Gray Carol, Fox Marie, Hobson-West Pru
1School of Law, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
2School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Liverp Law Rev. 2018;39(1):47-69. doi: 10.1007/s10991-018-9211-4. Epub 2018 Jun 2.
This article explores how the concept of consent to medical treatment applies in the veterinary context, and aims to evaluate normative justifications for owner consent to treatment of animal patients. We trace the evolution of the test for valid consent in human health decision-making, against a backdrop of increased recognition of the importance of patient rights and a gradual judicial espousal of a doctrine of informed consent grounded in a particular understanding of autonomy. We argue that, notwithstanding the adoption of a similar discourse of informed consent in professional veterinary codes, notions of autonomy and informed consent are not easily transferrable to the veterinary medicine context, given inter alia the tripartite relationship between veterinary professional, owner and animal patient. We suggest that a more appropriate, albeit inexact, analogy may be drawn with paediatric practice which is premised on a similarly tripartite relationship and where decisions must be reached in the best interests of the child. However, acknowledging the legal status of animals as property and how consent to veterinary treatment is predicated on the animal owner's willingness and ability to pay, we propose that the appropriate response is for veterinary professionals generally to accept the client's choice, provided this is informed. Yet such client autonomy must be limited where animal welfare concerns exist, so that beneficence continues to play an important role in the veterinary context. We suggest that this 'middle road' should be reflected in professional veterinary guidance.
本文探讨了医疗同意的概念在兽医领域的应用方式，并旨在评估动物主人同意治疗动物患者的规范性依据。我们追溯了人类健康决策中有效同意测试的演变，其背景是对患者权利重要性的认识不断提高，以及司法界逐渐支持基于对自主性的特定理解的知情同意原则。我们认为，尽管专业兽医规范中采用了类似的知情同意话语，但鉴于兽医专业人员、动物主人和动物患者之间的三方关系等因素，自主性和知情同意的概念并不容易转移到兽医医学领域。我们建议，可以与儿科实践进行更恰当（尽管并不精确）的类比，儿科实践也是基于类似的三方关系，并且必须为了儿童的最大利益做出决策。然而，考虑到动物作为财产的法律地位以及兽医治疗同意如何取决于动物主人的支付意愿和能力，我们建议，适当的应对措施是兽医专业人员通常接受客户的选择，前提是这种选择是明智的。然而，在存在动物福利问题的情况下，这种客户自主性必须受到限制，以便行善在兽医领域继续发挥重要作用。我们建议这条“中间道路”应反映在专业兽医指南中。
