories are called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the
action is the sole determining factor of its morality. They are also known as consequentialist theories.
The most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences
of actions. Most versions of teleological theories are more precisely formulated than the general principle
above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups
of people are relevant. Three end criteria are in use:
Firstly, in ethical egoism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable
than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action. Secondly, in ethical altruism, an action is
morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except
the agent, and lastly, in utilitarianism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
In applying teleological theories, one may place some constraints against the agent in maximizing
overall goodness by invoking deontological principles such as it is a duty for all people to make sure that
they do not treat others in a way that merely makes them a means to the end of maximizing overall
goodness, whatever that may be. One may thus not save five people by killing another who serves as an
organ donor for the five, or one should obtain informed consent from a research participant even though
the researcher believes that the research will be beneficial to the participant (participant being used as a

Page 5 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

means). These theories require veterinarians to take into account the consequences of their intended action
before they take a decision on what to do in moral dilemmas.

Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues
such as animal rights or euthanasia. Usually, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an
“applied ethical issue.” Firstly, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant
groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. Secondly, it must be a distinctly moral issue.
What makes resolving a particular applied ethical issue difficult is the multitude of rival normative
principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. As such, there is no single
decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue. Several normative principles have to
be examined to provide the required guidance.
The following four principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied medical ethical
discussions: (i) beneficence, which is the duty to do good and in teleological theories may be crafted as
maximize net benefits; (ii) non-maleficence, meaning do not harm others; (iii) autonomy, which acknowl-
edges a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body; and (iv) justice, which acknowledges a
person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, treat people equally and without prejudice,
and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens (Beauchamp and Childress 2001).
In veterinary ethics, the principles may read as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice (to other veter-
inarians, owners, the public, and animals), and respect for the autonomy of owners. These normative
principles are derived from both teleological- and deontological-based approaches.

The Fundamental Problem of Veterinary Ethics

The veterinarian attends to his/her patient who in most cases has an owner; so to whom should the
veterinarians’ primary responsibility be – should it be to the animal or to the owner? This is the
fundamental problem of veterinary ethics. It is possible that the client’s position on this matter may differ
from that of the veterinarian in which case an ethical dilemma will arise. Veterinary medicine is dualistic
in nature; on the one hand, it is a medical field, and as such the primary duty of the veterinarian is to his/her
patient as is the case in medical ethics, but on the other hand, veterinary medicine is also an agricultural
subject bringing forth economic considerations centered on the client and returns to the practice.
In economics, one may hold property rights over animals implying that they may own animals as
private goods, make use of the animal for economic gains, and may dispose the animal in a manner
deemed fit within the law. The client will therefore be the owner holding these property rights. The view of
animals as a property is a source of some of the ethical dilemmas faced by veterinarians and has an effect
on the vet-animal-client (owner) relationship. The owner may demand that the veterinarian position
should be secondary to his since he owns the animal and ask the veterinarian to comply with his decision.
There is also the concept of bonding between animals and their owners, and this may be fairly strong
with respect to pet animals and special high-valued animals. A strong bond may create a psychological
barrier between the veterinarian and the client especially in issues connected with euthanasia.
Rollin (2006) uses two models to examine the perception of the society on veterinary practice; the two
metaphors are the veterinarian as a “pediatrician” or as a “garage mechanic.” The pediatrician model is
centered on the child patient’s interest, whereas in the mechanic model, the relationships are centered on
the owners’ willingness and ability to pay. It is his view that the pendulum is more on the mechanic model
when one is dealing with animal health care.
This (the “garage mechanic model”) perspective of service delivery is especially important when
delivery of veterinary services is considered as a commercial activity. The relationship between the

Page 6 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

veterinarian and the client can then be cast in the language of principal-agent theory in which the problems
of moral hazards and adverse selection are abound.
The fundamental problem is made even more complex when veterinary public health issues such as
antibiotic residues are considered in which case the veterinarian, animal, owner, and the public become
the relevant relationship. In this case, should primary concern be that of the animal or the public?

Ethical Dimensions
In this section, the long held principles of ethics in veterinary profession as well as dilemmas facing
veterinarians in the daily performance of their duties are examined. More often than not, veterinarians are
viewed or would prefer to be viewed as a role model in matters of animal welfare, moral standard, and
perfect representation of humanity at large. This is exemplified by the presence of a series of rules and
procedures that are ingrained in their education system, professional organizations, legislature, and
enforceable non-written practices that should strictly be observed in one’s professional life. However,
the existence of these procedures notwithstanding, the reality on the ground indicates a number of
challenges that make attaining the model more difficult. Most of the challenges arise in the decision-
making process where a number of dilemmas exist, and when a decision has been made, the consequences
of the actions thereafter have ethical, legal, financial (economic), and social implications.
Perhaps, the core to these dilemmas arises because veterinarians fail to distinguish between ethical and
welfare issues. Furthermore, the multitude of players with differing mandates leaves many veterinarians
slightly confused on course of action and yet maintaining professional objectives and manages a business
profitably.

