Right. So, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Webinar vet. My name is Mark Hedberg, and I am your host this evening for friends, family or fur babies.
How anthropomorphism affects our pets welfare. So we're very pleased to welcome Maggie Roberts here. Maggie qualified as a veterinary surgeon at the University of Edinburgh in 1986 and spent most of her early career in private small animal practise where she developed an interest in feline medicine.
She's also worked in Malawi in Australia and was appointed the first Cats Protection veterinary officer. In 1997 she returned to private Practise as a partner running a branch surgery, but returned to Cats protection in 2006 as head of veterinary services. REIT expanded and she was the director of feline welfare, having responsibility for the charity's work on cat welfare, Neutering, advocacy and education.
Her professional interests are shelter, medicine and feline population control. She's a founder member of the Association of Charity Events, the co editor of the BS, a VA manual of canine and feline shelter medicine. Been there, done that.
Got the t-shirt. It is our pleasure. Thank you for coming, Maggie.
And over to you. Oh, thank you so much. Mark.
Let's get started. We're going to talk about anthropomorphism and, and how it affects our pets welfare. So, yeah, the the picture on the right, might tell you a little bit about what I think about the phrase, fur babies.
But to start off, let's have a pole. Do you think the term fur babies and pet parents is there appropriate terms to be used by veterinary professionals? You can only choose one never only for their own pets only if the owner guardian does it first or always.
And this is just really for me. Obviously, it's It's your opinion. It's just for us to see where the lie of the land is.
So please do vote. Are we ready with any results? OK, that's that's interesting.
Lots of people are saying never and and people saying, Oh, it's only for the guardians. Do it first. OK, just a quick warning.
That what I'm gonna say, tonight, obviously, a lot of it is my own opinion. I have looked at some of the research. But really, it's just to sort of get some, discussion Going really?
On what can be quite a controversial topic. I'm not always right, despite me sitting on the iron throne. The other warning is that because I've worked a lot with cats, an awful lot of my pictures and examples are cats, but not all of them.
So anyway, let's start going. Poll number two. What does anthropomorphism mean?
Is it the study of human body shapes, The attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god animal or inanimate object? The attribution of animal characteristics to humans, gods, places or objects or seeing a pet as part of the family. OK, do we have our results?
Fantastic. Everyone has got this right, which is great. And, yeah, absolutely, anthropomorphism comes from the Greek meaning anthros, humans and morph, which obviously is associated with form.
So it's, it is really the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to God's animals or inanimate objects. And you know, you think about things like sailors calling ships, she and having these sort of often quite beautiful, carvings at the at the front of the ship. And God's very much being perceived as humans.
We've got, Neptune here. And also, it can be that we think, you know, because, we view our pet as perhaps being, more human than than cat that we decide. We want to dress them up and have matching gear.
I wanted to mention another couple of terms as well. That are sort of useful in this discussion. And the first one is anthro centrism.
A lot of these words are quite difficult to say, anthropocentrism and it literally means human centred. And this is the ethical belief that humans alone possess, value that we're top of the tree, that we're central to everything and that we're they are the mo that probably not many vets actually share. But it is a view.
It is an ethical view and that other beings, other animals only hold value in how useful they are to us. And, and this can influence how, anthro morphic people actually are. Another term is zoom morphism, and this is the opposite of anthropomorphism.
This is where, particularly in things like art and literature, we use figurative language where we characterise people but also things like ideas and places with animal attributes. A classic one is the cougar. The mature, lady with AAA younger, a younger lover, with the sort of, beauty, but, danger of a cougar.
The lamb of God. . There's a lot of religious, figurative language where animals might be used.
And also, a lot of dees in many, many different religions either have the form of an animal or can change from human to animal. And this is obviously bastet the cat goddess from ancient Egypt. Little bit about the history of anthropomorphism.
How did it sort of come about? The earliest evidence we have of it being used was, around, 40,000 years ago. And, that's it may well have been used before then, but that's the first time we've got some evidence of cave paintings, et cetera.
Its ancient roots is really in storytelling, but also about deities and, them taking, human forms. And we think about things like, Aesop's fables. The picture here is from the tortoise and the hare.
One of his fables. I think I'm one of life's, tortoises a bit slow and bloddy, but obviously the, the tortoise won the race in the end. But there are many even today.
