Welfare charity warning over harmful ‘complicity’

A charity’s conference has been warned the veterinary sector is at risk of being seen as “complicit” in harmful activities unless it does more to promote animal welfare.

Professionals were urged to go further in recognising non-human rights during the Animal Welfare Foundation’s annual discussion forum, held in London on 13 May.

Delegates were also urged to “speak the truth” on key current environmental issues, amid enduring controversy over the use of animals in areas of human activity.

Vet Steven McCulloch, who is also a senior lecturer in human-animal studies at the University of Winchester, argued that clinicians needed to be stronger advocates on the issue.

Welfare rights

He highlighted the cases of breeding sows and brachycephalic dogs as examples of animals whose welfare rights were being violated even though fundamental rights, such as the right to life, were not.

He also compared the non-recognition of rights to going into surgery without a scalpel and pointed out that the BVA’s latest strategy for animal welfare, which dates back to 2016, did not refer to rights at all.

Dr McCulloch told delegates: “If the veterinary profession dismisses rights, and only recognises rights for humans, it’s important to understand human interests will always win out.”

Angus Nurse, professor of law and environmental justice at Anglia Ruskin University, said current law does recognise animal rights, but only in a limited or “thin” sense.

Unnecessary suffering

Meanwhile, questions were also raised from the floor about what is meant by the term “unnecessary suffering”, the potential pressures preventing greater advocacy and whether the recognition of welfare rights actually has a positive impact.

But former BVA president Sean Wensley suggested issues such as brachycephalic dogs necessitated actions to protect animals that have yet to be born, as well as providing care for those that are already suffering.

He also expressed concerns the veterinary sector could be seen as a “blocker” of potential progress on welfare issues because of its approach to the rights concept.

He argued that, despite the emphasis placed on welfare in its response to the findings of the recent CMA review, the sector was “silent” on several key welfare issues.

Concerns

Dr Wensley, who is PDSA’s senior vet for animal welfare and professional engagement, stressed his concerns were primarily focused on the level of policy, rather than the actions of individual clinicians, having acknowledged that existing stances on some issues were currently under review.

However, Dr Wensley also cautioned that greater efforts were still needed, “lest we leave ourselves open to the accusation of complicity”.

He further conceded that the question of complicity could also be sensitive – particularly for students – but asked: “What side of history do we want to be on?”

Supporting a ban

Dissent against the use of animals in areas such as food or sport has continued to become more mainstream, with more than one in six respondents to a BVA survey last year supporting a ban on at least some animal sport disciplines.

The forum also heard from a senior Animal Rising activist, who claimed its protests at last year’s Grand National, during which more than 100 people were arrested, had triggered the most substantial changes to the race in more than a decade.

Co-director Rose Patterson also expressed shock at animal-based products being served during the forum event and said veterinary professionals can influence the public, adding: “Don’t be complicit.”