Um…therepeutics are by definition curative, (at least in intent; the outcome is not always guaranteed) and antibiotics are used as therapy, thus antibiotics are therepeutic.
Now there are instances where antibiotics and other therepeutic medications are misused, and that is quite a different matter. Antibiotics are also used prophylactically, which is a legitimate usage when used properly.
ah - being a vet, surely you are aware of the problem with resistant bacteria.
In my experience as a veterinarian, consideration of the concept of “animal rights” over the last 20+ years and in the study of Catholic moral theology, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
- There are the “animal rights extremists”, who claim that animals have basically the same rights as people and that if you disagree, you are a “speciest”, which is a similar concept to being a “racist”.
i don’t like the term “speciest” but after watching “eathlings” i can understand where they get the term. if you have never seen it, i highly recommend it.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4093730216074063220&hl=en
- That most people agree with and fully support the notion of “animal welfare”, which the Church supports.
most people will tell you that they can’t be concerned about the welfare of animals until we’ve banned abortion. i’ve been round and round with my fellow catholic pro-lifers in this issue. unless we’re talking about a dog or cat, they don’t think it’s a problem… but provided it doesn’t make their meat more expensive, they’re all for it.
- That many people confuse the notions of “animal rights” and “animal welfare”, and that the animal rights extremists foster this confusion to further their agenda.
we may not like the extremists, but they have brought many issues to light that would otherwise not be known to the public. the ONLY reason they get any support is because they are exposing some pretty heinous truths about the industry.
- That many people do not understand that animals raised for food do not produce well under conditions of stress, and that there is a balance between effecient management methods that minimize stress and maximize production.
yes they do produce. as long as they are alive and designed to grow lots of “meat” on them (with antibiotics and hormones, for starters), they produce, regardless of how much they suffer in the process.
“production” and “efficiency” have come to replace the whole notion of animals being living creatures. our moral responsibility is their well-being, not getting as many eggs, quarts of milk, or pounds of meat from them as possible. we have greed dictating animal welfare right now.
- That improvements in food production management are possible and desirable, balancing the need for food products
“need”? for meat/eggs/dairy 3x a day every day? no, i think not. animal-based food consumption (per capita) has more than doubled since 1950. we were a well-fed nation in 1950, so what does that make us today?
with the humane treatment of the food animals. Exactly what those improvements are and how they are implimented is the subject of debate among even experts in the fields of food production management, animal behaviorists and veterinarians.
well you can tell that the ones who have been bought out by agribusiness are advocating their methods. anyone else with common sense can see that packing hogs into crates that are the size of their bodies for all their lives is untenable for the welfare of the animals.
the slaughterhouse in chino that was shut down? those were california’s famous “happy dairy cows”… about half of all dairy cows are lame by the time they are “spent” – and they are “spent” very young for what their life span should be. but rather than euthanize them humanely or take better care of them, we pack them in trucks for slaughter. gotta get that last dime out of them. how can they afford to do this? well, easy. the “products of their insemination” used to make them produce more milk, replace them. what a racket.
you see, i don’t think it’s wrong to get some milk from a cow if we want a little or need it. but we have become greedy and gluttonous.
Y’all might be interested to know that the American Veterinary Medical Association has recently issued a policy statement against cosmetic tail docking and ear cropping in companion animals. For years, the AVMA has been wishy-washy on the subject, and in my opinion lacking the spine to either come out against it or for it.
I personally do not perform and never have performed cosmetic surgery on pet animals, and am pleased to see the AVMA take a stand on the issue.
By the way, declawing is still under debate, and is not considered to be a cosmetic procedure. Personally, I will council kitten owners before performing such procedures, and will only declaw a mature cat if it’s a life-or-death situation i.e. the cat is clawing the owner or the furniture and the owner will abandon or euthanize the cat unless it is declawed.
Like any other issue, most veterinarians are in the middle, with a few strictly anti-declaw under any circumstances and a few that will declaw most every cat under their care.
that’s interesting about tail docking. i got my dog from the pound - when he came to the shelter at 9 weeks old, he’d had his tail docked and dew claws removed… and was left with a belly full of worms by his original owner. i did think it was ridiculous
i think st. francis would agree with me about this.