If you think about how many, Disney animations have got anthro morphic animals in them, it's still something that's quite popular. The first person who was sort of critical of the idea of anthropomorphism was Xenophanes who was a Greek philosopher and poet, and and he was critical about the use of it in religion that he felt that people were vain and they just assumed that gods were like them. And And he said, if horses had hands and could draw their gods and they drew their own gods, it would be in a horse form so that it was arrogant of us to assume that gods took a human form.
So a lot of the early discussion about anthro morphism was in relation to religion. And in some religions it was considered a sin to use anthropomorphism to describe gold or even to use it to talk about, animals as well. And then gradually, other views started to come in, and there were secular views about, how we viewed animals.
And compared to ourselves, some criticism from Francis Bacon. But the actual term anthropomorphism was first used after Darwin's theory of evolution because it sort of showed that we're all quite related in in, our origins. And so people started thinking, Well, perhaps animals are more like us.
So which is sort of natural, but not necessarily completely true. And what's the motivation for anthropomorphism? Why do we do it?
And the main factors. I think there's a lot, but the main factors, are if people have a very anthropocentric view or that's the perspective they've grown up with, then they tend to think that animals think like us if they don't have much understanding of animal behaviour. And certainly many people, who've been in vet practise will know that often owners try to interpret, and understand their animal's behaviour in a very anthropomorphic way because they just don't have the knowledge, for example, thinking that their cat is evil because it's scratched the sofa.
It's trying to get back at them. So, you know, we can see that the cat in this picture that looks rather like mine. Looking rather, you know, he's plotting to kill us.
And another big motivator is a desire for for social contact, with people who are lonely or living on their own. That desire for social contact can make them more anthropomorphic than than perhaps other people and the need for things like emotional support animals. Because that is their social contact.
And obviously that bond is really important. The human animal bond in itself. But obviously, if we can become too anthropomorphic, then that that can be negative, So can it be useful?
Can anthropomorphism have a good side? Well, it certainly, can be very useful. It does seem to encourage people to be more empathetic for animals, and it gets them to show care and interest.
Some people say it helps them to see the world through animal's eyes. I'm not sure about that because I think it's it's very hard for us to do that, but it certainly can be a really effective communication tool. And just to give a couple of examples, obviously I worked in shelters for many years and often people would say, you know, Oh, the pens are great at Cats protection.
You know? Why do we need to home them? And you'd sort of think, But yeah, it's good for a temporary home, but it's not a good environment overall for cats, and I'd often say to them, But it's like us being in a prison cell.
You know, it might be clean and we might get enough food or whatever, but it's not really a very good environment and that we, our our sense of, control or, opportunities to choose have been taken away from us. And this is often how, obviously cats feel, being total control freaks. It's quite a difficult environment for them, and they get very, very stressed, but it can be useful, and people understand more if you so would you like to just be in in a tiny cell for the rest of your years or even, you know, live in your bathroom for the rest of your life, even if it's a really nice bathroom.
And I think it's really useful in trying to get people to understand that their pets might be feeling pain. You know, if you if you've had surgery often it is quite sore and you might be given pain relief. So you might appreciate more that in this sort of situation that the cat may be feeling pain and we want to give give painkillers to them.
Interestingly, the research shows that it can aid conservation work Where, we're trying to conserve species that perhaps have had some conflict with local people like big cats killing their cattle or elephants eating their crops that if we present it in an anthropomorphic way, actually, we get a better response, which is is quite interesting. And also, I think it can be quite powerful. Here's an image that I saw recently on a, an article, that was against animal experimentation and the idea that they might do it to us.
And obviously the animals here are very presented in a very anthropomorphic way, but I think that's quite powerful. When is it bad? Well, I think many of you have probably heard, behaviourists say things like, you know, pets, cats and dogs are not particularly, are not small humans in furry coats.
That by doing things like dressing them up, putting nail polish on them. Yes, this is something that is actually for sale. I think in the States, if we have dogs that we push around in prams and we don't allow them to walk, we are not meeting species specific needs.
And I think this is the biggest problem. Cats want to be able to groom themselves and move. And actually, having clothes on really restricts this.
If they've got nail covers on nail varnish, they can't scratch in the normal way that they would do to exercise their claws or to mark, so it can result in some, quite marked stress for the for the animals. Interestingly, it has been shown as well that if researchers have quite an anthropomorphic view when they're assessing research into animal behaviour, it can lead them to become more subjective and not really looking at them as their own species. And it does lead people to have these assumptions about animal emotions like they're feeling guilty.
They're feeling pride. And although obviously we don't at all fully understand, animal emotion, there's no real evidence that, other animal species, even the higher primates, do show emotions such as as pride or guilt. Sometimes people think are guilty.
But perhaps it's just when we're across, they look have a negative look. But they may not associate that with the the what we perceive to be the bad thing that they've done right. Next.
Paul, which of these reasons for dressing up an animal are positive for welfare? They'll get lots of likes on social media. They match the owner's outfit, which shows how much they love them, keeps hairless animals, warm protective clothing for work animals.
You can only do one, but there may be more than one correct answer. Have we got our results Interesting? Because yeah, I mean, I think, certainly protective clothing for working animals.
Absolutely. And yeah, if we have hairless animals, sometimes we do need to keep them warm, I think. And And we'll come on to talk a little bit more about hairless animals later.
But should we have hairless animals? Should we have to put them, in clothes? I was once at a cat show and there was a woman with a sphinx cat in a little jumper and she was sort of like, Oh, would you like a little jumper?
And I couldn't help but say, But wouldn't it be better if he had his own hair? But yes, if you do have one that's hairless and it might be hairless for pathological reasons, you might need to put clothing, clothing on them. A quick recap.
Now I'm not trying to sort of, you know, tell you things that, of course, you already know. But it's just sort of trying to make the point. What, what is animal welfare and that we really have to when we're, you know, perhaps talking to clients or if we're ever doing training with laypeople, if you do work for a charity.
The welfare animal welfare is not about how we feel about their situation. It's about how they feel. It's about what they're experiencing at that moment because they don't have a sense of the future.
They're not thinking, Can I make it till Christmas? Or I wonder what spring is going to be like. It's about how they feel at that time.
It's and it's their physical and mental state, of course, and their ability to fulfil those natural behaviours and what is their quality of life? And obviously the bears Here it's moon bears and obviously moon bear. In AAA Bear Bile Farm is not having good welfare.
They can't fulfil their behaviours. It's bad mentally and physically if they're detained to a sanctuary. Obviously their quality of life improves dramatically, and their welfare does more stimulation, more space, more choice.
But ultimately, if they could choose, they'd probably choose to be back out in the wild. But it's important that we get people to understand that welfare is about how the animal feels. Don't need to go through the animal, the five welfare needs.
But they are species specific. And that means that, for each species obviously different needs. Some may overlap, but we have to think about the species, and this really comes from how they've evolved.
What are their origins? What are their social structures, et cetera? And just these are just a few examples.
If we've got, prey species and there might be rabbits, rats, horses, they tend to live in large groups because they're safety in numbers. You know, rabbits naturally would live in colonies, rats live in groups with quite a hierarchy, often up to about 100 and 50 individuals. Obviously, wild horses live in herds.
And one might alert, the others to danger in the other sort of follow. You know, if one horse starts running off and the others will start to run, which does ask the question in racing, if a horse loses its rider and still keeps running, is it because they love running? Or is it that they think there's something purple going on because the others are running?
So, a lot of their behaviour comes down to this being prey species. Obviously, the cat has evolved from the African wild cat. And this is a a predator, but also prey, because it's a small cat living in a very, very barren environment without much prey, so they're highly territorial.
They want to keep other cats out because there isn't enough food for them. So they have evolved as a solitary predator. And, they will use these distant you know, marking with smells et cetera to to basically try and keep other cats away.
The grey wolf is one of the ancestors of our domestic dog, and they're obviously in, we say packs, but really family groups. They hunt cooperatively, they cross suckle. And our dogs today are still highly social animals, both with other and with other dogs.
And what about us As humans? We were hunter gatherers, and it was good for us to be in social groups. The, some raising the Children, some going out to hunt, and and specialising in different areas.
But basically we were hunter gatherers. Now I'm not going to go through this slide. It was just really to show how different species are, but also that there can be quite a lot of overlap.
But that doesn't mean to say that they have a lot of marked similarities in terms of what their needs are. You can see from the pictures of the skulls, they're really different. And obviously the dentition is markedly different.
But also the whole shape of the skull. So, you know, anatomically and physiologically you've got an Omnivore compared to a carnivore or a herbivore. Obviously, they're very different in terms of length of gut dentition.
Humans don't have much hair. Others are furry. Humans are, active, most mostly in the daylight.
They're diurnal. And so they have really good, colour vision. Cats have great vision, but they hunt at dawn and dusk.
That's when their prey is most, active. And so they have limited colour vision, but really good. Low light.
