|
"How can any veterinary surgeon justify the mutilation of a sensitive and expressive mammal in order that a minority of people choose to pursue the mass destruction of avians for pleasure? If I were to shoot my clients flamingo for pleasure the RCVS and the rest of the profession would justifiably strike me off, what moral difference then is there between a flamingo and a pheasant? If we accept there is no difference between these two avians, where then is the moral authority in the voice of those people that do shoot pheasants, yet insist we mutilate other animals? Because they are our professional clients? It has been argued that "docking tails" is a trivial issue relative to greater animal welfare issues, if we cannot agree on this clearly unethical practice with no moral justification we have no moral authority as a profession to express our opinions on the greater issues. Therefore the RCVS has no moral authority if it cannot even agree that the amputation of puppies tails is unethical and therefore gross misconduct. Good luck with the campaign."
Tim Townsend BVetMed MRCVS |
