Ethics, Law and Professional Practice - Tail Docking Dilemma - Literature review Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Ethics, Law and Professional Practice Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction An ethical dilemma can be described as a complex situation that more often than not involves perceptible mental conflict between various moral imperatives and in which the decision to comply with one would lead to transgressing the other (Campbell 2003). It is simply a deliberation between two ethical principals, where two parties can dispute what is wrong and right. Even so, there is no real answer to ethical dilemma, a result that presumes ethical dilemma as a matter of what an individual believes in. This particular report will therefore provide an analysis of tail docking as an ethical dilemma that has occurred in veterinary practice in Scotland. It will thereafter critically evaluate the various implications of this dilemma with regard to the regulatory bodies and criminal or civil law and discuss the resolutions available to avoid the ethical dilemma occurring again and the resolution of potential or actual professional conflicts. Tail Docking Ethical dilemmas may occur in any profession and these dilemmas can involve inter-professional conflicts and/or illegal practices. Tail docking is one such ethical dilemma within the field of veterinary practice that acted as a very emotive subject globally and has often been a major basis for disagreements between the many breed clubs, animal owners and welfare organizations in the past two decades or so. It is a procedure that has always been carried out globally, with only a small number of nations not allowing it (Scottish Parliament, 2005). Proponents of this practice have often cited aesthetic, hygienic and therapeutic reasons as the major motivations behind the practice. Moreover, the proponents claim that the practice is carried out for hygiene reasons, to prevent it from tail damage in addition to maintaining the breed standard. A number of breeders therefore desire to have their right to choose the option of tail docking. On the other hand, various regulatory bodies have more often than not been adamantly opposed to this particular practice and backed the banning of the practice. Tail docking was for instance banned in England on 6th April, 2007 and in Wales from the 28th March, 2007.However the ban exempted certain working dogs but only for medical treatment purposes. On the other hand, a total ban took effect on 30th April, 2007 in Scotland. Despite the ban, various owners are still practicing it by taking them south of the border where they are legally docked and brought back to Scotland. They however face swingering fines when caught. Implications of Tail Docking Dilemma with regard to the Regulatory Bodies and Criminal or Civil Law Tail docking has for a long time been a matter of serious professional misconduct among the majority Scotland’s veterinary professionals. The procedure has however turned out to be illegal as a whole despite few cases where some practitioners are still practicing it illegally. Regulatory bodies and criminal or civil laws are concerned with forbidden acts, maintaining and defining sets of rules as well as systems for to be enforcement. As a result, even if veterinary nurses had no any personal objection to perform the procedure they would not carry it out due to the double risk provided by the law, both coming out of their professional regulations in addition to the Animal Welfare Act (Hewson and Surrey, 2008). All veterinary nurses are therefore supposed to be sufficiently familiar with the relevant legislation as well as understanding what it means in real practice. The tail docking dilemma was banned under harsh new animals’ law welfare legislation amid protests from various proponents of the practice. According to Dinwoodie (2006), the legislations recommend new measures to protect domestic, pet as well as the captive animals’ welfare and even to help stop animal suffering within Scotland. Dog Rules (2007) on the hand argues that tail docking which entails the elimination of most or some part of a given animal’s tail, tendons, severing muscles, nerves and at times bone or cartilage cannot be acceptable due to the possibility of an animal injuring its tail later on in life. Moreover, the Animal Health and Welfare of (Scotland) Act 2006 banned all the procedures interfering with bone structures or other sensitive animal tissues for non-medical reasons. There were however certain regulations that were laid in Scotland Parliament exempting various procedures from the general ban for instance ear tagging on livestock and micro chipping on pet animals. According to the Scottish Government Publications (2007), the excused procedures are generally meant to help farmers identify their animals, control production or for other welfare or handler safety reasons of the animals. Section 20 of this Act (Animal Health and Welfare Act) further makes it an offense to carry out a procedure on any animal that interferes with their bone structures or any other sensitive tissue, except when it is a health procedure or a procedure that has been purposely exempted following regulations by the Scottish Ministers. Veterinary surgeons Act of 1966 was enforced to regulate the animal treatment. Under this particular provision only veterinary surgeons are legally entitled to prescribe, diagnose and perform surgery on animals. In addition, the 2006 Animal Health and Welfare Act view the act of not taking reasonable steps to protect animal welfare as an offence. One of the relevant ethical requirements for a veterinary nurse is to participate in decision making processes that are ethical and also to identify critical ethical issues in the workplace, thus a veterinary nurse should ensure that reasonable steps are taken to protect animal welfare. Therefore in case a nurse identifies any sort of unethical practice by a veterinary surgeon such as tail docking, he/ she is ethically obligated to immediately report the matter to the relevant authorities. The above criminal regulations on animal health and welfare can be described as the major laws that are very much applicable to veterinary nursing. Cooper and Lane (2003) highlight the veterinary nursing is a profession that is grounded on the recognition of code of ethics and public laws. As a result in order to maintain professional ethics and also meet requirements of the law it is vital for veterinary nurses to not participate in tail docking a surgical operation that is against the law. In my opinion I think that the rule of law has to be upheld as a result if tail docking was a burnt practice, veterinary nurses should not be part of it. Loop holes that exist in the law are mainly caused by the exception of docking on working dogs. In 2007, the deputy environmental minister Rhona Brankin said that she does not believe that exemption should be enforced on working dogs however those who argue should provide convincing evidence in order to support their case, and then they should be provided with considerations that frame the level of exception (BBC 2007). Rhona’s view point can be argued as true this is essential because it is due to the exceptions on working dogs that various owners are still practicing the outlawed activity by taking their dogs south of the border where they are legally docked and brought back. Potential professional conflicts surrounding unethical and/or illegal practice of tail Docking Foreman (2005) highlights that the new animals’ law welfare legislation in Scotland is crucial in getting the animals’ welfare in harmony with the prevailing ethical view as far as animals’ welfare is concerned. The rationale underlying this particular offence according to Foreman (2005) is therefore to ensure that action is taken to stop animals from suffering to an extent expected to act under the cruelty offence which requires that an individual responsible for any given animal to take sensible steps to make certain that the animals’ needs are met up to such a level mandated by good practice. According to the new animals’ law welfare legislation in Scotland, the needs of these animals will cover the ability of animals’ to exhibit normal behaviour, protection coming out from pain, injury, diseases as well as other factors. Foreman (2005) highlights that this offence will enable a large number of animals to get help in future. On the other hand, Hewson & Surrey (2008) argues that it may well be understandable that the practice of tail docking ought not to be provided not considering any good outcomes of providing such services. Hewson & Surrey (2008) highlights further that removing a healthy animals’ tail when there is no medical hint for it, does not respect the animals’ worth. Hewson & Surrey (2008) argues further that perception that failure to provide the services is in itself a failure in the responsibility of care offensive, justifiably. This way of thinking according to Hewson & Surrey (2008) reveals a rights-based moral position through which all the animals are guaranteed inherent worth. This leads to the rise of supreme rules governing behaviour for instance the docking animals. Another argument opposed to tail docking is that docked animals may possibly be socially disadvantaged when compared to other animals. This is due to the fact that these animals lack one of the most essential appendages useful in communication. Again; Guither (2008) argues that there is only little evidence to back this claim. It is however well-known particularly with dogs that tails are very significant for communication and as a result docked dogs, especially those docked near the base of their tails may possibly turn out to be socially disadvantaged. Guither (2008) argues that it is without a doubt that docked dogs take part in various compensatory behaviours, for instance butt-wiggling and which involves the whole back end of a given dog being wiggled energetically from one side to another so as to communicate. Guither (2008) highlights further that whether the practice of tail docking may possibly lead social misunderstanding has however, not been thoroughly investigated. Another difficulty related to the dogs’ capability to communicate with human species that are normally taught pet education programs so that they are able to read the dogs’ body language largely through the observation of the tail. It is therefore possible that human species are in danger of extinction by docked dogs, merely because their communication ability with dogs is impaired, although this has not yet been established. Resolutions Available to Avoid the Ethical Dilemma Occurring Again Daily veterinary practices more often than not present situations that bring about ethical challenges. Being sensitive of the major ethical approaches can help individuals understand any devastating reactions that we and even those close to us may possibly have to the challenges concerned. It is therefore important to establish a well thought-out ethical response to any given case of concern by taking a systematic approach. According to Hewson & Surrey (2008), addressing ethical concerns ought to take into account issues of ethics, science as well as law. Hewson & Surrey (2008) argues that scientific information appears as a crucial element as far as ethical decision-making is concerned. This is due to abundant research carried out on farm species providing an indication that animals such as dogs are likely to experience pain when the practice of tail docking is carried out without any pain relief. Moreover other evidences from rats and some puppies strongly hint that a number of puppies who are docked without analgesia are more likely to result into hyperalgesia within the tail region. A major resolution is to establish the various interests of the persons affected. At this point, the ethical matrix appears to be of great significance due to the fact that it takes into account of the consideration of three types of interests for every individual party involved. The three interests include the well-being of the party, autonomy as well as justice or fairness. In case of the tail docking of a puppy, the parties to be involved should include: the breeder, the puppies, the veterinarian and the future owners of the puppies. Once through with establishing the various interests of the persons affected all possible courses of action ought to be identified. These may include for instance whether to dock the puppies’ tails using analgesia, docking tails using ring blocks, docking tails using epidural anesthetic or not dock animals’ tails (Guither, 1998). The next issue is to identify the ethical concerns involved for instance whether a veterinarian ought to always do what his client wants and whether it matters if the type of animals (e.g. lambs or puppies) involved undergo pain throughout the tail-docking process. Once the ethical concerns involved are established, the next approach would be to establish how the laws are involved in dealing with the dilemma. It will therefore be important to understand how the various changes occur. To bring change, supporters of the ban ought to acknowledge various phases of change in attitudes, look at carefully various tactics that will result in progressive social changes, develop significant mass opinion over the issue, and work collectively to have some bearing on changes in both public policies as well as in private decisions. The next step will thereafter be to decide a guiding principle or course of action and finally minimize the various impacts of the decisions made (Guither, 1998). Veterinary nursing is very closely connected to the representative and regulatory organizations that deal with animal welfare such as the rspca canine defence league and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This is essentially because; their functions entail provision of nursing and medical care for animals. For instance Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons can gather evidence concerning lawful docking incidences like in situations were working dogs are subjected to injuries. As a result in order to effectively deal with the ethical dilemma of tail docking, collaboration is required between the various bodies. Resolution of Potential or Actual Veterinary Professional Conflicts on Tail Docking Dilemma Veterinary nurses are more often than not regarded as animal protectors and majority of veterinary organizations are often quick to confirm that their entire member veterinarians attach importance to as well as promoting the wellbeing of animals. Examples of such incongruous behaviours consist of carrying out unnecessary clinical procedures, failing to alleviate pain as well as suffering during and after surgical operations and failure to report animal abuse. Veterinarians are thus faced with situations that involve conflicting responsibilities to both the patients and clients. A good client communication between veterinary professionals and their clients can be very vital in this case. As a requirement and where possible, veterinary professionals can explain to the animal owners the matters of concerns, so as to offer them the best advice. This means that veterinarians have a responsibility of advocating for animals and therefore have a responsibility towards the animals. They should therefore be the animals’ advocate when giving advice to the owners on the appropriate care as concern their health as well as welfare (Bennet & Perini, 2003). Interpretation of this consensus ethic ensures that owners or clients should not perform what is unethical. Veterinary nurses in this case ought to value as well as promote animals’ welfare. They should therefore advice their clients not carry out cosmetic surgery, report cases of animal abuse and that they ought to use the appropriate anesthesia for painful procedures. Moreover, veterinarians ought to feel morally compelled to disagree with those clients who come up with choices that they consider illegitimate. They should therefore advocate for the animals’ welfare even it means conflicting with owners. This often appears to be a hard decision but veterinarians should always ensure what is right is done (Morgan, 2009). Conclusion It is clear from the report that a number of bodies have in the recent past emerged, focusing on certain aspects of animal welfare as well as the animal rights. Farm animal welfare has therefore grown to be a major concern for various activists. Various groups have therefore publicized what they feel unacceptable for farm animals lobbying for legislations to lay down firm standards on how they ought to be treated. As a matter of fact, docking ought to be banned except as curative treatment by veterinary surgeons. This is to enhance humane treatment of all animals. On the other hand, an evaluation on the issue of tail docking which is well-versed in addition to being non- emotive, calls for an integration of various ethical views along with biological and behavioural facts. References Bennet, P and Perini, E, 2003, Tail docking in dogs: A Review of the Issues, Australian Veterinary Journal, retrieved on February 8 from http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/taildocking_issues.pdf Barchas, E, 2003, Ear Cropping and Tail Docking Create Ethical Dilemmas for Vets. BBC 2007, Views on tail docking. Campbell, A, 2003, The Welfare Dilemma: A Matter of Balancing Consequences. Cooper, B& D. R. Lane , 2003, Veterinary nursing, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2003. Dinwoodie, R, 2006, Tail-docking Banned in Tough New Animals’ Law Welfare Legislation Passed despite Protests, retrieved on February 8 from http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/tail-docking-banned-in-tough-new-animals-law-welfare-legislation-passed-despite-protests-1.18828 Dogs Rule, 2007, Tail docking ban in Scotland, retrieved on February 8 from http://www.dogsrule.co.uk/blog/health/tail-docking-ban-in-scotland/ Foreman, S, 2005, The Animal Welfare Bill, Journal of Welfare law, retrieved on February 8 from http://www.alaw.org.uk/journal/journalissue2.pdf Guither, D.H, 1998, Animal rights: history and scope of a radical social movement, SIU Press. Hewson, C.J and Surrey, R,2008, UK Welfare in Practice 4: How to Deal with Ethical Dilemmas Like Tail Docking and Exotic Pets, World Small Animal Veterinary Association World Congress Proceedings, 2008, retrieved on February 8 file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/esther/Desktop/Proceedings.plxdock.htm Morgan, C.A, 2009, Stepping up to the Plate: Animal Welfare, Veterinarians and Ethical Conflicts. Scottish Parliament, 2005, Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, Environment and Rural Development Committee Official Report 14 December 2005. The Scottish Government Publication, 2007, Ban on Tail Docking Confirmed, retrieved on February 8 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/02/07102500 Orpet, H & Welsh, 2010, Handbook of Veterinary Nursing, Edition 2, John Wiley and Sons, 2010 Read More