Vision and pro species like rabbits have eyes on the side. With a really wide angle of vision to look at those, predators and spot them, all sorts of different things in terms of smell and hearing, where different species have different abilities and it's all about survival. And some cross over, like whether they're territorial or not.
But each one has their own, their own, their own way that they've actually evolved to fit their particular niche. But also, we do have to remember that each animal is not only its species and has its needs that are dictated by that, but also that each animal is an individual. So even within one species, their needs may vary.
Cat examples again, I'm afraid, this is the very gorgeous Aidan, though who was my cat, but sadly, isn't with us anymore. Many of the cats that we work with in veterinary practise are like him an indoor outdoor cat. he liked to go out and do a bit of hunting, but also to curl up on the sofa.
And his needs are different, really? Than something like a barn cat or even a feral cat or a community cat, where they live purely outdoors. They might have some shelter, but they're not particularly suited to being indoors.
Obviously, this one's been ear tipped and therefore neutered. But their needs are different from an owned cat. And if you have a purely indoor cat, then obviously you have to work really hard to make sure that you have provided an adequate environment.
And this is quite a fancy one where they're using the 3D space, which is so important for cats, they're using it really well. They've got quite a few cats from the look of it, but also things like what breed they are. This is a Turkish van swimming.
So, you know, they ideally need access to some water. It it depends on obviously their reproductive status. That a nursing queen has different needs to say a, you know, a spade female, and also their health status, and age and things like that.
So moving on to some confirmation, which of these characteristics does not infantilize cats and dogs, wrinkles, floppy or curled ears, round flat faces or hairless? Have we got our results? Ah, interesting majority are saying wrinkles.
Some are saying floppy or cold ears, and some are saying hairless. Now I would say the answer is, But again, it's, you know, my view is that it's wrinkles. We are increasingly breeding animals, particularly dogs and cats.
But other species as well, where we are trying to make them more like, humans and particularly human INF infants. And this means things like Rounder, flatter faces cold. It is.
If we're thinking about cats, think about, ultra Persians. It just seems so wrong having the nose right between the eyes, particularly when you think about something like a Scottish fold. They've got a just a very round baby face and don't have the pointy ears.
Obviously, this is very negative because of the osteochondrodysplasia that they suffer from and obviously get a lot of joint problems and pain and mobility problems from that with the cold ears hairless that it makes them more human. I always think sphinx cats look a little bit like aliens, but the wrinkles are definitely not something to make them look like a baby. But it is that sort of hairless human skin, short legs.
They look almost like toys, don't they? This is a Munch, ken. But these cats can't jump, can't hunt, can't do lots of things, But people think they're cute having no tail again, more humanised.
And they're meant to appeal to us more because they look more like human infants, obviously with other species as well. Or English bulldog with it has a round, flat face the wrinkles. I never really know why people want to breed.
An animal with lots of wrinkles. It's just not attractive, I think, apart from, you know, the fact that obviously we get so many problems with dermatitis, et cetera. But, you know, as humans, we are always trying to stop our wrinkles.
So it just seems very, very odd to me again. Short legged animals. Obviously with the dachshund.
They were originally bred to hunt badges and go down badger sets. But the original ones did not hold legs that are so short. And this is almost like a wi cut to like this, despite the the problems they have with their spine.
Floppy ears make them look softer. And even with rabbits, if you think about a lionhead rabbit, it's got a A for shortened skull. I do think this one looks like an old man.
Really, hairless dogs like the Mexican dog and then in the middle of the Dumbo Rat, which I have to say of all these is probably the thing I think looks cutest. And that is on the side, like humans. And this one's even got a little teddy, which I hate to say it, but I think it looks quite cute.
But it is, a recessive gene that can cause problems. And they, on the whole live shorter their expected life. Their life expectancy is shorter than, non dumber rats.
What they called top top eared rats. And they're more prone to tumours and respiratory infections. So, all these animals will suffer because We're trying to make them look a certain way moving on to talk about diet and anthropomorphism.
I think the the marketing, the advertising of pet food is getting more and more anthropomorphic. And I think we have to remember that marketing is designed for humans because the animals don't go and buy the food. We're the ones who buy the food.
So the the advertising and even what the food actually is, is much more about appealing to us. You can see this advert on the right. The real pet food.
They're using really anthropomorphic, images. And they're saying things like gluten free 100% natural. I mean, there are a few conditions in dogs where gluten might be a problem.
That. But it tends to be quite specific, not common in cats at all. And I have a real issue with an obsession that natural is good, because natural is not always good.
