• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Care as an alternative to killing? Reconceptualising veterinary end of life care for animals AUTHORS Hurn, S; Badman-King, A JOURNAL Medical Anthropology Quarterly DEPOSITED IN ORE 26 September 2018 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/34109 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Medical Anthropology Quarterly Care as an alternative to killing? Reconceptualising veterinary end of life care for animals Journal: Medical Anthropology Quarterly ManuscriptFor IDReview Draft Only Manuscript Type: Original Article Page 1 of 29 Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1 1 2 Care as an alternative to killing? Reconceptualising veterinary end of life care for animals 3 4 5 6 Abstract: 7 8 Palliative care is routinely offered to humans in the UK, while euthanasia remains illegal. The 9 10 converse is true for nonhuman animals (henceforth animals). Indeed, euthanasia is widely accepted 11 12 as the appropriate course of action for “suffering” animals, and for those whose behaviours or 13 14 15 suspected ill health are thought to pose a threat to others. This article details examples of nonhuman 16 17 death at a multi-faith ashram whose members vehemently oppose all forms of killing on religious 18 19 grounds. Through exploringFor their efforts Review in palliative care Only for animals, and their emphasis on natural 20 21 death as a means of respecting the sanctity of life, the practical, emotional and theoretical viability 22 23 of caring for, instead of killing, other animals at the ends of their lives is considered. In the process, 24 25 normative distinctions between different categories of animals, (including humans), and different 26 27 28 approaches to end of life care (palliative care, euthanasia, natural death) are called into question. 29 30 Indeed, paying mindful attention to the diverse ways in which individual animals are cared for as 31 32 they die reveals the potential violence inherent in both palliative care leading to natural death, and 33 34 euthanasia, blurring perceptions of good and bad death in both veterinary and human medicine. 35 36 37 38 Keywords: euthanasia, veterinary palliative care, natural death, animal death, violent care 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Medical Anthropology Quarterly Page 2 of 29 2 1 2 3 4 Introduction 5 6 In 2007, Shambo, a resident bull at the Skanda Vale Community of the Many Names of 7 8 God, a multi-faith ashram in West Wales, UK, tested positive for bovine tuberculosis (bTB,). In the 9 10 ensuing months the Community unsuccessfully fought the Welsh Assembly Government’s decision 11 12 to kill him. Bovine tb is a life-threatening condition (in terms of the effects of the disease on the 13 14 15 infected individual’s body) which can be treated by aggressive administration of antibiotics to 16 17 tackle the infection and other drugs to alleviate secondary symptoms. It is also, as the case of 18 19 Shambo demonstrates, a life-threateningFor Review illness because ofOnly legislation in place to control the spread 20 21 of zoonotic disease. Shambo was an otherwise fit and healthy individual whose status as both a 22 23 bovine and a potential carrier of bTB made him killable. 24 25 26 27 28 Whereas physically healthy animals are frequently killed if they are classified as livestock, 29 30 or if they are perceived to pose a risk to others (Palmer 2005; Regan 1984), the owners or guardians 31 32 of nonhuman companions are only expected to authorize euthanasia so as to end the suffering of 33 34 elderly or infirm animals. In such cases, moreover, failure to do so can lead to criminal prosecution 35 36 and to the animal being seized and killed without the owner’s consent. Under the UK’s 2006 37 38 Animal Welfare Act (section 18, sub-section 3), for example, welfare inspectors or police officers 39 40 41 can “destroy” any animal deemed to be suffering, following assessment by a veterinary surgeon. 42 43 Under section 18, sub-section 4, welfare inspectors or police officers are also authorized to 44 45 “destroy” any animal deemed to be suffering if it appears to them “(a) that the condition of the 46 47 animal is such that there is no reasonable alternative to destroying it, and (b) that the need for action 48 49 is such that it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a veterinary surgeon.” 