Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans

Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans

Taka FUJI!

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to define the characteristics of animal

care and to compare that with the care for humans, especially in terms of medical care. Firstly, I'll introduce some different views on the moral

consideration for animals. Definitions of these ethical positions are

fundamental to ethical discussions about animal care. Secondly, I will categorize the animals according to Japanese animal laws. I will highlight which moral position supports which animal. Lastly, I will compare and identify the similarities and differences between animal care and care

for humans, especially in the area of medical care. It also indicates a part of human medicine which we have overlooked.

Introduction

This paper aims to survey and analyse the characteristics of animal care

through a comparison with care for humans. There are no precedents for analyzing animal care from an ethical point of view. The word 'care' mainly carries two meanings; one is concern' and another is 'assiduities' or solicitude' for someone's welfare.1 In this report, care means an

action with (or based on) consideration to others.

Generally, we focus on care for living humans. However, care extends

beyond humans. For example, there are some discussions about care for

fertilized ova, embryos, fetuses, corpses, animals, and plants. To grasp the entire picture of care, there is need to appreciate that such non-human

domains are significant and they can give us a clearer understanding of

the concept of care.

I . Moral considerations for Animals

Moral considerations for animals are viewed through seven positions:

Radical Anthropocentrism, Animal Protection, Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, Animal Liberation, Biocentrism, and Biotic community centrism.

(See table I.)2

Animal Protection Animal Welfare Animal Liberation

Animal Rights (limited sense)

Biocentrism

Biotic community Centrism

> Animal Rights (broad sense)

V

More non-anthropocentric Table 1

Radical Anthropocentrism

Basically. "Anthropocentrism" is the view that humans are more important than anything else. There are some wide-ranging variations to this position. In Animal ethics, Animal Protection. Animal Welfare, Animal Lover, and Biocentrism are also Anthropocentrism.

"Radical Anthropocentrism" is the totally anthropocentric position that denies considerations for all other non-human entities and makes judgments in favor of human beings.

Animal protection

This is an idea that promotes the protection and love of animals as a social responsibility. This idea is derived from primitive passions of sympathizing with suffering or exploited animals.1 Advocates of this position have special feelings towards animals in close connection to

humans.

Today, the idea of animal protection can be lumped under the term

"Animal welfare." The phrase "animal protection" is shifting towards protecting nature and wild animals as well. For some, this concept of nature protection takes on an anthropocentric stance because supporters of this concept protect the natural environment as public property, and select objects and methods of protection for human benefit and survival.

Animal welfare

The World Society for Protection of Animals (WSPA) declares,

"Animal welfare is defined by both the physical and psychological slate

of an animal and the conditions in which it lives."4 Animal welfare is an

improvement of the quality of life from an animal" s point of view.

Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans 3

Animal Welfare is derived from considering animals for protection based on a scientific understanding of their habits and actions, instead of merely

loving animals emotionally.5

Animal welfare aims to prevent the suffering or inhumane killing of animals as much as possible, and to allow the expression of natural

behavioral patterns of each species in animal rearing. The Five Freedoms"

listed below are international standards of animal welfare.

(1) Freedom from hunger and thirst (2) Freedom from discomfort

(3) Freedom from pain, injury and disease (4) Freedom from fear and distress (5) Freedom to express normal behavior

Supporters of Animal Welfare also advocate for a shift to alternative

experiments in the future, if possible, through the 3Rs proposed by English physiologists Russell and Burch in 1959. The Three Rs are Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.7

Animal Rights

This discussion originated in an attempt to extend the rights of humans

to animals. In this argument, animals are supposed as beings, not just mere objects, with independent inherent values and equal moral rights and

status.

Supporters of animal rights assert that human beings are under direct

obligation to be kind to animals. Some limit the coverage to the mammalian class only, as with Tom Regan. For proponents of animal rights, animals are beings that have non-reducible and unassailable values,

not just utilities for the interest of others.

Animal Liberation

This is an argument proposed from utilitarian views by Peter Singer.

