Recently the New Brunswick Veterinary Association held their AGM. Apparently in very close vote it was decided that cosmetic surgeries being performed by veterinarians are to be deemed unethical, and veterinarians who perform such surgeries risk losing their licenses.
I own dogs which traditionally have cropped ears and I have chosen not to crop them. I consider that my decision as a dog owner. Much like it would be my decision as a parent as to whether to pierce my child's ears or allow my child to have his or her ears pierced. Some would argue that ear cropping and tail docking is purely cosmetic and therefore an unnecessary surgery that should not be performed. Yes, it is mostly cosmetic, although having had a dog that blew out his tail regularly (banged the tail so hard against the wall wagging it that it caused the skin on the tail to open and bleed) , I can certainly understand the desire from a practical standpoint to have a tail docked. Yes, it is a surgery, and therefore does come with some inherent risks and some short term pain. However, here is the simple truth: Dogs who have had tails docked or ears cropped go on to live perfectly normal lives with no ill after effects on a regular basis. The risks and benefits of such a surgery should be discussed with a veterinarian and the decision should ultimately be made based on that discussion by the owner of the dog. They're called rights, people! We really ought to stop giving them up so easily!
Here's what bothers me about this:
1. Veterinarians are bullying owners and breeders by taking away their choice to go to a veterinarian who will do cropping or docking.
2. Veterinarians are bullying other veterinarians. So you don't want to do ear cropping? Don't, that's your decision to make as a business owner. Take a stand, be my guest. To say that other veterinarians can't do it either is where the problem lies.
While I'm at it, let me remind these veterinarians that a lot about dogs is cosmetic. Many breeds hardly resemble natural animals anymore, dogs are purely man made at this point, after years of breeding for form and function. When was the last time you saw anything resembling a Shih Tzu (not cropped or docked by the way) in nature? Are we to stop grooming long coated breeds too, since that is cosmetic and might stress the dogs? A lot of dogs don't like having their nails clipped. Perhaps we should stop clipping nails and let them be "natural". Yes, my sarcasm is coming out to play. But it strikes me as a bit wrong for one group of people to decide what another group can and can't do, and since the hundreds of dog breeds in existence were developed based on historical use (the root of cropping and docking by the way) and appearance it just doesn't sit right.
Some other very routinely performed surgeries are not absolutely immediate life saving measures. Such as neutering and spaying. There are benefits to those surgeries, and there can be drawbacks. Yet most veterinarians discuss these with the owner and a decision is made by the owner based on that information. Some, not all, veterinarians will euthanize dogs which are treatable. Why is that allowed and cropping and docking are not?
Since we are discussing unethical veterinary practises, here is a possibility for discussion that no veterinarian seems to question and seems to be quite a common practise: Keeping animals overnight following surgeries, charging for hospitalization, and not having anyone, not so much as a janitor present to watch over the animal. Is that ethical? I personally know of two dogs who have died overnight with no one present at veterinary clinics. I'm not saying that they would have necessarily survived with someone present, but I think it would take away any doubt on the part of the owner. I also have personal experience with this, a veterinarian attempted this with my dog, post surgery, and I insisted on taking him home. She argued with me at the time, and asked me to meet her at the clinic after he had been there for a couple of hours and check on him. When we arrived, we found that he was quite stressed and had removed his intravenous, and only at that point agreed that taking him home and returning in the morning for fluids was a better course of action.
The New Brunswick Veterinary Association has seemingly set itself up as a moral authority. The problem is that this association has no accountability to anyone but itself, and they have control over the licenses (and therefore the livelihood) of members who disagree with them.
I have contacted the Association for more details and a statement, and will update if and when I receive a reply.
Okay, I've got my flame suit on. Have at it!