Veterinary Vs Vegetarianism ?!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Deziah
I think it's less to do with actually eating animals, because at the end of the day that is purely an opinion and there is no right or wrong answer. But, more to do with animals suffering.
Doesn't death constitute suffering?
Surely, the deprivation of life is a welfare issue.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Doesn't death constitute suffering?
Surely, the deprivation of life is a welfare issue.
Surely, the deprivation of life is a welfare issue.
Not at all. You cannot be aware of being deprived of life, and certainly cannot suffer in death.
Original post by voodooshaman
Not at all. You cannot be aware of being deprived of life, and certainly cannot suffer in death.
Well, you can be aware that you are about to be deprived of life. On a more basic level, you can also fear for your life - the survival instinct (which all of us animals have) is, arguably, a source of great suffering - fear and distress caused by the triggering of this instinct can, in my opinion, be classed as suffering.
If I deprived you of your life, provided it was done "humanely", you would not consider it as being detrimental to your welfare?
If not, then why is the killing of a human being considered wrong? There are plenty of unwanted people in the world, draining its resources - why can't we just get rid of them? Humanely, of course.
(and I will scream till I **** if someone says "because they're human". That's the equivalent of saying "just, because").
P.S. Of course vet students see farms where animals are treated relatively decently - does anyone honestly think they'd be welcome at a farm with bad practices, where "vet" is a dirty word? (there are many of these farms. And dirty words, of course.)
Also, what about dehorning, tail/castration rings, beak trimming, adoption pens/guillotines, AI, separation of cow and calf within days of birth? - these are all common farming practices. Do these not cause pain and/or distress? I appreciate that things are much worse in many other countries, but there are things that, because vets/vet students are exposed to them as a matter of course, they become desensitised to - it's easy to just accept the commonplace without taking a moment to look at it objectively and see that, actually, it's pretty gruesome.
(By the way, I've never met a vet who doesn't think dehorning is an awful thing to have to do, and who doesn't curse the farmers who don't get their calves disbudded in time).
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Also, what about dehorning, tail/castration rings, beak trimming, adoption pens/guillotines, AI, separation of cow and calf within days of birth? - these are all common farming practices. Do these not cause pain and/or distress? I appreciate that things are much worse in many other countries, but there are things that, because vets/vet students are exposed to them as a matter of course, they become desensitised to - it's easy to just accept the commonplace without taking a moment to look at it objectively and see that, actually, it's pretty gruesome.
1) there are large differences between beak trimmming and tail docking of pigs - which tend to be undertaken as a response to bad welfare which has led to behavioural problems and castration/tail docking of lambs which would otherwise result in injury and unwanted pregnancies leading to the loss of more than one life at slaughter
2) there are laws that dictate at what age such procedures are allowed to be done to reduce animal suffering and once the animal is older than this all procedures need to be accompanied by anaesthesia
3) can you think of a better and more efficient way of saving lambs lives than by putting some ewes in adopter pens for up to 5 days? As they spend the rest of their lives out at pasture, a couple of days, though (potentially) distressing for the first day, I don't have a problem with this practice if the handlers are qualified to do it well
4) What is the point in just blowing off a load of strong opinions on contraversial issues without offering any constructive suggestions on what could be done better? Having a discussion and respecting other people's points of view generally leads to better solutions about such issues that are actually sustainable in this rapidly evolving world. I realise that you feel exceptionally strongly about these issues and I agree with you on most of them. I also do not value a human life above an animals - we're all animals and a slightly higher proportion of cerebral hemisphere and different brain tracts doesn't fool me into thinking we're not - but just shouting about things and knocking other people down won't make anything happen
Original post by VeggieGirl
As to your point about farrowing crates, I disagree entirely. The mother spends the first part of her life confined in tiny metal crates covered in faeces. Then when they are old enough to give birth they are artificially inseminated and then imprisoned for the entire length of their gestation period. Then they are moved to farrowing crates, just enough room for the piglets to suckle. I have heard that the workers often tie the mother's legs together so she cannot have a break from suckling. After the suckling period the lambs are taken away to slaughter at a month's age, when naturally they would be with their mother for several months!
As to your point about farrowing crates, I disagree entirely. The mother spends the first part of her life confined in tiny metal crates covered in faeces. Then when they are old enough to give birth they are artificially inseminated and then imprisoned for the entire length of their gestation period. Then they are moved to farrowing crates, just enough room for the piglets to suckle. I have heard that the workers often tie the mother's legs together so she cannot have a break from suckling. After the suckling period the lambs are taken away to slaughter at a month's age, when naturally they would be with their mother for several months!
I completely disagree with pig stalls which are thankfully banned in the UK. What I was referring to is the farrowing stalls used just prior to birth and then until weaning at around 3 weeks. You are right that it does not benefit the sow herself as it restricts her movement, but I have also seen up to 3 piglets in a litter been crushed by their mother in those farmed without such crates (and on the same farm heard of one pig who crushed even more for whatever reason), even with nest building materials and so I think it is beneficial to prevent harm to the piglets. Of course, it is a no win situation and both have their pros and cons.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Also, what about dehorning, tail/castration rings, beak trimming, adoption pens/guillotines, AI, separation of cow and calf within days of birth? - these are all common farming practices. Do these not cause pain and/or distress? I appreciate that things are much worse in many other countries, but there are things that, because vets/vet students are exposed to them as a matter of course, they become desensitised to - it's easy to just accept the commonplace without taking a moment to look at it objectively and see that, actually, it's pretty gruesome.
(By the way, I've never met a vet who doesn't think dehorning is an awful thing to have to do, and who doesn't curse the farmers who don't get their calves disbudded in time).
Also, what about dehorning, tail/castration rings, beak trimming, adoption pens/guillotines, AI, separation of cow and calf within days of birth? - these are all common farming practices. Do these not cause pain and/or distress? I appreciate that things are much worse in many other countries, but there are things that, because vets/vet students are exposed to them as a matter of course, they become desensitised to - it's easy to just accept the commonplace without taking a moment to look at it objectively and see that, actually, it's pretty gruesome.
(By the way, I've never met a vet who doesn't think dehorning is an awful thing to have to do, and who doesn't curse the farmers who don't get their calves disbudded in time).
As a previous poster has mentioned there are rules and regulations as to when to carry out these procedures to protect animal welfare.
Just a few notes:
If dehorning prevents injury (and perhaps even death) to their workers, is it not morally justifiable if it it done properly by a skilled person?
Tail docking, although causes some pain at the time, does indeed prevent fly strike so I do think it is useful in lowland farms.
Adoption pens prevent lambs being culled / promote better welfare for the lambs; it takes a worker's time and money to feed formula milk and there is only so many pet lambs a farm can have (I've been to one where they just didn't have enough warm, dry pens for all of the pet lambs so we were desperate to foster and it took 2 of us an hour per feeding time to make all the milk, feed and wash up). Adoption pens restrict movement of the sheep for only a couple of days, and all their feeding and water needs are met so I do not think there is a great deal of distress and considering they will be let out to pasture for the rest of the season I think that is not a welfare issue as such. On the farm I went to they were used only when the option of skinning and dead lamb or covering it in afterbirth were not possible.
I've carried out AI on pigs, and to be honest they were not in any pain at all so I do not see this as a problem. They were so comfortable they just stood quite still - it was not forced upon them.
Its not because we are "desensitised" - it is because you learn to understand why some of those procedures are used and what the ramification are if they are not carried out and some are not as bad as they seem. Of course, some of those procedures such as pig tail docking need other solutions to alleviate the issue, such as enrichment to prevent boredom, but some of the other procedures seem more justifiable. Yes, you can have your opinions and it is good that you do as vets can also drive changes to the industries for things that do need change. I think it is important to remember that some stress or pain is OK if it improves, or is likely to improve, their life or makes them safer to work with. Nonetheless, we must attempt to improve the farming systems where it is required and to ensure current farms get the support and advise they need to ensure the welfare of the animals they keep.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by stef_vet?
1)What is the point in just blowing off a load of strong opinions on contraversial issues without offering any constructive suggestions on what could be done better? Having a discussion and respecting other people's points of view generally leads to better solutions about such issues that are actually sustainable in this rapidly evolving world. I realise that you feel exceptionally strongly about these issues and I agree with you on most of them. I also do not value a human life above an animals - we're all animals and a slightly higher proportion of cerebral hemisphere and different brain tracts doesn't fool me into thinking we're not - but just shouting about things and knocking other people down won't make anything happen
I beg your pardon? "shouting about things and knocking other people down"? Give me one example.
I always assumed that discussion involves the questioning of another point of view, which is what I've been doing. Also, whilst I respect another person's right to have a different point of view, I don't need to hold the content of that point of view in respect in order to engage in discussion. With regard to offering solutions, that's another subject entirely - I was discussing the idea of whether death constitutes suffering or not, and whether farming methods involve suffering as a matter of course, not what can be done to change these methods (although I'm happy to engage in a separate discussion about that, if you like).
Why must so many people immediately accuse someone with a point of view that differs from the norm, and which doesn't uphold the status quo, of ranting/lecturing/attacking? I've been a vegan for ten years - and one who (in real life, at least) makes a point of not airing my opinions unless I'm asked about them - and in spite of this fact, I am often made to feel as If I'm trying to spoil people's fun, or make them feel guilty, simply for just being there. It's annoying and frustrating, but also quite interesting, because it says a lot more about them than about me.
I also find it interesting that, when you give examples of practices that obviously cause pain and/or distress, they're brushed off as being "necessary", or told that the pain doesn't last that long, which misses the point completely. Of course, I understand that these practices exist in order to minimise the risk of another form of suffering happening down the line, but these either/or situations wouldn't even exist if animals weren't farmed in the first place. Yes, I know this is an ideological point, but when people insist that farm animals in the UK do not suffer, or that farming does not involve suffering as a matter of course, this is simply not true. There's always a reason why these things are done, it's just whether you think that reason is good enough or not. Also, if you can excuse one form of suffering, where do you draw the line? What constitutes "acceptable" suffering?
These are important questions to be asking. Accepted "truths" must always be challenged, or else we never move forward. (Oh, and, by the way, challenging and attacking are two very different things - I suggest you learn to identify the difference).
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Why must so many people immediately accuse someone with a point of view that differs from the norm, and which doesn't uphold the status quo, of ranting/lecturing/attacking?
I would make my comments above to anyone expressing their point of view in the way that you have been, regardless of whether they are 'aligned with the norm' or not. I find that your overly-defensive stance makes it difficult to have a conversation rather than an argument with you
Original post by Snuffleupagus
I also find it interesting that, when you give examples of practices that obviously cause pain and/or distress, they're brushed off as being "necessary", or told that the pain doesn't last that long, which misses the point completely.
You gave the examples, I just responded to them and aired that i felt that some of those you mentioned should be in different categories than others. Putting any form of pain/suffering all under the same heading is a bizarre way of looking at things - are you saying that something which causes minimal discomfort for the greater good should be addressed in the same way as outright agony for no reason? If so then I see at least where you're coming from, but have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. As you agree that farming just stopping completely is unlikely then I am confused as to how you think that practices which you believe do ultimately prevent 'worse' case scenarios should also be stopped.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
people insist that farm animals in the UK do not suffer, or that farming does not involve suffering as a matter of course, this is simply not true.
It depends what your interpretation of 'suffering' is but I don't think that most people on the veterinary thread would say that sows in farrowing crates and battery hens for example lead a life free of suffering.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
These are important questions to be asking. Accepted "truths" must always be challenged, or else we never move forward. (Oh, and, by the way, challenging and attacking are two very different things - I suggest you learn to identify the difference).
The first part I strongly agree with, the part in brackets leads me to believe that you don't yourself believe in self-reflection, particularly with regards to your writing style
Original post by stef_vet?
I would make my comments above to anyone expressing their point of view in the way that you have been, regardless of whether they are 'aligned with the norm' or not. I find that your overly-defensive stance makes it difficult to have a conversation rather than an argument with you
Again, I ask you to give me an example.
You gave the examples, I just responded to them and aired that i felt that some of those you mentioned should be in different categories than others. Putting any form of pain/suffering all under the same heading is a bizarre way of looking at things
As I mentioned, my point was an ideological one - try not to think in such concrete terms for a moment. Of course there are different degrees of suffering, but, ultimately, on an ideological level, suffering is suffering, regardless of how people choose to justify it. This begs the question whether it is right for animals to suffer at all - however minimal that suffering is percieved to be - at the hands of human beings. I believe strongly that it's not, but, as I said, I was speaking in ideological terms, and am fully aware that my beliefs are not shared by the majority.
It depends what your interpretation of 'suffering' is but I don't think that most people on the veterinary thread would say that sows in farrowing crates and battery hens for example lead a life free of suffering.
I really hope not! Plenty, however, seem to be of the view that animals on less intensive farms in the UK don't suffer at all. I suggested a range of practices that did, in fact, clearly cause pain and/or distress - to varying degrees, admittedly, but pain and/or distress nonetheless - and these were largely dismissed as being necessary and justifiable. To me, this illustrates an unwillingness to concede, in the face of blindingly obvious evidence, that farm animals do, in fact, suffer as a matter of course. Just for people to admit it would be a start.
With regard to how, in the real world, things could be improved, there are things that could definitely be done more humanely. For instance, I would suggest that dehorning be legislated against, so that if farmers want cows without horns, they should either keep polled breeds, or have calves disbudded by a certain age. Better enforcement of current legislation would also help - for instance, age limits for ring castration/tail docking without anaesthesia are not necessarily strictly observed (I have experience of this). I would also like to see the provision of pain relief encouraged - the fact that it is not economically viable for pharmaceutical companies to licence anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g.Metacam) for sheep, since most farmers will not spend money on relieving the pain of their sheep due to their being of insufficient financial value per head, saddens me greatly (my experience is mainly with sheep as I have a small flock of my own (who are given Metacam when in pain) so I am particularly sympathetic of their plight). This is all pie-in-the sky, though - I know it won't happen, because other people don't seem to care about these things in the way that I do.
The first part I strongly agree with, the part in brackets leads me to believe that you don't yourself believe in self-reflection, particularly with regards to your writing style
Once again, I was waiting to be told what exactly I had said that was so objectionable. Believe me, I am well-versed in both self-reflection and self-criticism, and will take your comments on board. If I come across as being combative, I apologise. I am ridiculously non confrontational in real life, so perhaps my pent-up frustration with regard to these issues seeps through my writing.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by schizopear
i don't want another lecture on why farming is wrong!
i don't want another lecture on why farming is wrong!
I see. So, you're allowed to post your opinions, telling me how farming is right, is practiced ethically in the UK, etc., but I'm not allowed to draw attention to the flaws in your argument, just as I would expect you to draw attention to the flaws in mine.
Never mind. I give up.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Snuffleupagus
I see. So, you're allowed to post your opinions, telling me how farming is right, is practiced ethically in the UK, etc., but I'm not allowed to draw attention to the flaws in your argument, just as I would expect you to draw attention to the flaws in mine.
Never mind. I give up.
Never mind. I give up.
i asked a question that was unrelated to farming, hence why i didn't want a lecture on why you think farming is wrong. i'm well aware of your opinion on farming and given your dogmatic approach to debate, i thought better of trying to discuss another topic with you and deleted my post - hence your out of context 'quotation' of me.
no need to reply.
Original post by schizopear
i asked a question that was unrelated to farming, hence why i didn't want a lecture on why you think farming is wrong. i'm well aware of your opinion on farming and given your dogmatic approach to debate, i thought better of trying to discuss another topic with you and deleted my post - hence your out of context 'quotation' of me.
