Hiestand Karen M
Centre for Mammal Communication and Cognition, School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Front Vet Sci. 2022 Sep 30;9:953925. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.953925. eCollection 2022.
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 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.
随着人类医学伦理学的发展，兽医伦理学同样从历史上家长式的方法转向了对自主性的更多尊重。兽医在一个三方系统中工作，动物主人将医生/患者二元关系分隔开来。因此，在自主性原则的应用方面，兽医和人类医学领域存在根本差异——具体而言，自主性赋予了谁？本文认为，将自主性赋予主人的公认做法构成了对该原则的歪曲。主人对动物治疗决策所行使的特权与他们对财产使用的权利有关，而不是如生物伦理学文献中所描述的对自己的自我统治的应用。为了突出当前状况的问题，本文概述了 “主人自主性” 对动物（患者）福利、兽医行业社会契约的完整性以及专业自主性的负面影响。提出了一条前进的道路，即更加强调动物（患者）福利应明确处于兽医治疗决策的中心位置——认识到所有此类决策都是由代理人做出的，因此应该采用更合适的框架，例如最佳利益范式。