If you think that tsunamis a natural, a deadly nightshade is natural. Smallpox is natural, but not good. But this appeals to us, and obviously it can be taken to more extremes with sort of, Well, you know, get this food that's just like cooked, like your own food without really thinking about.
Is it necessarily a form that the animal would choose? It might not be natural for them. It's not very often that you see, commercially served, rodents.
I think someone did once try to make mouse cat food, but the owners didn't like it. The cats probably would have done, so, often and even with raw feeding, which you might say is more natural in inverted commas. Often it's things like venison.
Well, how often is a cat gonna eat venison? And then there's risks, obviously of things like TB. But, we really need to think about the individual species and what their needs are, as you know, obligate carnivores as cats are, or herbivores, Omnivores, et cetera.
And there's been quite a lot in the veterinary press and obviously a paper published about vegetarian diets for both dogs and cats, and that owners claim their pets are healthier. I think there was some concerns about the fact that the paper was really just based on owners views rather than anything scientific, but even if we could make diets that we were sure were going to fulfil all the nutritional, requirements of cats and dogs. Should we do it?
Should we have Carnivore pets and try to turn them into vegetarians? Because of our own views, I personally feel absolutely not. Obviously, there are concerns as to whether even if you make something like a food where you add taurine or whatever for cats, that is it in a form that makes it bioavailable to the cats.
But it isn't what they would choose. And I do feel if people want to have vegetarian pets, they should get a vegetarian like a rabbit. It is interesting, because if we were to feed, big cats in a zoo on a vegan diet, even if it was formulated especially for them, if that was possible, there would be outrage, with a lot of exotic species.
As vets, we're always trying to get people to sort of understand what sort of food they would have in the wild to try and mimic that as closely as possible. So, I, I really think we have to think carefully about the ethics of that because it is an ethical issue, and some people will say, Well, you know, for the environment, we need to eat less meat Perhaps we need fewer dogs and cats rather than trying to convert them into vegetarians. Obesity obviously, is increasing.
And although that's you know, obviously it's multifactorial. I think the idea that we're feeding them more human food, that we are giving them lots of treats is probably contributing to that, and they all they want and and not really understanding that if you give something like a PPI, a whole digestive biscuit, it's actually like us having at least the whole packet, if not more. But again, it helps with owner education, perhaps sometimes to use a bit of anthropomorphism when trying to explain some of these things moving on to Neutering, which obviously isn't something that is often done to people.
In practise, how often have you heard phrases like about their owners talking about the female cat? Oh, I really think she should have at least one letter. She should experience the joy of motherhood.
And you think, Well, they don't actually know they're pregnant. I always think about particularly about sheep and gimme have their first lamb, and they look around in in shock when something falls out of their back end. And then obviously, once the oxytocin is set in, they they show quite maternal behaviour.
But initially, I think they always look slightly surprised. So they don't have any anticipation of I want to be a mother, or saying things like she's only a baby. She's too young to be spayed.
Obviously prepubertal Neutering, particularly in cats, is really important if we're going to avoid having so many unwanted cats. And it can be useful in dogs as well, though obviously, the timing of Neutering in dogs is a is a more complex, issue. People thinking pregnant spays are cruel, and they're not particularly nice.
They're not nice to do surgically. No one thinks it's a great thing to have to do it. But often when people are thinking about pregnant spays, they're thinking about the kittens and not really thinking about the mother working in shelters.
You know, sometimes people would trap a pregnant, feral female and they wouldn't want to do a pregnant spay, and they said, Well, we'll just keep her until she has the kittens. And then we'll have to keep her until, she's weaned them. And like, that might mean keeping her in a pen for 12 or 14 weeks.
And a feral cat is so unsuited to that. It's so stressful. It would probably have a negative effect on the foetuses, and can even lead to things like them, cannibalising them.
And that actually is much better welfare to neuter her, however, whatever stage of pregnancy and and put her back out. But it's seeing it from the the cat's point of view. These are not true thinking about males, and again, I'm not wanting to make sweeping generalisations generally with male animals.
It's often male owners who are uncomfortable about castration. They think it's unnatural. They think it's unfair and might spoil his fun.
He'll be a bit less macho, and obviously it's an excuse to have a picture of Tom Hardy playing, Bill Sykes, with Bullseye the dog. And I've been asked, Can you put silicon ones in? I don't like the idea of of not having something in this road, and obviously it's not considered ethical or allowed in this country to use mules.
