Under
the law, pets are considered personal property.
However,
there have long been exceptions to this rule that lead to
inconsistencies within the law. For example, pet owners who do not
properly treat their pets can be charged with criminal animal
neglect. There is no other item of personal property for which
mistreatment can result in criminal charges for neglect. It is hard
to imagine being charged for not properly laundering your cashmere
sweater for example.
These
longstanding cracks
in the concept of pets as property, as opposed to beings, are
deepening. In states such as Maine, New York, California
and Illinois, pets can now be covered by domestic violence orders.
Moreover, pet custody battles in divorce court are becoming more and
more common. Judges are beginning to rule on pet custody as if pets
were more akin to children than property.
The
possible consequences of this shift in our legal perception of pets
are myriad. In this blog, I will address two of these consequences,
namely the law as it relates to pet sterilization and abandonment.
STERILIZATION:
Under
the American Eugenics movement, from 1907
to as late as 1970, at least 60,000 Americans were forcibly
sterilized, for being “feeble minded”, which term encapsulated
everything from being epileptic,
manic-depressive (in today's terms, bi-polar), homeless, or being a
prostitute, an alcoholic, or a criminal. Today, we recognize this as
a horrific violation of human rights. Equally, if pets are perceived
as beings, doesn't spay and neutering constitute a violation of their
rights? It would certainly seem that a dog or cat would have as great
a biological instinct to reproduce as a human being.
And
yet, even PETA, the nation's biggest advocate for animal rights,
still argues for the spay and neuter of pets. Certainly, this is
necessary if pets are to be owned, as the alternative proliferation
of unwanted pets would lead to pet population issues. (According to
PETA, one un-spayed dog and her descendents can produce 67,000
puppies in 6 years and one un-spayed cat and her descendents can
produce 370,000 kittens in 7 years. Clearly, this degree of
proliferation is untenable.)
Thus,
if pets are to be owned*, and yet viewed not as property but rather
as beings, the issue of pet sterilization becomes extremely complex.
According
to PETA, “spaying eliminates the stress and discomfort that female
pets endure during heat periods, eliminates the risk of uterine
cancer, and greatly reduces the risk of mammary cancer. Neutering
makes males far less likely to roam or fight, prevents testicular
cancer, and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Altered animals are
less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases, such as feline
AIDS and feline leukemia, that are spread through bodily fluids.”
Perhaps, in this case, the benefits to the animal outweigh the harm
caused, and therefore spay and neutering can be deemed to be in the
best interests of the pet and thus allowed even under a modern legal
regime in which pets are treated as beings. This is somewhat aligned
with the current status of the law regarding involuntary
sterilization of human beings, in that the courts can order
sterilization in cases where the procedure is deemed to be “in the
best interests of the person”. The only difference would be that
the human sterilization is still only ordered in the exception, on a
case by case basis. Whereas pet sterilization would be considered “in
the best interests of the pet” by default.
ABANDONMENT:
People get tired of their pets and
abandon them. Pets are not sterilized and reproduce unwanted
offspring. Pet stores cannot always sell all of their excess stock.
For all of these reasons, every year, US animal shelters are
inundated with unwanted pets. The shelters have insufficient
resources to maintain all of these pets, and so, every year,
approximately 3 to 4 million abandoned pets are euthanized (about one
pet every 8 seconds). Many of these are then rendered into pet and
animal feed.
Needless to say, abandoned children are
not euthanized. If we are to treat pets as akin to children, it is
unacceptable that abandoned pets be subject to this treatment.
One possible solution is a formal
register for pet ownership, whereby all new pets must be registered,
and whereby any ownership transaction constitutes an adoption such
that the new owners are viewed formally as parents. From the point of
birth or adoption, the parent(s) are legally responsible for the
well-being of the pet. The parent(s) may give up the pet to someone
else for adoption at a later date. Alternatively, if new parents
cannot be found, the current parent(s) will be financially
responsible for the maintenance of the pet for the rest of its
lifespan (at a pet orphanage funded by the parents). That is, a form
of “pet support”, analogous to child support, will be payable.
Of course, it will be costly for the
government to enforce such a scheme. And many might say that it is
hard to argue for such an allocation of funds when there are so many
human rights issues to address. Indeed, in this vein, the UN Charter
does not speak of pets, but just people. However, if we as a society
were so concerned about human rights and not about our pets, then why
would we not spend the more than $50 billion dollars that Americans
spend on their pets each year, on addressing hunger and disease in
human populations? Hence, through our economic spending, Americans
are attesting to the fact that pets, and thus necessarily the rights
of pets, is an issue that is worth the price tag of legal address.
Thus, the funds should, and can, be found through fees associated
with the registration system. Yes, such fees will impose a barrier to
pet ownership. But perhaps more barriers need to be put in place.
After all, it is the very people who profess to be pet lovers who are
contributing to an industry that currently results in the euthanasia
of around 4 million animals per year.
CONCLUSION:
With the popularity of pet clothing and
pet food that is suitable for human consumption, the line between
humans and pets is becoming increasingly blurred. Along with this
attitude shift, comes the need for a shift in the law. If pets are
not property, then the law needs to be consistent with regard to this
fact, and evolve to recognize that pets are beings. And policies and
laws need to be put in place to prevent any violation of the rights
inherent to all beings, starting with stopping the system that
currently creates a need for the euthanasia (and rendering) of 4
million pets in the Unites States per year.
* The repetition of “if pets are to
be owned” alludes to the author's discomfort with the morality of
pet ownership in general, in light of issues such as sterilization,
and in light of other matters such as removal from their natural
environment. However, in acknowledgement of the counter-arguments,
such as the numerous scientifically proven health benefits of pet
ownership, and in light of the reality that pet ownership is going to
continue (and needs to continue in order to accommodate all the pets
that already exist today), I proceed as if pet ownership were an
acceptable practice and attempt to address merely the means by which
we can ameliorate the associated issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment