Death or Declaw: Dealing with Moral Ambiguity in a Veterinary Hospital

Abstract

The medical practice of declawing has received much political debate over the past few years. Yet, empirical and theoretical research on how this practice is maintained and the ethical positions of those who actually participate in this work is lacking. Drawing from 9 months of ethnographic fieldwork in a feline-specific veterinary hospital and open-ended interviews with veterinarians and staff, this study examines veterinary staff members' attitudes toward, and strategies for, dealing with the medical practice of declawing. Specifically, findings show that a number of staff felt uncomfortable with their participation in onychectomy (declawing) and relied heavily on organizational support structures to cope both with these feelings and the moral ambiguity about the practice. Relying on these structures, the veterinarians and their staff are able simultaneously to define felines as subjects worthy of respect for their quality of life, protect their own self-identity as people who work toward the best interest of animals, and paradoxically support action toward felines that they find morally objectionable.

Managing Pet Owners’ Guilt and Grief in Veterinary Euthanasia Encounters

“…Although scholarly interest in veterinarians has increased in recent years (e.g., Arluke 1997Arluke , 2004Atwood-Harvey 2005;Gauthier 2001; Irvine and Vermilya 2010;Sanders 1994Sanders , 1995Stanford and Keto 1991), relatively few studies have focused attention on the work of these medical professionals. While scholars have focused extensively on how physicians manage the emotions of various types of patients (Coates and Lo 1990;DeCoster 1997;Groves 1978) as well as patients' grieving families (Fuller and Geis 1985), only a few analysts have investigated emotions in veterinary interactions.…”

A review of medically unnecessary surgeries in dogs and cats

“…80 Social distance is defined as the emotional, psychological, and physical distance between one individual and another, typically 2 humans. 81 In the past few decades, the social distance between humans and companion animals has decreased drastically. This likely accounts for the change in attitudes regarding what is acceptable versus unacceptable in relation to animal treatment, with the effect that practices that were once seen as being acceptable are now questioned.…”

“…This likely accounts for the change in attitudes regarding what is acceptable versus unacceptable in relation to animal treatment, with the effect that practices that were once seen as being acceptable are now questioned. 81 In some cases, language choice can be used to influence stakeholders and evoke emotion, a strategy commonly used by animal rights advocates, who employ words such as oppression, suffering, and cruelty to appeal to human emotion. 82 In other cases, euphemisms can be used to increase social distance and decrease empathy.…”

The Horse’s Tale: Narratives of Caring for/about Horses

“…Human practices around animals inevitably carry moral implications. For people to carry out practices that cause suffering to the animal, particularly, they must find moral justification to exonerate those practices, even in the face of moral disapproval from others (such as carrying out declawing in veterinary clinics: Atwood-Harvey, 2005;shooting ducks: McLeod, 2007; or raising animals for slaughter: Ellis & Irvine, 2010). Similarly, rehoming an animal is widely seen to be a moral good, with the consequence that people who return animals to shelters because the relationship did not work out feel a sense of personal failure (Shore, 2005).…”