Singer argues that a sentient being has a right to equal consideration of

interests and a right to life. He sets the feelings of pain and pleasure as an

index of moral consideration based on the fact that all vertebrate animals

have similar nervous systems.

Biocentrism

This concept implies a philosophical centrality of life. All forms of life

are equally valuable. Biocentric thinking focuses on the well-being of all life ecological, political, and economic aspects. Thus, every living animal

is treated as an equally valuable individual. The most radical theory was

ideas such as Buddhism or Jainism.

The moral consideration is based on the moral thinking or judgments by humans and it depends on the fundamental differences between

humans and other species.

Biotic community centrism

This is a concept based on holistic-communitarianism proposed by J.

B. Callicott in the 1980s. Callicott attempted to rebuild Aldo Leopold's

Land ethic as a holistic environmental ethic. The land ethic focuses on land, which is a biotic community, and determines the ethical quality of each existence based on their impact on the land.

In this position, there is no discussion of special interests in animals, but they are valued for the sake of balancing the ecosystem. Endangered

species are regarded as objects of protection. However, those that are over-breeding and upsetting the balance of the ecosystem are regarded as targets of extermination.

Q . Classification of care for Animals

According to Japanese animal laws, animals are classified into six

classes: Pet Animals, Display Animals, Farm Animals, Experimental

Animals, Wild Animals, and Abandoned or Escaped Animals.' Each

class of animal has a different type of care and is supported by different

ethical positions related to moral considerations for that class of animal,

for example with regards to medical care.

Pet Animals

They are kept for companionship or pleasure at home or school. Like

human beings, medical care for Pet Animals is provided for each individual. Care for Pet Animals aims to keep, recover and improve their

own health and QOL. In that situation, the degree of care is mainly determined by the paternalistic attitudes of the owner. Choices of

medicine are different according to the owner's economic condition and

preference. This care is based on the spirit of Animal Loving, especially Animal Protection.

Display Animals

They are kept for display, contact or sale, at zoos, shops, breeders or

entertainment agencies. On the surface, medical care for Display Animals

Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans 5

is performed for the treatment of individual animals. This care is based on Animal Loving, in particular Animal Welfare, however, since Display Animals exist for human benefit. This sort of veterinary medical care is not for the animals themselves but for humans. Behind this medicine is the exploitation of animals by humans.

Farm Animals

They are kept for industrial use on farms or factories. Farm animals are

under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. In this area,

policies are selected not for animal's QOL, but for economic reasons.

Common veterinary medicine for Farm animals includes "diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease" , "direction for sterilization and improvement of animal's sheds", and "meat inspection" .

This kind of medicine does not aim to help individuals, but to manage

the health of an entire economic production system. Infected animals

usually do not receive medical treatment to recover their own health and

are usually killed to maintain the health of the group. This medicine is

supported by Animal Welfare. However, there are some farmers who treat

farm animals as their family members. Such people may have the view

point of Animal Protection.

Experimental Animals

They are kept for scientific experiments at universities or research

institutes. Medical care for Experimental Animals is directed at achieving

good experimental results or jusl for knowledge. Caretakers do not care

about increasing the QOL of each animal. "The Japanese Standards for breeding and safekeeping Experiment Animals" was set up to prevent

injury and disease, and to cure them, without affecting experiments. The ethical position of this type of medical treatment is limited to Animal Welfare.

Wild Animals

They live in the natural environment and do not depend on humans although they are affected by human activity. According to the Japanese

Veterinary Practice Act, wild animals are outside the range of veterinary

medicinal care, besides, no one is responsible for paying the bills for the treatment of wild animals. Sometimes they are supported by public funds or NPOs.

Some medical care activities aim to protect rare species of wild animals, based on ideas of biotic community centrism. Biotic community

centrists focus on protecting rare wild animal species. Thus, in some situations, the species that have too much population are considered targets of extermination.

