Here is the press release which was attached:
At the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the New Brunswick Veterinary Medical Association, the majority of members passed a motion. This motion stated that it would be considered unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal, effective March 28, 2009.
This includes:
- Tail docking in dogs, horses, and cows.
- Tail nicking and setting in horses.
- Ear cropping in dogs.
- Declawing in species other than domestic cats.
Our national body (the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association) opposes surgical alteration of any animal for purely cosmetic purposes. The NBVMA believes that veterinarians of NB should take a strong stance against antiquated breed standards and traditions, and be advocates for animal welfare by stopping the practice of cosmetic surgery by veterinarians.
Personally, I find it really interesting that ear cropping and tail docking were lumped together, but even more interesting that declawing was lumped in with those. The procedures differ vastly from one another. They were voted on as one group, not individual procedures, and I suspect that's one of the reasons the vote was apparently close. I asked Mr. Whittle for numbers, but he did not oblige.
To dissect this NBVMA statement, I do take issue that the idea that “it would be considered unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian in New Brunswick to perform cosmetic surgery on any animal”. I personally feel that as business owners, veterinarians should have the choice as to what types of procedures they will perform, as long as they are performed in safe ways. Veterinarians, by the time they are practising, have ample training and are certainly trusted to make lifesaving decisions regularly so I would assume that their training is adequate. Yet they can't be trusted by their peers to use their best judgement about the procedures they will perform? This has to be regulated by their Association? This seems odd.
I also take issue with the statement that the veterinarians will be “advocates for animal welfare by stopping the practice of cosmetic surgery by veterinarians.” Advocates for animal welfare? By stopping legitimate, responsible breeders who spend more time, effort and money on showing, health testing and other veterinary care on their breeding stock than they will ever see back in the sale of puppies from having safe, cosmetic surgery performed on their animals? I'm not sure that this is the best way in which veterinarians can take a stand on animal welfare. How about taking a stand against pet stores that sell dogs from puppy mills instead? Or offering low cost spay and neuter so that lower income pet owners can spay and neuter their animals?
I work with dogs. I know that veterinarians see what I see: Dogs that are truly neglected or not cared for. Dogs with teeth rotting out of their skulls and causing horrible illness. Matted dogs, underweight dogs, obese dogs, dogs who aren't being treated for things, even those which are simple to treat. Parasites, skin conditions, joint problems, etc. Dogs whose owners refuse to take good care of them, feeling that providing some food (wholesome or not) and water and in some cases absolutely minimal shelter is enough. Dogs from puppy mills or pet stores with social problems and serious health problems. Seeing these things, I just find it terribly difficult to believe that this is the best way in which the NBVMA is can take a stance on animal welfare. By some veterinarians telling other veterinarians what procedures they can and cannot perform? Taking the choice to have a cosmetic procedure safely performed which the dog will recover from quickly with no ill after effects away from breeders who test their breeding stock for genetic eye problems, hip,elbow, cardiac, thyroid and more? I have to ask, why are veterinarians picking on the breeders, and those veterinarians who choose to offer those services?
I have to wonder if the next logical step is to then make it against the regulations to perform artificial inseminations or other reproductive services as they are not necessary to the animal's survival? This would be an inconvenience for many dog breeders, but devastating for cattle farmers.
Remember that spaying and neutering are also elective surgeries, as I said in my last article on this topic, and yet these surgeries are routine practice and often done with little or no discussion of the risks and benefits of the surgical procedure.
I think the Veterinary Associations, both the NBVMA and the CVMA need to carefully consider the difference in animal rights versus animal welfare and the direction they are taking. I think that they also need to include responsible breeders in their dialogue on these topics: Don't breeders deserve that considering how much money they spend at veterinarian offices?