TY - JOUR
KW - animal patient
KW - quality of life
KW - best interest
KW - animal welfare 
KW - veterinary ethics
AU - E Thurner
AB - The aim of this paper is to clarify the theory of the animal patient presented in a former paper by Thurner et al. (2018) and use it as an analytical tool in veterinary ethics. By means of the case of an animal’s broken leg, which I assume can be “treated” either by splinting or by euthanasia, I demonstrate that this theory faces a structural challenge. According to the theory of Thurner et al. (2018), the performance of both treatments would make the animal a patient. This follows from the concept of promoting health-related interests as used by the authors. Therefore, in four steps, I specify the concept of promoting animals’ health-related interests with the case of the fracture. In the first step, I point out that different treatment options correspond to differing ends. In the second step, I argue that from the animal’s supposed point of view splinting the fracture is preferable to euthanasia, for this course of action promotes the animal’s best interest. In the third step, I distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate promotion of animals’ health-related interests. I argue that an animal qualifies as a patient only if her health-related interests are legitimately promoted. In the fourth step, I present my modified criterion for becoming a patient. In addition, I highlight two benefits of theorising the patient in veterinary ethics. First, the concept can be used to distinguish five categories of veterinary interventions. Second, the concept can stimulate changes in how humans treat animals, thereby improving animal welfare.
BT - Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift
CY - Hannover
DA - 05/2020
DO - 10.2376/0005-9366-19051
LA - Englisch
N2 - The aim of this paper is to clarify the theory of the animal patient presented in a former paper by Thurner et al. (2018) and use it as an analytical tool in veterinary ethics. By means of the case of an animal’s broken leg, which I assume can be “treated” either by splinting or by euthanasia, I demonstrate that this theory faces a structural challenge. According to the theory of Thurner et al. (2018), the performance of both treatments would make the animal a patient. This follows from the concept of promoting health-related interests as used by the authors. Therefore, in four steps, I specify the concept of promoting animals’ health-related interests with the case of the fracture. In the first step, I point out that different treatment options correspond to differing ends. In the second step, I argue that from the animal’s supposed point of view splinting the fracture is preferable to euthanasia, for this course of action promotes the animal’s best interest. In the third step, I distinguish between a legitimate and an illegitimate promotion of animals’ health-related interests. I argue that an animal qualifies as a patient only if her health-related interests are legitimately promoted. In the fourth step, I present my modified criterion for becoming a patient. In addition, I highlight two benefits of theorising the patient in veterinary ethics. First, the concept can be used to distinguish five categories of veterinary interventions. Second, the concept can stimulate changes in how humans treat animals, thereby improving animal welfare.
PB - Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
PP - Hannover
PY - 2020
T1 - Aiming at the patient’s good? Considering legitimate and illegitimate forms of promoting health-related interests
T2 - Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift
TI - Aiming at the patient’s good? Considering legitimate and illegitimate forms of promoting health-related interests
TT - Zum Wohle des Patienten? Über legitime und illegitime Formen der Förderung gesundheitsbezogener Interessen
VL - 133
SN - 0005-9366
ER -