Some veterinarians provide medical care to wild animals to save their lives, on the basis of Animal Protection, Animal Rights or Animal Liberation, which positions treat each animal as an individual. Though,

medical treatment for wild animals is derived from several different

ethical positions.

Abandoned or Escaped Animals

These are abandoned or escaped animals and have no human minders.

The Act on Welfare and Management of Animals and Veterinary Practice Act of Japan does not consider these animals as candidates for protection and veterinary care. Medical care for thease animals is provided groups of animal philanthropists, outside the framework of laws. Such activities are probably based on moral considerations that treat animals as individuals, like Animal lovers. Animal Rights or Animal Liberation.

A public works activity for abandoned or escapedf animals includes killing strays. That kind of work has its roots in more radical Anthropocenlrism but there are some elements of Animal Welfare regarding killing methods, for example, or prevention of cruelty and not to cause pain.

Ill. Comparison between animal and human medical care

To find out the similarities and differences between medical care for animals and humans, first of all, I will illustrate categories of care for animals and humans in the following diagrams.

Looking at the similarities, medical care for Pet Animals aims to promote QOL of every single animal. This kind of veterinary care is similar to normal medical care for humans, especially children or people of not mentally competent in terms of dependence on others such as owners, parents or conservators.

The medical care for wild animals is also similar to that of humans when it comes to public health and disasters although the public health activities are mostly aimed at protecting people. It promotes advancing the health of everybody instead of the individual. In times of disaster, medical care teams emphasize the efficient use of time and resources to save the largest number of lives, i.e., the welfare of the whole population is more important than that of the individual. That point is similar to the

Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans 7

high

I

low

V Care f°r Pet Amma1/' Care for Dtsplay

and Farm Animals

Care for Wild Animals

Care for Abandoned or Escaped Animals Principles that set more store

on individual QOL (paternalism by owner)

Principles that set more store on total utility

Benefit of human

Figure 2 Conceptual diagram of cedical care for animals

high

I

o

8

low

lvieuiusrvaj^ior^unuureij^-' i Disaster medical care andj>eople of not competent

Principles that set more store Principles that set more store on individual QOL on total utility

Figure 3 Conceptual diagram of medical care for humans

are not based on biotic community centrism, but utilitarianism.

On the differences between veterinary care and human medical care, fundamentally, medical laws for humans assume that all adults are able bodied. Animals are treated as being unable to neither make decisions

nor look after themselves.

Much of human medicine targets the individual and depends on the patient's self-determination. Public health and disaster medical care are

based on a holistic view, but both aim to promote the health of the human

species. Veterinary care directly or indirectly aims to benefit humans in varying degrees, or to maintain the biotic community. Every stage of veterinary care is determined and controlled by humans.

Veterinary practice and ethical positions are separated by the rearing environment instead of by the treatment strategy, the "patients' " desire or the situation that sickness occurs. This is difference from human

medicine.

Conclusion

Before finishing this paper, I will mention some points about care for humans coming up by a comparison between veterinary care and human medical care thus far. Basically, care is considered as a consentual

activity. Recipients of care can choose to accept or reject that care. But

in the case of care for infants, people of not mentally competent and animals, there is no mutual relationship because the recipients cannot

consent independently.

In that case, care for people of not mentally competent should be paternalism by caregivers. Although some contents of this sort of care may not be fit in clients' true intentions, caregivers must do the best based on their beliefs. As in the case of animal care, it is also difficult to achieve completely mutual communication and understanding in the

people-to-people relationship.

Medical care service is a kind of social security. The purpose is not

limited to recover the health of an individual person. Like veterinary care, human medicine includes treatments to promote the individual patient's

QOL and also promotes the health of the whole population. In human

medicine, the patient's autonomy and the right to self-determination are

very important and yet we ignore this in veterinary' care.

