More Information
Confusion reigns - a reply
Authors: Marchant RPublication: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 75, May 1986
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Animal type: General
Subject Terms: Ethics, Veterinary profession
Article class: Correspondence
Abstract: Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter from Dr. Wiessing. Appendix 1 of the 1986 Guide, and in fact the entire Guide, was written taking into account the wishes of the majority of the profession, as was pointed out in my recent letter to the New Zealand Veterinary Journal. The Guide was also written taking into account the relevant needs of society. There is no question that submissions to the Review Committee and the opinion of the Animal Welfare Subcommittee show the profession does not approve of surgery for purely cosmetic reasons, particularly the more extreme examples such as ear cropping of dogs. There has also been a recent letter to the New Zealand Veterinary Journal containing comment from the Executive Director, New Zealand Veterinary Association about the profession`s non-acceptance of ear cropping for cosmetic purposes. I personally believe that the views on ear cropping have been expressed sufficiently strongly that, if tried, the profession would have no hesitation in finding the practice unethical. The question of tail docking of pups is more difficult. The feeling, both within the profession and within society is not as strong as that regarding ear cropping. It is also, I believe, a fair assumption that opinion is, and has been, changing. More and more people are disagreeing with tail docking. However, because the practice is common, and is best carried out by a veterinarian (if it must be done) rather than a lay person, then I would suggest that under normal circumstances the practice would
Access to the full text of this article is available to members of:
- SciQuest - Complimentary Subscription
Login
Otherwise:
Register for an account