 |
| A French bulldog with stenotic nares, one of the components of brachycephalic airway syndrome. |
Is our love for animals blind?
In Love Hurts – the
Dark Side of Attachment to Companion Animals, bioethicist Peter Sandoe
argues that our attachment isn’t always good for the animals we are attached to. The presentation,
based on the work Professor Sandoe, Sandra Corr and Clare Palmer, questions the
assumption that because we love our pets, they must enjoy good welfare. One,
they argue, does not follow from the other.
They cite two examples:
Pet obesity and brachycephalia in dogs. Both conditions
impact on an animal’s longevity and quality of life, and both problems are created by humans.
When it comes to obesity, studies have shown that the
more an owner humanises a pet (allows it to sleep on their bed, talks to the
animal) the more likely the animal is to be overweight. Love can be blind, they
argue, and studies have shown that owners are often unable to accurately assess
the weight of their pet.
He did make the point that we don’t know how common
obesity is in animals, although body condition scoring which is considered the
most useful approximation is routinely done in clinics where I have worked.
Either way, he argues persuasively that attachment is
part of the equation when discussing the companion animal obesity epidemic.
When it comes to brachycephalia, scientists have argued
that the flatter-faced breeds such as English bulldogs are appealing because of
their infant like facial features, e.g. round heads and large eyes. Some of
their pathology, including loud breathing and snoring, is interpreted as
charming. Studies have shown that owners of these dogs tend to underestimate or
fail to recognise clinical signs.
Professor Sandoe argues that the problems are in part
generated because we are so attached to these animals.
This is a really interesting argument and a fascinating
talk. I do agree that some overindulged pets suffer welfare problems, though
would also add (and Prof Sandoe might agree) that some neglected (i.e.
underindulged) pets suffer similar welfare problems. In the case of overweight
animals, it may be the case that owners don’t adjust the caloric intake of
their pet when their lifestyle changes, e.g. the owner gets very busy at work
and stops walking the dog. In terms of brachycephalic animals, I would think
there may be an element of not doing enough research before purchasing animals,
and perhaps lack of education about spotting early signs of brachycephalic
airway syndrome.
Professor Sandoe also touched on some other topics of
ethical debate: should companion animals be routinely neutered (he believes the
arguments are strong for neutering cats routinely, but not the same when it
comes to dogs) and whether cats should be kept indoors (he does not believe
this is ethically justifiable, as a rule).
He argues that ultimately we need to educate everyone (companion animal owners, vets, breeders etc but particularly owners) about
the welfare implications of the specific health issues discussed, and their
impact on an animal’s quality of life.
