Yes, the Save a Draft Blog is back on the air! I am Jenny
Kurtz, and I am the Maryland Hay Bank Coordinator. The Maryland Hay Bank is a
program within Gentle Giants Draft Horse Rescue that provides grants of hay to
horse owners in Maryland experiencing temporary financial hardships due to job
loss or medical issues.
Today’s blog entry is not specific to Gentle Giants or
saving draft horses or even hay. It is
related to horse care.
With the stories in the news the past few weeks on the vet
care provided to Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner I’ll Have Another I began
to wonder if vets take the Hippocratic Oath. After doing some research with
google the short answer is No. I was wondering because after reading the NY
Times article on 7/12/12 discussing the treatments provided to I’ll Have
Another I began to wonder if the injections of joint fluid and powerful pain
killers were in the horse’s best interest or in the owner’s and trainer’s best
financial interests. The NY Times
article provides some damning information (twenty-four horses die every week on
US racetracks and that the US racing industry is the leader in catastrophic
horse breakdowns) and concluded that the overuse and misuse of powerful pain
killers allows owners and trainers to race unsound horses.
An article on
thehorse.com on 7/12/12 expressed an opposite view that all of the care
provided to I’ll Have Another was routine and not out of the norm for the
racing industry. Maybe that is the problem given the number of thoroughbreds
dying on US racetracks.
So with these conflicting views I began to wonder if vets
take the Hippocratic Oath of “first do no harm” or something similar. My google
search revealed multiple sources that discuss how human doctors take an oath to
cure illness first and relieve suffering second while animal doctors’ primary
(and sometimes only) obligation is to relieve suffering. But historically vets relieved suffering not
for the animal’s sake but so that the owner could maximize financial gain off
the animal’s labor and/or body parts.
Within the past 50 years many veterinarians have shifted
their focus to include preventing and curing illnesses but also relieving
suffering for the animal’s sake. Since 1969 the American Veterinary
Medical Association has adopted the following oath:
Being
admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine,
I solemnly
swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society
through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the
conservation of livestock resources, the promotion of public health, and the
advancement of medical knowledge.
I will
practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the
principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as
a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge
and competence."
So, were the
vets treating I’ll Have Another’s injuries doing so to protect the horse’s
health and well being and to relieve his suffering? Or were the vets devising
treatments more to protect I’ll Have Another’s owner’s financial well being?
Can we even separate the animal’s well being from the owner’s?
My view is
it’s complicated. Yes, within the US horse racing industry as whole there are
veterinarians who view the owner’s financial well being as paramount and the
horse’s well being as secondary and they provide treatment accordingly. With the number of racetrack deaths there can
be no other conclusion that injured horses are being treated just so they can
race when they are not fit to do so. Veterinarians are enabling owners and
trainers to race unfit horses.
But when
looking at the I’ll Have Another situation specifically it can be harder to
decide. The horse was scratched from the Belmont when they could have pumped
him full of pain killers just get him through for one more race (and it was a
big race). Still I am bothered by a 3 year old with osteoarthritis. That does
not seem right to me even though the thehorse.com (a magazine dedicated to
equine health issues) states the treatment was normal and routine for a
racehorse. Like I said, this is complicated when you only look at one horse.
What do you
think? Should the US horse racing industry be better regulated to prevent
owners from racing unfit horses? Should vets who support owners in racing unfit
horses be sanctioned? Should the veterinarian oath be rewritten and/or more
strictly enforced? Can we even enforce
an oath to protect the animal’s well being as the first priority when the
animal is classified as property?
While this
blog was about horse racing and equine vets the same questions can be asked
about small animal vets. When a vet docks ears or a tail to achieve the breed
standard or declaws a cat is that for animal’s well being or for the owner’s
well being?