The silicon testicles. But they are used in other parts of the world. And one guy who had a very small staff, he asked me if I could put in, great dame ones, which I thought was just a little bit mad and obviously, refused and told him we don't do the Nickles anyway, even if it was an appropriate size.
Just as we're coming up to Christmas, just in case you are looking for an unusual present for a friend, you can actually get earrings made out of mules available online, moving on to veterinary treatment. Obviously, treatments are getting more and more advanced all the time. Generally, veterinary medicine is about five years behind human medicine.
And often we're influenced by what's happening in the human field. But of course, that's a good thing that we're advancing. But I think we also need to really constantly have that thought about what's actually best for the animals.
We have increasing specialisation in the profession, and again, I think that generally is a really positive thing in that there is far too much to know everything about every species and every body system, but it is a double edged sword. I think there is risk with specialisation of a not perhaps viewing the animal quite as holistically as perhaps someone in first opinion practise might do. They might be viewing it more as an interesting problem to fix rather than looking at the whole animal.
I don't want to be negative about specialists, but I think it can sometimes happen. Certainly is does happen in human medicine. We always try to achieve what is known as gold standard that we must do every test that we must, use whatever expensive drugs are going to be most effective.
But I think we have to be really, really, honest with ourselves as a profession that obviously this has meant that the cost of veterinary treatment has increased markedly, and it does mean there are more and more people who cannot afford to bring their animals in for veterinary treatment. It's the number one reason, in various owner surveys of why they don't go to the vets as often as they should. So we want to feel that that we are looking at contextualised care and it's a bit of the buzzword.
And a lot of old vets like myself might say it's pragmatic care. But obviously we do need to think of the overall situation and the number one has to be the welfare of the animal. And what is the welfare cost of treatment?
You know, if you've got a rare tiger, then probably money isn't particularly an object if you want to give them AC a T scan. But if you've got a cat like the one on the the the top picture, which suffered from frostbite in Russia, so it's expensive. But actually, what's the welfare cost of that animal having those implants?
Can they actually fulfil their natural behaviours? Can they jump? I don't know, but it makes me very uncomfortable.
And I have started to hear almost accusations of ableism. If we're saying well, actually, some animals really might struggle if perhaps they only have three legs. And obviously many cope really well.
But there might be situations where they don't, and that we shouldn't just consider euthanasia because they've got some, injury. That that has required something like amputation. Obviously, I come from a shelter background, and I feel very strongly we often need to have a very utilitarian approach to make the funds go as far as possible.
But we also have to think of things like, Well, how long will it take for the animal to get ready to be homed, or will it be stuck in a shell for a long time? Or will anyone want to take them if they've got a lot of health problems? And, and I think there's some interesting things going on with end of life care, which I'm touching upon on the next slide.
Just because we can, should we? Because we can do a lot of fancy things. Should we do them?
What about some forms of chemotherapy where the animal may only have a few extra weeks? And yes, perhaps the owner is desperate for that. But what is the welfare cost of the animal, particularly if they have to have, a lot of intravenous work done, particularly for cats?
Do they have to be sedated every time? And I think we shouldn't forget what their perspective is. They feel horrible.
They don't know that we're trying to improve things, and it doesn't mean we should never do chemotherapy. But I think we really have to think about what the realistic prognosis really is. And the individual animal, What will what will they actually take, so to speak?
And and are we really providing them with the best quality of life? End of life care? I feel as a society that we are getting more euphemistic about death, not just about talking about animals, but talking about people as well.
And I did actually do a little bit of a Google, and I found a really interesting blog, from a a human doctor who was a palliative care specialist. And she was really concerned that our culture was a culture of everyone trying to stay young and constantly trying to extend life, and that medicine should should cure everything and a lack of acceptance that in the end we will all die. If we manage to cure all our complaints at the moment, then we'll die of something else, which might also be very unpleasant.
And she said, I'm just quoting, death can be seen as a failure to save a life rather than it's a natural part of life. So and this, I think, then is reflected in more people feeling they have to do everything they want to do, everything to keep their a their pet alive for as long as possible. And what is more important, quality of life or quantity of life?
How much palliative care should we actually give to animals? Obviously, it depends what it is, and it depends on the circumstances. I'm not saying we never should, but it really worries me that we're now starting to get things like hospice care, veterinary hospice care and what do we mean by that?
It can come in for treatment of the Comfort Care Centre. Is it just prolonging the animal's life? Because the owner can't bear to say no?
