A question of sentience — a vet’s view

by

As a livestock producer, if there’s one thing that someone says that is sure to start a real conversation, it’s calling livestock sentient beings. And I say that because I have watched a sheep unceremoniously step on her dead “friend” to get better feed at the feed rack, with no qualms. If an animal is supposedly sentient, they’re real unfeeling jerks.

That said, I would agree that a sheep or cow or chicken is not the same as a tractor or a silo, for example. There’s a reason we care for them, provide shelter, protect them from avoidable diseases, and do our best to keep them healthy and calm. I understand and accept that an animal can feel pain and experience fear, and we livestock producers do our darndest as care providers to avoid both.

Does that make them sentient? If we say yes, what does that mean for our ability and our social license to raise them?

It’s a valid question, and one that is shared by veterinarians, as well. After all, if an animal is sentient, does that automatically mean they are equivalent to a human? How might that shape care expectations or litigation when it comes to veterinary medicine?

Dr. Tim Arthur is the new president of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and he explored the question of sentience with a panel of experts at the organization’s annual general meeting at Calgary, Alta., last month.

Arthur approached the topic with some apprehension, but explains in the video below, that as he researched the experience in Europe and Quebec, where the word sentient regarding animals has entered legislation, he realized that the implications of calling animals sentient does not equate to making them human.

How we treat animals as a society — which ones we eat, how we raise them, and what their care must be — is a societal decision, one that is, over time, reflected in our laws, he says.

Acknowledging that an animal is different than a tractor or silo doesn’t suddenly mean that everyone would be fine with eating horse meat or that, conversely, we’d be stopped from eating beef. Instead, he sees it as simply acknowledging something we already know and accept, and that it is society that decides how animals are raised and used, not any single word in a regulation.

Listen to the full conversation between Dr. Arthur and me, here:

Comments

Please Log in

Log in

or Register

Register

to read or comment!