Then, there are similarities between ordinary medical care for humans

and care for pet animals. However, ordinary' medical care, though the

word ordinary is used, has been realized only recently, in a limited area

Comparison Between Animal Care And Care For Humans 9

in the world. In many developing countries, human medicine is similar to public health and disaster medical cure. Public health and disaster medical care for humans take a stance of utilitarianism, much like usual animal care. In some medical situations, patients' autonomy is respected

as much as possible but medical resources are limited. After all, care as social security service is closely connected with utilitarian public health

activity, and not with respect for patients' autonomy. That is to say, 'ordinary' medical care and care for pet animals are not ordinary care but

only ideal care.

Foot notes

1 Kondoh et al. (2002) ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS pp. 173-174. (Author:

Machiko Hirao)

2 The listed items are upgraded from the old version in Fujii (2008), p.88.

3 Nakano et al. (1988) pp. 17-25

4 http://www.wspa-international.org/ WSPA' s web site 5 Nakano et al. (1988) pp. 17-25

6 The five freedoms were set out as a goal for domestic animal welfare by FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) in 2003. Later, WVA (World Veterinary Association) and O1E (Office International des Epizooties) also adopted this concept.

7 "Remembering (activities, cither sacred or secular, thai can memorialize and acknowledge the animals)" has been propounded as the fourth R (Iliff (2002)).

Others are proposing to add "Responsibility" as a fourth (or fifth) R.

8 Taylor (1986)

9 Fundamentally. Japanese animal laws cover feeding animals. Therefore, Pet Animals, Display Animals, Farm Animals and Experimental Animals are mentioned by criterion based on Japanese animal Laws.

References

Callicott, J. B. (1983). Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair, in Ethics and the Environment, eds. By Donald Scherer and Thomas Attig, pp.54-67, 72. Prentice-

Hall, inc. wmwMm ^m»&,$3 m.mte<r>&mt£mm «#

iVf''M {®mi)m'fi~^WMvM&! pp.45-80 «J<'T-MI!fi£ 1995.

Fujii. T. (2008). Tracking Back To The Origin Of Animal Ethics. Social and Cultural Studies. Volume I .87-102. Kumamolo University Graduate School of Social and Cultural Sciences.

Iliff, S. A. (2002). Remembering the Animals. ILAR journal. 43. 38-47.

Kondoh, H., Sakai, A., Nakazato, S., Morishita, N., Morinaga, S. (ed.) (2002). Seimei

rinrijilen. (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOETHICS.) (in Japanese.) '& H &). $i Jp

Nakano, K. (ed.) (1988). Jikken doubm.su nyumon. (Primer of experimental animals.)

(in Japanese.) 'i'fti^ll r»»AI"]—tyibXWW)m*'U*) h<Dtz

Regan, T. (1983). 7W£ O\S£ FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

California: University of California press.

Singer, P. (1973). Animal Liberation. New York.

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics second edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, P.W. (1986). RESPECT FOR NATURE A Theory of Environmental Ethics. UK:

Princeton University Press.

Reference web sites (2009/12/21 browsed.) e-GOV http://www.e-gov.go.jp/index.httnl

The Aldo Leopold Foundation http://landethic.com/

AWIC (Animal Welfare Information Center)

http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/indcx.php?info_centci-=3&tax_level=l FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) http://www.fawc.org.uk/

Japan Animal Police http://www.animalpolice.net/

Japan Animal Welfare Society(JAWS) http://www.jaws.or.jp/

Japan Veterinary Medical Association http://nichiju.lin.go.jp/index.php Ministry of Education. Culture, Sports. Science and Technology-Japan

http://www. mext. go.j p/

Ministry of Health. Labour and Welfare http://www.mhlw.go.jp/

Ministry of the Environment http://www.env.go.jp/

Net Vet Veterinary Resources http://netvet.wustl.edu/

OIE (Office International des Epizootics) http://www.oic.int/eng/en_indcx.htm UFAW (Universities Federation for Animal Welfare) http://www.ufaw.org.uk/

WSPA International (World Society for the Protection of Animals)

http://www.wspa-international.org/

WVA (World Veterinary Association) http://www.worldvct.org/