50 51 For the Community at Skanda Vale, killing animals, even if they are old, terminally ill, 52 53 54 suffering or infected with a notifiable zoonotic disease, is unacceptable because it violates the 55 56 Community’s foundational principles of “ahimsa” (non-violence), “sanatana dharma” (defined by 57 58 59 60 Page 3 of 29 Medical Anthropology Quarterly 3 1 2 the Community as the timeless consciousness of god, manifest in practice through the recognition 3 4 and preservation of the sanctity of life of all living beings), and limits an individual’s ability to 5 6 reincarnate. Secondly, and as will be discussed in detail below, for the Community, killing animals 7 8 represents a gross betrayal of trust between the nonhuman and their human carer, where the former 9 10 trusts the latter to act in their best interests and ultimately respect them as a divine being in their 11 12 own right (Author A 2017). 13 14 15 Such objections to killing animals might appear exclusive to those who share the 16 17 community’s religious beliefs. Moreover, the death of Shambo may seem unconnected to the 18 19 provision of palliative careFor and natural Review death for companion Only animals. However, we argue here that 20 21 the Community’s position raises important considerations often overlooked in contemporary secular 22 23 societies, but which might inform debates about dying and care in medical anthropology more 24 25 broadly. Indeed, as Whitmarsh and Roberts (2015) demonstrate, secular medicine is reliant upon 26 27 28 religious traditions and ostensibly secular medical practices are frequently imbued with religious 29 30 logic (e.g. Langford 2015). 31 32 For the community, grounding their beliefs and practices in a syncretic fusion of Hinduism 33 34 and Buddhism (religious traditions with a strong ethic of care towards other animals and ‘life’ more 35 36 generally (Dave 2014; Harris 2006; Laidlaw 2010, Kremmer 2009, 2011a, 2011b)), with the 37 38 teachings and vows of St Francis (Jones 2009; Linzey 2016; Pope John Paul II 1990), allows them 39 40 41 to consider the spiritual as well as physical welfare of the animals in their care. This holistic 42 43 approach causes them to cast doubt on the morality of secular treatments of animals, including those 44 45 advocated by the veterinary profession. 46 47 48 49 This article takes inspiration from the work of scholars concerned with the ethics of good 50 51 care for humans (e.g. Mol 2008; Mol, Moser and Pols 2010) by exploring what the ethics of good 52 53 54 care—and in particular good end of life care—for other animals might look like. These scholars 55 56 have recognized the importance of understanding the lived experiences of those providing and 57 58 59 60 Medical Anthropology Quarterly Page 4 of 29 4 1 2 receiving care, of ‘doing’ illness, as an embodied phenomenon for patient and carer. We argue that 3 4 animal death is also an important area of concern for medical anthropologists and others concerned 5 6 with human and nonhuman health and wellbeing. It is here, in the face of end of life care for 7 8 animals, that the boundaries of care are brought sharply into focus. Whilst in life, human and 9 10 nonhuman medicine frequently intersect in productive ways, the prominence of euthanasia in 11 12 veterinary medicine, and the Community’s emphasis on palliative care and natural death, reveals a 13 14 15 chasm which calls into question the very nature of caring itself. It is for this reason that the Skanda 16 17 Vale ashram provides such a compelling example, as here the Community members are daily 18 19 exposed to, and reflect deeplyFor upon, Review the realities of caring Only within a belief system which sees all 20 21 living beings as inherently spiritual and worthy of ethical consideration (Author A 2017). In the 22 23 ‘outside world’ beyond the ashram however, options which are standard practice for human animals 24 25 (e.g. palliative care), are routinely regarded as inappropriate for our nonhuman counterparts and 26 27 28 vice versa (e.g. euthanasia). 29 30 31 32 Through an analysis of the community’s theology, in dialogue with a detailed discussion of the 33 34 experiences of its human and nonhuman community members, we are brought to question the 35 36 division between care and killing. Discussions in defense of human euthanasia will often use 37 38 nonhuman euthanasia as a point of reference; we afford our animals the respect of offering them a 39 40 41 swift and stress-free death, an escape from pain; but we do not offer this to (implicitly much more 42 43 important) humans. Skanda Vale’s dedication to pan-species care, and their rejection of killing in 44 45 any guise offers an apposite critique of this inconsistency, one which eschews the merits of killing 46 47 for the far more onerous and complex virtues of messy palliative care (involving assisted urination 48 49 and defecation, physical manipulation of ailing bodies, and encouraged, assisted or sometimes 50 51 forced feeding of nutrients, as well as administration of medication), natural death and the 52 53 54 recognition of the intrinsic value of nonhuman lives.

Load more

  31

Copy Link