Welfare and legal aspects of making decisions on medical treatments of pet animals

Nikola  Puvača; Britt  Chantal

doi:10.5937/ptp2004055P

Authors

Nikola Puvača The University of Business Academy in Novi Sad, Serbia, The Faculty of Economics and Engineering Management in Novi Sad, Serbia
Britt Chantal Communications Officer, The University of Bern, The Swiss 3R Competence Centre (3RCC), Bern, Switzerland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2004055P

Keywords:

legal aspects, veterinary, pet animals, pets welfare

Abstract

When it comes to humans and the necessity for their young ones’ medical treatments, the parental responsibility is crucial. The decisions made by parents involve the legal aspects as well as welfare aspects, respectively. Pet animals are usually classified as property in the European Union, but pets are the same as kids regarding medical treatments and illnesses or diseases. In that case, the decisions are made by their owners, posing a legal challenge only if the proposed treatment can trigger damage or needless pain, as defined by the Law on pet animals` welfare. In this article, there will be discussed the best interests both in legal and welfare aspects of decisions being made in the medical treatments of the pets by their owners. Reaching the choice of pets’ medical treatments will primarily be focused on pets protection and welfare avoiding unnecessary pain, which is in the pets` best overall welfare interests. While the statute law is not a mandatory one considering the pets’ best interests, this article might be a useful resource for professional veterinarians and practitioners. At the same time, this article regards of the best interests of the pets and it can be integrated into the existing ethical frameworks for making medical decisions and more humane treatment of pet animals.

References

Back, A., Arnold, R., Baile, W., Tulsky, J., Fryer-Edwards, K. (2005). Approaching Difficult Communication Tasks in Oncology, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians,55, pp. 164–177

Baker, E.S., Maw, A.S., Johnson, P.J., Macdonald, W.D. (2020). Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’, Animals,10(2), p. 222

Branscombe, N.R., Schmitt, M.T., Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial Attitudes in Response to Thoughts of White Privilege, European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), pp. 203-215

Brønstad, A., Newcomer, C.E., Decelle, T., Everitt, J.I., Guillen, J., Laber, K. (2016). Current Concepts of Harm–Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments – Report From the AALAS–FELASA Working Group on Harm–Benefit Analysis – Part 1, Laboratory Animals,50(1S), pp. 1-20

Brune, K., Renner, B., Tiegs, G. (2014). Acetaminophen/Paracetamol: A History of Errors, Failures and False Decisions, European Journal of Pain, 19(7), pp. 953-965

Eaude, T. (2018). The Role of Culture and Traditions in How Young Children’s Identities are Constructed, International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 24(1), pp. 5-19

Fordyce, P. (2019). A Discussion of Teaching Clinical Veterinary Ethics to Undergraduates: Personal Thoughts from the Front Line, Journal of Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Veterinary Association, pp. 54-61

Glenk, L.M. (2017). Current Perspectives on Therapy Dog Welfare in Animal-Assisted Interventions, Animals, 7(2), p. 7

Gray, C., Fordyce, P. (2020). Legal and Ethical Aspects of ‘Best Interests’ Decision-Making for Medical Treatment of Companion Animals in the UK, Animals, 10(6), p. 1009

Hughes, A. (2017). Understanding the Drivers of Southeast Asian Biodiversity Loss, Ecosphere, 8(1), pp. 16-24

Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., Tomasello, M. (2016). Great Apes Anticipate That Other Individuals Will Act According to False Beliefs, Science, 354(6308), pp. 110-114

Lau P.L. (2019). The Legacy of Eugenics in Contemporary Law, Comparative Legal Frameworks for Pre-Implantation Embryonic Genetic Interventions, pp. 27-72

Manning, J. (2018). “Fair, Simple, Speedy and Efficient”? Barriers to Access to Justice in the Health and Disability Commissioner’s Complaints Process in New Zealand, New Zealand Law Review, 4, pp. 611-656

Popović, S., Puvača, N., Peulić, T., Ikonić, P., Spasevski, N., Kostadinović, Lj., Đuragić, O. (2019). The Usefulness of Dietary Essential Oils Mixture Supplementation on Quality Aspect of Poultry Meat, Journal of Agronomy, Technology and Engineering Management, 2(6), pp. 335-343

Puvača, N., de Llanos Frutos, R. (2020). Risk of Antimicrobial Resistance Development from Pet Animals to Humans: Case of Enterobacteriaceae Family, Lupine Online Journal of Pharmacology & Clinical Research, 2(3), pp. 202-206

Ramsey, P.L., Khan, S. (2020). Dilemmas, emotion and innovation in tertiary education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Shaw, J.R., Lagoni, L. (2007). End-of-Life Communication in Veterinary Medicine: Delivering Bad News and Euthanasia Decision Making, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 37(1), pp. 95-108

Smeyers, P. (2010). Child Rearing in the “Risk” Society: On the Discourse of Rights and the “Best Interests of a Child”, Educational Theory, 60(3), pp. 271-284

Vaughan Brakman, S. (2019). The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: A Philosophical Analysis, Ethics & International Affairs, 33(2), pp. 207-230

Yeates, J. (2010). Death is a Welfare Issue, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, pp. 229–241

Ziv, G. (2017). The Effects of Using Aversive Training Methods in Dogs-A Review, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, pp. 50-60