Perhaps if you learnt to read properly you wouldn't have needed to ask. The ability to set aside the ex-vegetarian prejudice for a moment would also have helped your comprehension.
You might also like to look up the words "discussion", and "debate", in the dictionary.
Oh, and people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
No need to reply.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Well, you can be aware that you are about to be deprived of life. On a more basic level, you can also fear for your life - the survival instinct (which all of us animals have) is, arguably, a source of great suffering - fear and distress caused by the triggering of this instinct can, in my opinion, be classed as suffering.
If I deprived you of your life, provided it was done "humanely", you would not consider it as being detrimental to your welfare?
If not, then why is the killing of a human being considered wrong? There are plenty of unwanted people in the world, draining its resources - why can't we just get rid of them? Humanely, of course.
If I deprived you of your life, provided it was done "humanely", you would not consider it as being detrimental to your welfare?
If not, then why is the killing of a human being considered wrong? There are plenty of unwanted people in the world, draining its resources - why can't we just get rid of them? Humanely, of course.
1) I, as a human being, can be aware that I am about to be deprived of life, I don't believe animals have the cognitive ability to be aware of this.
The "survival instinct" does not cause suffering. It is a physiological response to a stressful environment. There is a huge difference between stress and distress. Stress is an essential part of life, it in itself is the motivation to act appropriately to preserve one's life. I think you are crediting these animals with too much intelligence and foresight.
2) If I was killed humanely, I don't think it would be detrimental to my welfare. Lets just say my welfare was 100% prior to, let's assume lethal injection. My welfare would remain 100% until the point of death (assuming I am either happy to be euthanased or, as would be the case with a farmed animal, am unaware of what this injection will do to me). Welfare cannot be applied to something which is not living. So my welfare level is at 100% and then ceases to have a value- it does not decline.
3) The practice of killing humans is considered wrong for two main reasons. The first is indoctrinated religion, the second is because it is deemed a violation of the individual's human rights. I am pro-euthanasia and in some cases believe people forfeit their human rights and that the death penalty is appropriate. However, if we are talking about suffering, the killing of a human causes far more suffering than that of an animal because of the human's ability to understand that they are about to be killed and also the radiating subsequent suffering of relatives and friends through the emotional bonds which humans share- a bond which is far stronger than any observed in the animal kingdom.
I am not denying that farming causes pain and distress to some degree, on some farms, at some points in an animals life. My original posts were in relation to the slaughter process rather than the rearing period. I hope people can one day find a practice which eliminates all suffering but that is almost certainly a dream.
Dogs can live on a vegetarian diet - they hunt animals and kill their pray in a slower, more painful way than we do. As animals of a higher intelligence we do what we can to reduce the suffering of our "prey". However, we are still subjected to the pressures of millions of years of evolution - the urge to eat an omnivorous diet, and to use tools (be they living or inanimate) to make ourselves happier and/or healthier.
This is not related to the quoted post, but I would also like to share that I DO value a human life above that of an animal's. It worries me that there is more than one contributor to this thread that disagrees.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Doesn't death constitute suffering?
Surely, the deprivation of life is a welfare issue.
Surely, the deprivation of life is a welfare issue.
The deprivation of life is only a welfare issue if an animal is sentient and able to understand the concept of life/death and longevity. Whether most animals have these abilities are up for debate but the general consensus is that they don't.
If you walked into a field of cows with a high velocity rifle and started killing them what would you think would happen? They would continue to stand there chewing their cud because they don't understand the gravity of what is going on or appreciate the concept of deprivation of life. Much the same can be said about cows flipping out in the stunning box of an abattoir - it is not that they fear for their lives but rather stress/fear based on alien surroundings and poor handling.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
Well, you can be aware that you are about to be deprived of life. On a more basic level, you can also fear for your life - the survival instinct (which all of us animals have) is, arguably, a source of great suffering - fear and distress caused by the triggering of this instinct can, in my opinion, be classed as suffering.
If I deprived you of your life, provided it was done "humanely", you would not consider it as being detrimental to your welfare?
If not, then why is the killing of a human being considered wrong? There are plenty of unwanted people in the world, draining its resources - why can't we just get rid of them? Humanely, of course.
(and I will scream till I **** if someone says "because they're human". That's the equivalent of saying "just, because").
If I deprived you of your life, provided it was done "humanely", you would not consider it as being detrimental to your welfare?
If not, then why is the killing of a human being considered wrong? There are plenty of unwanted people in the world, draining its resources - why can't we just get rid of them? Humanely, of course.
(and I will scream till I **** if someone says "because they're human". That's the equivalent of saying "just, because").
As above, there are vast species differences with regards to cognitive ability. While humans may be sentient and are able to understand the deprivation of life there is little or no evidence that that is the case in animals.
P.S. Of course vet students see farms where animals are treated relatively decently - does anyone honestly think they'd be welcome at a farm with bad practices, where "vet" is a dirty word? (there are many of these farms. And dirty words, of course.)
Most farmers do not deliberately mistreat their animals, often it is as a result of a lack of understanding, economics and perhaps even ignorance. You would be surprised but in many of these instances a farmer will still call out a vet.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not going to deny that there are some dubious farms and farm practices out there but I would question the true extent. How many is "many"? Making a wild claim in the absence of evidence does not make it true or solidify your own viewpoint.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
I also find it interesting that, when you give examples of practices that obviously cause pain and/or distress, they're brushed off as being "necessary", or told that the pain doesn't last that long, which misses the point completely. Of course, I understand that these practices exist in order to minimise the risk of another form of suffering happening down the line, but these either/or situations wouldn't even exist if animals weren't farmed in the first place. Yes, I know this is an ideological point, but when people insist that farm animals in the UK do not suffer, or that farming does not involve suffering as a matter of course, this is simply not true. There's always a reason why these things are done, it's just whether you think that reason is good enough or not. Also, if you can excuse one form of suffering, where do you draw the line? What constitutes "acceptable" suffering?
Sure in a fairy tale world where nobody ate or used animal products there would be less suffering however realistically this is never going to happen. All that we can do is work to minimise suffering where possible and work towards finding alternative farming practices that might be better.
Sure tail docking lambs causes suffering however there isn't really a "gold standard" alternative in the prevention of fly-strike/myiasis with regards to efficacy, cost and animal welfare. Adoption pens and stalls aren't particularly welfare friendly but the alternative for orphaned or mis-mothered lambs is suffering and/or death because most farms do not have the time or labour to hand raise lambs.
Original post by Snuffleupagus
With regard to how, in the real world, things could be improved, there are things that could definitely be done more humanely. For instance, I would suggest that dehorning be legislated against, so that if farmers want cows without horns, they should either keep polled breeds, or have calves disbudded by a certain age.
By all means advocate polled breeds and disbudding of calves however bear in mind that it is not always effective. Legislating against dehorning is not really a workable idea.
Better enforcement of current legislation would also help - for instance, age limits for ring castration/tail docking without anaesthesia are not necessarily strictly observed (I have experience of this).
The powers that be are not omniscient or omnipresent, they rely upon people like yourself to do what they can, when they can.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Equine Science
- Play the forum game that's playing 3 threads below this one
- Hartpury vs Harper Adams - Veterinary Nursing
- Bristol vs RVC vs Glasgow veterinary school
- Costie Livs in Cardiff as a Muslim
- Surrey vs RVC
- Glasgow vs RVC
- Bioveterinary Science vs Veterinary Science
- Gateway Veterinary Medicine
- Vet nursing RVC vs Bristol
- Dissertation survey exchange
- Is angel cake vegetarian?
- Which is vegetarian?
- Why have applications dropped off so much?
- Self-catered vs Catered accommodation at Bath
- Vet med or biochem?
- Bristol vs Surrey
- Durham uni international students
- Who else is vegan on here?
- What a levels do you need for vet nurse
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I don't meet the entry requirements for my GCSEs, what should I do?Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I don't meet the entry requirements for my GCSEs, what should I do?
