Abstract
Following developments in human medical ethics, veterinary ethics has similarly shifted from a historic paternalistic approach, toward greater respect for autonomy. Veterinarians operate within a tripartite system where there is separation of doctor/patient dyad by animal owners. As such there are fundamental differences between veterinary and human medical sectors regarding application of the autonomy principle—specifically, to whom is autonomy afforded? This paper argues that the accepted transference of autonomy to owners constitutes a corruption of the principle. Privileges owners exercise over animal treatment decisions relate to their rights over property use, rather than application of self-rule over one's own person as described in bioethics literature. To highlight issues with the status quo, this paper outlines the negative consequences of “owner autonomy” on animal (patient) welfare, integrity of the veterinary profession's social contract and professional autonomy. A way forward is proposed that places greater emphasis on animal (patient) welfare being explicitly at the center of veterinary treatment decision-making via recognition that all such decisions are made by a proxy, and therefore more appropriate frameworks ought to be engaged, such as a best interests paradigm.
Reference79 articles.
1. The conflict between autonomy and beneficence in medical ethics : proposal for a resolution;Pellegrino;J Contemp Heal Law Policy (1985-2015),1987
2. Veterinarians' role in clients' decision-making regarding seriously ill companion animal patients;Christiansen;Acta Vet Scand.,2016
3. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research,1978
4. Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent;Corrigan;Sociol Heal Illn.,2003
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献