Tripartite Relationships (Uniqueness of Veterinary Profession)

The veterinary profession is unique in the sense that veterinarians have, in their primary function, the duty
to the animal to protect the life, provide care, and maintain welfare. This is the main preoccupation of all
veterinary schools and strives to impart expertise to attain the highest standard possible for graduates.
Very little emphasis is placed on other aspects of the profession such as the interaction with clients (animal
owners) and professional colleagues. Often, these aspects are imparted onto graduates through “attach-
ments” of veterinary students to practices for varied durations and few hours of taught courses on
veterinary regulations and welfare. Regulatory bodies (state controlled, semiautonomous, or autonomous)
are responsible for enforcing ethics usually by implementing statutes empowering these organs to do
so. For this reasons, professional decisions that are made by veterinarians, irrespective of whether they
have ethical implications or not, differ from one individual to another.
On the other hand, the animal that a veterinarian aims to provide care and protect its life is owned by
someone else who has the power to decide on its behalf. The triangle of veterinarian-owner-animal
modifies the ability of veterinarians to make autonomous decisions specifically for actions that require
consent of the owner. Dilemma arises when the decision of a veterinarian that is meant to be “to the best
interest of the animal” is not being evaluated as such by the owner.

Euthanasia
According to the Oxford dictionary, euthanasia is defined as “The painless killing of a patient suffering
from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” Although this procedure is prohibited to
humans in most countries and still a subject of immense debate among medical professionals and
nonprofessionals alike, the veterinary profession permits termination of life to an animal humanely for
reasons specifically meant to remove suffering and protect their welfare. Veterinarians therefore are

Page 7 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

obliged to carry out a procedure that most psychologists agree has lasting effect on the performer. The
sequelae to this include stress and possible depression and hence affecting the mental health of veteri-
narians. On the other hand, the interpretation of the reasons and means of termination has attracted
scrutiny of various actors, specifically those in the animal welfare cycles.

Reasons for Termination

For some reasons, situations that require veterinarians to perform euthanasia are usually broader than what
the definition prescribes, and this creates a dilemma when making a decision when to or not to perform the
procedure. The situation is further complicated by the nature of the veterinary profession whereby owners
may have differing opinion from that of a veterinarian. Two scenarios provide an example of a difficult
ethical dilemma to a veterinarian:

(i) Cases of unwanted healthy animals whose owners prefer termination of life for personal reasons (e.g.,
owners moving away and are unwilling to give the animal(s) for adoption, or old age animals)
(ii) Cases of animals whose owners refuse to give permission for euthanasia for personal reasons
although the veterinarian judges that it is to the best interest of the animal to perform euthanasia

Means of Termination
Controversy exists as to which method satisfies “all” conditions of humane means of termination of life of
an animal. Recommended methods for termination of life include the use of chemicals/drugs, physical, or
a combination of both depending on the species, age, and circumstances. Most chemicals that are
recommended for euthanasia are classified as POM (prescription-only medicines) that are authorized to
be used by veterinarians and/or other categories of professionals who are legally licensed to perform this
procedure. Their availability in all circumstances is therefore not possible. Furthermore, their efficacy is
questionable much as it is in humans.
Physical means such as decapitation, electrocution, and guns are subject for debate primarily because of
the physical reaction of the body after application. The need to be particularly accurate in the application
in order to achieve the desired effect is hard to substantiate in all conditions.

Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine/Ethnoveterinary Medicine

Conventional veterinary medicine uses regulated agents that have been shown to be effective under
conditions of use. Furthermore, not only the effectiveness and efficacy have been scientifically proven to
work, but also the side effects, interactions, and mode of actions are known. The recent developments of
complementary and alternative veterinary medicines have gained popularity specifically in small animal
medicine (probably as a result of increase in use by human subjects). These products have not gone
through the rigors of the conventional testing before approval. Furthermore, mode of action, side effects,
and interactions are seldomly known.
There is a large body of knowledge of traditional remedies that are also being studied now, but
communities (specifically in developing countries) continue using them alongside the experiments
being carried out to elucidate their effectiveness, dosages, active ingredients, side effects, and mechanism
of action. Is it ethical to prescribe, dispense, and apply these remedies for payments?