Because with humans, we're not allowed to you E na idea sort of timely, considering that tomorrow in parliament they'll be they'll be debating assisted suicide for humans, and I know that's a very diff different ethical issue. But it's sort of interesting that I feel when I read a lot of things online, on, you know, Facebook pages or whatever veterinary ones that it feels like more and more people in the profession are seeing euthanasia as failure. We should keep trying.
We can do more, try more things and seeing euthanasia is that that failure we're giving up rather than euthanasia is a privilege. It's a really useful welfare tool, and we can, relieve suffering. I've always viewed it myself like that.
I've euthanized my own animals, and I'm not saying we shouldn't try. But actually, sometimes we have to say Enough is enough. And I think that line where that line is of saying enough is enough, I think has moved, and it's not necessarily in the welfare interests of the animals.
And we're increasingly seeing these sort of in home pet euthanasia of, services. I think it mainly started in the States, but there are a few here, and I I've even been to some CPD where they talked about euthanasia or performing euthanasia as if it was a specialism. And I think surely it's so important that every vet and first opinion vets do a good euthanasia, and I'm sure the vast majority do.
We can all learn, obviously and improve things, of course, but I don't know it makes me uncomfortable to for it to be seen as a specialism. It surely is just one of the most important things that every vet can do. I know there's problems that if you're really busy in your first opinion, practise doing home visits that may take a long time can be really challenging.
So I do understand why some of these services exist. But it to me I think most people want the vet they're familiar with and the animal's familiar with to do it. It slightly worries me if we're going to get that.
Actually, even euthanasia is a specialism. And of course, everyone grieves in different ways. And, of course, people truly grieve for their pets.
I've grieved for mine, and I'm not in any way wanting to diminish that. But I do look at this picture in the top right with the the dog funeral and sort of think a they've got a lot more flowers than my mother had. She was very pragmatic and family flowers and then money to charity, and part of me thinks perhaps they could have remembered their dog by giving money to help other dogs.
But of course it's an individual thing, but it it's not helping the dog rescue, but better get a little bit of a move on. Obviously, I've worked in rescue, and often, you know, people get so obsessed with this idea of no kill. Everything must be saved.
Everything must be brought in from the outside. We, you know, if we have feral kittens, we must tame them. But it's not always thinking about the individual needs.
You know, if we have feral kittens, unless we can start socialising them when they're really, really young, they'll never be happy being a domestic cat, a social cat, because they wouldn't be fully socialised. People who perhaps adopt stray a stray street animals from, other parts of Europe or even outside Europe. Are they suited to that?
This is why we see so many problems in, particularly dogs that have been brought from, the streets of of various places like Romania. They're not suited to living in a home. They weren't, habituated to that.
So I think we really need think with rescue about what we do. I think there's lots of reasons why we shouldn't allow people to adopt. Cats or dogs from abroad in terms of, nominated disease, the welfare of them and also the fact that there are already more cats and dogs than we have room for here.
But I think the welfare of those animals is is something we really need to think about. And with wildlife. How far do you take it?
Do you say it's a hedgehog? You cut, you know, they've got an injured leg, you amputate it, and then you have to keep it because it can't survive in the wild because it can't get rid of the ticks it can't scratch with the back leg. I think we really need to think about what's best for the animals rather than you know.
Everything must be saved. There's another pole. Why?
Just talking about advertising. Why is a lot of advertising of pet products an anthropomorphic and again you may think more than one of these, but go for the ones that you think is, most important. Pets deserve to be treated as well as their owners.
Pets. People will pay more for the product. They'll sell more of the products or owners want to do the best for their pets?
Yeah, interesting. I mean, I think that's I think, actually, the reality is that it could almost be any of them they use. Or certainly the marketing people will use that angle of.
But if you really love them, you'll buy them these sort of human based things. And they think they'll sell more. And they think it demonstrates how much they they love their pets.
And in the media, there's loads of examples. The Scottish fold cats. Taylor Swift has got them.
The film Argyle recently, again featured a Scottish fold cat in a rucksack. Is it good that these things are in the media? So people think that's great.
I want to have one, too. If you think about the PG tips Chimps. If you're old enough to remember them, where they dress them up, they put, peanut butter up around their mouths so they would move their mouths and smack their lips so they could dub talking in was their welfare well served by that, people who think it's funny to put a cucumber by a cat because they jump and actually the cats are really scared.
