When discussion comes up about harmful practices some veterinarians seek to protect, such as cat declawing, ventilation shutdown plus, slaughterhouse gas chambers, or gestation crates, animal advocates often ask veterinarians: “What happened to do no harm?” 

But veterinarians do not take an oath to “do no harm.” Neither do physicians. Because in medicine, doing no harm is impossible.

Every surgery, every treatment, every intervention carries the risk of some harm. Human medicine relies on a framework of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. This means weighing harm against benefit and acting in the patient’s best interest, respecting the patient’s choices and fairness in the distribution of care.

In veterinary medicine, many of us are taught, “Animal welfare, not animal rights.”

We are told in school that advancing animal rights could harm animal welfare. The argument is that if animals had expanded legal standing, it could increase our malpractice risk, raise insurance costs, push defensive “cover your ass” medicine, and ultimately make care more expensive and less accessible. It could also lead veterinarians to refer more cases to specialists instead of treating them more affordably in general practice.

There is also the belief that giving animals rights would mean we would be denied lifesaving medications that come from animal experimentation, we would be denied animal protein that some believe humans and other animals need to survive, and we couldn’t have animals in our lives as member of our families.

So the conclusion is not to support animal rights.

The issue is not whether animals should have rights. The issue is whether we build legal frameworks that protect both patients and veterinarians. That is a tort reform problem, not a reason to deny rights altogether.

We can produce animal protein without harming animals, we can create more innovations and cures by prioritizing research that involves access to care over vivarium-based research, and we can still have animals in our lives without buying and selling them for profit.

Animals already do have rights in many ways. Endangered species are protected from harm. Animals are legally entitled to food, water, shelter, and veterinary care. Many laws already recognize their interests, but enforcement of existing laws is often inconsistent.

In some cases, animals are protected in ways that resemble rights. In other cases, those protections are ignored, especially in large-scale animal production systems.

When people say, “Rights? Like letting animals vote?” they are misunderstanding the concept.

Children have rights, and they do not vote.

Rights are not all or nothing. They are defined, structured, and context-dependent.

Have veterinarians been talking about animal welfare vs animal rights in the wrong way?

Should we extend more rights to animals? And if so, what should those rights actually look like in practice?

#vetmed #onehealth #vetstudent #vetschool #veterinarian