How complexity of animal welfare issues can foster differences within the veterinary profession.

Abstract

Humans have been using animals for their own purposes for as long as humans and animals have coinhabited the planet. Our ancestors hunted animals as food, and over the millennia, humans have recognized animals as sources of clothing to protect them from the elements, fuel to light their lamps, bones from which to carve tools and jewelry, and even medically important compounds (eg, insulin) with which they can treat their diseases. Beginning more than 30,000 years ago, humankind recognized the usefulness of domestication and began to breed a variety of species to more readily serve its purposes. Humans saw the advantages of using domesticated animals as a source of food, a method of transport, a form of protection (from both people and other animals), and eventually a source of companionship. Just as humans’ uses of animals have changed over the years, so too have society’s views on animal welfare. The disparate roles that animals play in our lives have left a patchwork of animal welfare expectations across society. These society-wide differences in opinions regarding acceptable human-animal interactions and what constitutes acceptable animal welfare are reflected in the veterinary profession and can be described as a dissonance within the profession. 1 This dissonance has been suggested to be a central challenge that could keep veterinarians from assuming a leadership role in animal welfare. 2 In contrast, we believe that different perspectives within the veterinary profession merely reflect contemporary society and that it is incumbent on the profession to work with and through the norms and values of society in addressing the challenges of animal welfare. The use of gestation stalls for pregnant sows represents an interesting example of these divergent perspectives within the veterinary profession, as veterinarians directly involved in the day-to-day care of commercial livestock often seem to have opinions regarding the welfare implications of gestation stalls different from the opinions held by veterinarians who do not have close connections to or experience with these animals. In our experience, veterinarians involved in the day-to-day care of sows, particularly those familiar with group housing of sows prior to the advent of individual gestation stalls, tend to focus on the advantages to the physical health of the sows that gestation stalls provide, citing, for example, how individual housing prevents