With regard to the letter that was written by Iain McGill and
others to the Veterinary Times on November 18, 2013
The letters and response are of great interest and I would
like to add a view to this debate.
There is great emphasis on the declaration by the authors
that the role of vets is the prevention of suffering.
It is my view that while this is an accepted truth within the
profession, the role of vets and animal keepers is to
prevent unnecessary suffering. Animals in the UK and
elsewhere are not guaranteed an existence free from pain
and suffering only one that is free from unnecessary pain
and suffering. The suffering between a dog and a badger
should not be compared; it is the necessity of the suffering
that must be compared (in my view).
Take an example of a horse that has had its throat cut by
a barbaric act of cruelty and a bullock that has the same
procedure performed as part of a Halal slaughter process.
Both animals take (lets say) 25 seconds to lose
consciousness and at this point they may both be
considered (for this argument) to no longer be suffering.
This suffering can be described through behaviour,
pathology and other indicators that can be measured and
recorded.
There would be little doubt in anyone’s mind that both
animals suffered prior to losing consciousness.
When assessing suffering the comparison is not of pain,
cruelty, or lack of welfare but of the necessity of that
suffering. A bullock slaughtered under a Halal process
may suffer as much as the horse that has had its throat
cut through an act of cruelty. The difference is that the
Halal animal suffering is necessary to protect religious
expression. It could be argued that the horse’s suffering
was not necessary and even thou the suffering could be
the same in both examples, the necessity is different.
And this creates a context for animal suffering and
necessity. Necessity of suffering of animals is for the
benefit of humans and not animals and there has been
one recorded case where a practice was stopped because
the necessity of the suffering to the animals was
considered unacceptable and trumped the needs of
humans and this was the banning of Foie Gras production
and trade in Israel.
All other suffering in animals is considered necessary or
unnecessary based on the needs of humans, not animals.
Shot badgers that are killed instantly may not suffer at all.
The ones that are injured may suffer and the authors point
out ways the badgers can suffer. It is important to
articulate respectfully that the suffering of these animals
may be considered inhumane, inappropriate and cruel but
none-the-less necessary to prevent the spread of a
zoonotic disease. Would the authors view be different if
the badgers had rabies? The suffering would be the same,
but the necessity may be considered in a different context.
The necessity of the suffering of the animal in the Mr
Chikosi case appears to be related more to the fact that
Mr Chikosi chose not to attend his own disciplinary
hearing. The suffering of that animal he did attend
became unnecessary according to the disciplinary
committee. Would the decision of the disciplinary
committee have been different if he attended his own
disciplinary hearing and explained or defended himself?
Lets avoid comparisons of suffering between animals and
circumstances and compare the necessity of the suffering
experienced. This would respectfully and in my view
further the framing of a clearer comparison between the
inherent unpopularity of the current badger cull and the
viscerally unpopular Mr Chikosi case decision.
David Bailey