And it's coming up for Christmas. So should we dress our pets up, including our guinea pig? Because you can get lots of different outfits for guinea pigs, I've discovered, is that what the pets feel comfortable with, or is it about instagram?
And is it about Oh, I think they're cute? I mean particularly the cat, I think, does not look happy about having a Christmas hat on. What about language?
Does it matter if we use phrases like Pet Parent or Fur Baby? I think most people do feel their pets are part of their family. I certainly do, but I consider my cat to be a feline member of my family.
I don't consider him to be my child. What terms should we do? And I think there's lots of debate.
Pet owners. Some people don't like that legally. We do own them.
But I'd prefer something like caregiver, the parent. I really don't like that. And they sort of Oh, I'm a I'm AD dad, you know, a regular dad, but cooler fur, baby, I really, really struggle with I.
I think it is. It's It's the imagining. It's a baby in a fur coat, and it leads to behaviour like, Oh, I'm not gonna walk my dogs.
I'm going to push them in a pram. And what pronouns should we give them? And that could be a whole debate.
But I was, someone criticised something I wrote recently because I talked about the cat instead of she and that somehow I I was objectifying it, which I found slightly strange. But I think it does matter as vets, I think it matters how we phrase things and sh should we use things like fur baby babies. I personally think we really, really shouldn't.
And just to add a little bit bit of controversy before we get to the end. Language. Does it matter?
Should we call animal blood donors donors? They are not donating their blood. Their owners are choosing to let them do it or let it be done to them.
But they're not choosing to be a donor. They actually being harvested and also with organs, the the cats in the bottom. Right.
We have Stanley, the one who's sort of hidden by the blankets, who is a 17 year old cat with renal failure or previously had renal failure. And the the the other. The tab and white is a two year old cat who had one of his kidneys taken out and given to Stanley.
Obviously, we don't, allow renal transplantation in cats in the UK. This is in America. The owner, he Stanley is 17 and they paid $19,000.
Had to adopt, Jay from the shelter. But that's a big thing to do to a cat to take away 50% of the nephrons. It can be done, but should it be done, I would.
It makes me very uncomfortable. And I certainly do not think that Jay donated his kidney. He did not have a choice.
It's a bit like with animals in war, and I absolutely think that we should remember all those animals that were lost in the war and try to avoid their use in the future. But sometimes talking about them as if they're heroes, Does that make us feel better? And that about what we put them through, I do like the animals in more memorial.
I think it's it's lovely and it is important when we remember them. And I think what's really important is and I don't know, you might not be able to read it, but there is in as part of the engravings, it does say they had no choice. They didn't choose to do it.
They didn't volunteer. And sometimes we can make out use words like hero, and the animals are amazing, but they're amazing because they're dogs or horses or cats. I think sometimes using this anthem morphic morphic language is almost trying to make ourselves feel better about things like that.
And obviously, if we said to pet owners, we want to harvest blood from your dog, they probably wouldn't do it. So we use donor. But I think professionally between professionals, we perhaps shouldn't shouldn't hear that.
But perspective. I think we're running a little bit out of time. Where do we fit in?
Who are we there for? Are we there for the animal or the owner? Should we always use professional language?
I mean, I would say in a professional setting, Yes, yes, we should. And we should lead by example. And that's not just language.
I think what pets we choose, even if they're rescued. Should we have a flat face, brachycephalic animal or a hairless animal or something? Where actually it's demonstrating poor welfare?
How do we refer to our own pets? And I have to admit, I have a silly high voice. I do go, Rosie Ross.
My cat's called Ross Ross. Poor ark. But I would never call him my fur baby.
I I've I've only very briefly mentioned my new consultancy. We I've set up with a lawyer, Dominic, to provide services to animal charities and other non for profits to give advice on animal welfare, charity law, governance, et cetera. So if anyone is ever a trustee or has knowledge of charities needing help, do contact us, so thank you very much.
And have we got time for some questions or even just comments? Really? Because I know some of the things I've said people may not agree with, but that's fine because of it's about having a conversation now, thank you very, very much.
It's a lovely lecture listening my way through it. It is just so clear here that, you know, the great point you're making as well. Where where ethics and emotion collide.
I mean, there's there's all all the all the world there to win and lose to Probably too poetic for a vet here, but bear with me. But yeah, I mean it. It might I'd really like to just say, we don't have, we've got a little bit over time here.
Want to thank everyone here for coming and attending and taking part in the poll? Yes, absolutely. Yes.
And thank you, everyone who's who's listened. I hope it's provoked some thought anyway.