No Ethics in Hampering Training of Veterinarians

By Robert C. Speth, Ph.D.(1)

Animal rightists oppose the domestication of animals. They refer to any and all uses of animals as slavery; whether to provide food, as competitors in rodeos, or even their role as pets. Their "Bible" is a book called "Animal Liberation" which rails against the use of animals by humans.

Indeed, the ultimate goal of the extremist animal rights group that has targeted the Clarkston animal shelter for harassment because they are selling animals to the WSU College of Veterinary Medicine, is to outlaw the domestication of animals.

The leader of this group, which ironically calls itself People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, was quoted in the Washingtonian Magazine saying, "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." She was later quoted in Harper’s Magazine saying, "We would no longer allow ... pet shops. Eventually companion animals would be phased out."

Several years ago some WSU students, inspired by PETA propaganda, formed a club "Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" (SETA) whose purpose was to educate others about animals. One student described how future interactions with animals might be after pet ownership was abolished. ‘Well if I want to say hi to a wild dog, I would just walk over to him and put my hand out to pet him.’ My response was, ‘Are you sure you will get your hand back?’ At another meeting, the President of the club announced his plan for stopping the ‘tyranny’ of cattle farming: ‘We will sterilize all the cattle and set them free.’ When I suggested that this would cause them to suffer and die painfully, his reply was, ‘Well to be an animal rights supporter, you have to be a hypocrite.’ The club disbanded shortly thereafter.

As for applied hypocrisy, PETA set the standard for comparison when they began to kill animals sent to their Aspen Hill Animal Sanctuary, because they chose not to spend any of the millions of dollars they raised on their behalf to provide the care they needed.

Now, once again, PETA-inspired students are active at WSU, but this time they are Veterinary students, pitifully unaware of the dangerous implications of their actions for animals.

Since the Veterinary profession arose from our domestication of animals and is dedicated to caring for the animals we use for food, knowledge, entertainment and companionship, there is a stark conflict between the goals of the Veterinary profession and those of animal rightists. Recognizing this conflict, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) guidelines state, "The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber and research conducted for the benefit of humans and animals."

So, it should be no surprise to learn that the animal rights movement is attacking the Veterinary profession.

From the outset, the modern day animal rights movement has relied upon distortion, dishonesty and extremism to peddle their philosophy to society. They routinely lie about the benefits of animal use for medical knowledge. Indeed, the antivivisectionist ancestors of today’s animal rightists attempted to stop the research of Louis Pasteur that led to the discovery of the rabies vaccine. Animal rightists focus only on rare instances of animal abuse, pretending that the exception is the rule. And they have condoned terrorism as a means to back up their extremist demands.

It is unfortunate that so many pet-owners who are genuinely concerned about animal well-being have bought into the modern day animal rights philosophy. Because no matter how well-intentioned the sentiment, the irrationality of this philosophy makes it a threat to animal well-being. Describing animal rightism in Audubon Magazine, several years back, Richard Conniff noted: "The movement has elevated ignorance about the natural world almost to the level of a philosophical principle."

Seen in this context, it is easy to see that the efforts of extremist animal rightists to stop the sale of animals to the WSU College of Veterinary Medicine is but another example of how animal rightists are endangering animals. Animals have been used to teach veterinary students from the inception of the profession. And, while great strides have been made in implementing non-animal teaching techniques, none of these can yet match the value of a real animal for training veterinarians. In an effort to divert the argument from this unassailable fact, animal rightists make false claims of misuse of animals. Animal rightists make the even more outrageous claim that they are acting ethically. Nothing could be further from the truth. By compromising the learning environment for veterinarians animal rightists jeopardize the health of the animals whose care is entrusted to veterinarians with the expectation that they have received the best possible training. Worse yet, by preventing the use of unwanted animals in the veterinary teaching process, the lives of those animals are lost without any benefit to other animals or to society.

I challenge readers to name any significant medical advancement made by veterinary medicine - FOR THE EXCLUSIVE SAKE OF ANIMALS - that has not used animals in its development and quality assurance. Animal rightists would have this care and concern abolished tomorrow, too.

So, the question is: Do you support the Veterinary Profession with its proven record of caring for animals and improving their welfare? Or, do you support the animal rights movement, which uses animal welfare as a smokescreen to hide its true agenda of divorcing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom?

The author is a Professor of Pharmacology and Neuroscience at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, and Adjunct Professor of Physiology and Pharmacology at Oregon Health and Science University. In addition, he is a past president of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics, and founding editor of the Society’s Newsletter. He serves on the board of the National Animal Interest Alliance and has also served on the board of the Washington Association for Biomedical Research. The opinions contained in this article are his alone and should not be construed as representing official positions of the organizations with which he is associated.

Back to Animal Rights / Home