@article{4471,
  keywords = {moral distress, veterinary responsibility, moral individualism, relationalism, recognition},
  author = {M Huth},
  title = {On facing different kinds of animal patients – reflecting veterinary ethical responsibility},
  abstract = {Veterinarians are confronted with very different expectations regarding the treatment of animals which might cause moral distress since veterinarians could experience such differences as moral inconsistencies. The discourse of animal and veterinary ethics runs the risk of even exacerbating this problem, because the perspective is often mainly animal-centred tending to neglect the social embedding of veterinary practice. Bernard Rollin, a pioneer of veterinary ethics, contends that veterinarians should take on leadership in effecting ethical change. However, though veterinarians can certainly contribute to improving conditions for animals, their moral distress could be increased if they are not mindful of the social conditionality of their responsibility. 

An awareness of the scope of responsibility can contribute to mitigating moral distress. (1) Being a patient presupposes that an animal is recognisable as a patient at all. This “recognisability” is not only dependent on the animal itself, wild animals or vermin usually do not become patients. (2) Animals recognised as patients are framed differently as patients. Relationalism as an ethical theory can explain that different relations to animals form different kinds of patients and determine the scope of veterinary responsibilities. While in companion animals the emphasis predominantly lies on welfare, in livestock animals productivity is crucial, too. (3) Veterinary practice is certainly not fully determined, there is always a certain range of possible and sometimes antagonistic treatments within a particular field of human-animal relations. (4) These differences are a crucial resource for possible ethical change as they can serve as clues for clients to rethink the necessities and the rightfulness of their treatment of animals. Thus, veterinarians should be aware of their socially conditioned, yet important responsibility for ethical change. },
  year = {2020},
  journal = {Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift},
  volume = {133},
  month = {05/2020},
  publisher = {Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG},
  address = {Hannover},
  issn = {0005-9366},
  doi = {10.2376/0005-9366-19056},
  language = {Englisch},
}