Public Health Issues

Veterinarians are tasked with the protection of the public from exposure to intrinsic hazards associated
with products of animal origin. Typically, these will be of biological or chemical nature originating from
the production process. Increasingly, more experienced farmers are treating their own animals with
medications that should only be administered by veterinarians partly because of cost reduction and partly

Page 8 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

because drug manufacturers are aggressively pushing to market their products directly to farmers. Just as
the case with doping in sports, reporting these actions and proving the risk to consumers may be harder to
veterinarians.
Also, veterinarians are required to ensure that animals that are slaughtered for human consumption are
humanly treated during the process. However, as with the case of euthanasia, there is a gray area as to what
constitutes a humane method of stunning. Furthermore, certain religious slaughter requires standards that
are set based on beliefs which are difficult to scientifically prove that the methods are humane.

Public Infectious Disease Management Strategies

A special case of mass euthanasia is applied in infectious disease eradication strategy where all animals in
contact with infected animal or herd (healthy, infected, and sick) are slaughtered (killed) and disposed off
hygienically. Diseases such as foot and mouth disease (FMD) (in FMD-free countries) and highly
pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) have caused mass killing of animals and carcasses incinerated. Similar
measures are indicated in all infectious disease emergency preparedness plans in case a particular disease
would erupt and detected early enough. Is there a justification for this strategy where a disease has a
known effective vaccine?
Policies to prevent rabies through killing of stray domestic and feral dogs and cats still exist in some
developing countries today. Recent researches have shown this method to be ineffective in eliminating
rabies, but still this option remains in place in some countries worldwide. Alternative methods of spaying
and castrating these animals are advocated and have shown some successes in several countries world-
wide, but some factors are limiting wider application of these techniques.

Animal Breeding and Genetic Selection

Technological developments in the areas of animal breeding have enabled humankind to improve
productivity of food animals and hence contribute to improving food security to the ever-growing
world population. The emphasis on more outputs for less input systems has led to animal breeding
programs that harness physiological traits favoring higher production at the expense of animal welfare
issues such as lameness, mastitis, and dystocia. Veterinarians dealing with farm animals face a dilemma
whether to advice the farmers not to keep these animals in order to control certain illnesses. It is believed
that as human population increases and incomes improve, more and more people will need animal protein,
and thus, intensification in production will increase, and therefore, this dilemma will continue to exist in
the near future.
A further development in breeding and genetic selection is more disturbing and probably more
controversial than breeding for production. For years, certain species of animals have been bred and
specifically selected for sports and esthetic reasons. Horse, dog, and cat breeds have been bred for a
variety of reasons including racing, draft, hunting, fighting, guarding, size, and shape to suit a particular
need of a consumptive society. Different health problems have therefore been propagated for generations
in particular breeds, and veterinarians have to deal with these ailments. This is an ethical dilemma that has
financial and social implications.

Working in Wildlife Ecosystems

The role of wildlife as reservoir of disease-causing agents in humans and domestic animals has increased
involvement of veterinarians in activities such as game capture for various reasons including transloca-
tion, attaching tracking devices for research, or sample collection for disease surveillance in the wild. This
entails tranquillisation of wild animals using aerial or land vehicles to track and darting to administer
powerful chemicals for safer handling and manipulation. In doing this, sometimes unintended events

Page 9 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

occur such as animals being drowned having sought sanctuary in water bodies, predators catching prey,
and injuries while fleeing after administration of drugs.
While these activities are important for improvement of quality of life for humans and animals in the
long run, ethical dilemmas exist in the short run as to whether these actions are morally justified given the
dangers posed to animals.

Veterinary Ethics in Business Setting

The world of veterinary practice is fairly dynamic, whereas in the past, veterinary practices were run
mainly along professional lines. Competition from other “for profit” veterinary practices and increasing
competition from “not for profit” practices (who may receive tax breaks and charitable contributions) and
subordinates (especially in developing countries), monopolistic tendencies from those who enjoy eco-
nomics of scale, and the aggregation of livestock toward more intensive operations and coupled with
economic downturn are forcing more and more practices to follow the business model of practice.
Furthermore, the free market competition bandwagon is challenging veterinary associations and statutory
bodies to allow more competition between practices then was hitherto possible. As an example, the
Danish Veterinary Association was made to allow more competition (clients being given a choice as to
who their vets would be and the protection of practices by the creation of monopolistic zones of, or
duration of exclusion) by the Danish Competition Council. The decision was later in December 2013
upheld by the Danish Competition Appeals Tribunal (Denmark 2014). Advertising and practice promo-
tion once uncommon in practice are thus spreading especially where competition is high. These realities
of practice are likely to increase friction and therefore ethical dilemmas between veterinarians as some
may adopt methods to undercut the competition or behave opportunistically toward their clients (moral
hazard). In the long run, fair competition is good for the clients as it lowers the going price and motivates
practices to improve their cost structure (i.e., lower) and improve quality. A similar trend of events took
place in the UK, where in 1976, the Monopoly Commission saw the Royal College of Veterinary
Surgeons’ “ethical” restrictions on advertising as being against public interest as it both curtailed
competition between practices and was withholding information from clients. Despite the policy being
favored by most veterinarians, the RCVS was forced to lift its restrictions in 1984. The word of
professionals was being questioned by the public (Woods 2013).

Possible Ethical Challenges in the Future (One Health Initiative)

In recent times, one health approaches are being advocated, and various high-profile scientific conven-
tions have been held worldwide to promote the idea of bringing together veterinarians and medical
doctors. The dilemma would be to define ethical standards applicable to both humans and animals. Should
the ethical standards applicable to humans be extended to animals?

Conclusion
Veterinary ethics is the application of ethical theories, principles, and rules by professionals and para-
professionals in resolving ethical dilemmas in the practice of veterinary care. Veterinary ethics is a
relatively new concept that has evolved rapidly in the last few decades. Various theories and principles
have been defined, and they underpin knowledge and understanding from which actions of veterinarians
can be measured and evaluated. As technology and novel innovations develop, the practice of giving
veterinary care should also change, and boundaries between ethical and nonethical practice need to be
redefined as well.

Page 10 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Apart from development in technology and innovations, the spectrum of influence for veterinarians
also widens to include areas traditionally not considered the domain of the veterinary profession.
Involvement of veterinarians in such areas as the wildlife, aquatic fauna, and one health approach ushers
in new challenges in veterinary practice. These gray areas will demand adaptation of principles and
theories and, consequently, the rules and norms.
Furthermore, the increase in global social dynamics driven by growing numbers of educated elite,
increased economic status, and ease of communication causes social pressure to accommodate new
ethical values to the veterinary profession. Obviously, research will be required to elucidate scientific
evidence for effect of new values and the best cause of action, but individual decisions of veterinarians
will have to be made subjectively depending on circumstances of an event. Hence, ethical dilemmas are
likely to confront veterinarians in their quest to provide appropriate care to the animals.

Cross-References
▶ Alternative Medicine
▶ Animal Ethics
▶ Animal Research
▶ Animal Rights
▶ Animal Welfare
▶ Applied Ethics
▶ Autonomy
▶ Benefit and Harm
▶ Bioethics: Clinical
▶ Bioethics: Medical
▶ Consent: Informed
▶ Professional Ethics
▶ Professionalism
▶ Professional-Patient Relationship
▶ Property Rights
▶ Utilitarianism
▶ Virtue Ethics

References
Arries, E. (2005). Virtue ethics: An approach to moral dilemmas in nursing. Curationis, 28(3), 64–72.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed., pp. 57–272). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bowden, P., & Smythe, V. (2008). Theories on teaching & training in ethics. Electronic Journal of
Business Ethics and Organization Studies (EJBO), 13(2), 19–26. Retrieved from http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/
ejbo_vol13_no2_pages_19-26.pdf
Denmark. (2014). Annual report on competition policy developments in Denmark 2013. Retrived from
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/AR(2014)3&
docLanguage=En
Gardiner, P. A. (2003). Virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics,
29, 297–302.

Page 11 of 12
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_435-1
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Newman, D. L., & Brown, R. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rollin, B. E. (2006). An introduction to veterinary medical ethics: Theory and cases (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Sandoe, P., & Christiansen, S. B. (2008). Ethics of animal use. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Singer, P. (1993). A companion to ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stephens, T. (2012). Veterinary professional ethics. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/
171503442/Veterinary-Professional-Ethics-TS
Sugarman, J., & Sulmasy, D. P. (Eds.). (2010). Methods in medical ethics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Tannenbaum, J. (1995). Veterinary ethics: Animal welfare, client relations, competition and collegiality
(2nd ed.). Baltimore: William and Wilkins.
Woods, A. (2013). The history of veterinary ethics in Britain, ca.1870–2000. In Wathes, C. M., Corr,
S. A., May, S. A., McCulloch, S. P., & Whiting, M. C. (Eds.), Veterinary and animal ethics: pro-
ceedings of the first international conference on veterinary and animal ethics, September 2011.
(pp. 3–18). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Further Readings
Ethics. (n.d.). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/
value/ethics/
Legood, G. (Ed.). (2000). Veterinary ethics: An introduction. London: Continuum Publishing.

Page 12 of 12

View publication stats