Veterinarian's Oath Revised for the Welfare of Pets

Published December 13, 2010

Veterinarian = Courtesy of the AVMA

The oath of the veterinarian has been revised.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revised the oath for the veterinarian last week, adding the word "welfare." The new oath now reads, "Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, [and] the prevention and relief of animal suffering."

Animal welfare focuses on physical, emotional and psychological well-being.

As far as I am concerned, the AVMA's revised oath carries the implication that the "welfare" of animals is crucial. To that end, John R. Brooks, AVMA Executive Board Chair issued the statement, "The message is we as the AVMA, and veterinarians in general, do recognize that protecting animal well-being is what we're all about."

Chairman-elect of the AVMA's Animal Welfare Commission, Dr. J. Bruce Nixon said, "From today forward, every graduate entering our profession will swear an oath not only to protect animal health but also welfare; to not only relieve animal suffering but to prevent it. That's a powerful statement defining ourselves and our responsibilities, not a vague symbol."

This too, makes me wonder if the AVMA will be able to keep treading lightly on its stance on the unnecessary declawing of cats by continuing to suggest that the procedure be done only as a last resort.

As of April 2009 the AVMA recommends that the procedure only be performed after exhausting other methods of controlling scratching behavior or if it has been determined that the cat's claws present a human health risk.

Will the organization redefine this recommendation since many cats end up being surrendered to shelters by the very people who had them declawed to preserve their property? According to the Paw Project, a survey conducted by a Delaware animal shelter revealed that 75% of cats there were surrendered due to problematic behavior that occurred after declawing such as biting (as defensive behavior), and urinating and defecating outside the litter box (presumably due to paw sensitivity).

Will individual feline welfare come first?

For instance, declawing is not performed in the United Kingdom unless it is carried out for therapeutic purposes. Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals prohibits declawing for "non-curative purposes," but exceptions are permitted if the veterinarian considers the procedure "necessary for veterinary medical reasons or for the benefit of any particular animal."

That's a little more in line with "animal welfare" if you ask me.

What do you think? Should declawing be re-thought? Are there any other veterinarian policies you hope will be affected?

Author's profile photo
Jo Singer

Shortly after retiring as a social worker and psychotherapist, I discovered my "writer's voice"…

Leave a Comment

Enter your information below or log in to skip these fields.
No account? Sign up here.
* indicates a required field.
(will appear with your comment)
For privacy reasons, do not use your full name or email address.
(will not be published)
For your protection, ensure that no personally identifiable information (like full name or email address) is submitted.

Your Privacy

Trust is a cornerstone of our corporate mission, and the success of our business depends on it. P&G is committed to maintaining your trust by protecting personal information we collect about you, our consumers.

Comments (12)

Tracey Leah (England) (Unverified)
Declawing is for selfish, lazy keepers who just can't be bothered to try humane alternatives and for vets who break their oath to line their pockets.
fourhorsegal
Cat declawing should be illegal anywhere in the world. In my opinion, declawing cats is for the benefit of the owner, not the animal.
Michele S. (Unverified)
Like Ruth, I fear that those vets who already promote and perform declawing will simply continue to pretend that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on feline welfare. Vets should also stop spouting the "death or declaw" myth. Anyone who would euthanise a cat simply for having claws is going to make an impatient and hearltess owner. One only has to look at thousands of declawed cats already available for adoption on sites such as Petfinder. Reading some of the tragic ways those poor creatures were abandoned by the "loving forever homes" that had them declawed stands testament to the lack of commitment or compassion those people feel towards the cats they chose to invite into their homes and mutilate. I'm glad that many Californian cities have already banned declawing, but I'm hopeful that one day the AVMA will take a leaf out of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons code of conduct regarding patient welfare. Clause 14,H1 states "A veterinary surgeon must not cause any patient to suffer by carrying out any unnecessary mutilation". Animal welfare laws in the UK and Europe consider declawing, ear-cropping and tail docking as being "unecessary mutilation".
Anonymous
I'm hoping the move to add "welfare" to the oath means the AVMA will become more outspoken in SUPPORT of anti-puppy mill laws, in states that have adopted them or are proposing new regulations. For example, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association is speaking out against the ballot measure there to protect dogs in puppy mills. How can a veterinary medical association be against better health regulations for dogs? http://packmentality.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/avma-revises-veterinary-oath-to-stress-the-importance-of-animal-welfare/
skylark (Unverified)
I totally agree that declawing should be outlawed world-wide. But the other side of the coin is this: what about the person who says "I would love to take that cat home with me, but I can't deal with him scratching me or destroying my furniture." Should that cat be left at the shelter for humane euthanasia? Which is preferable? That's an argument that I have heard from veterinarians who still perform this painful procedure. The choice is declawing or death...which is worse?
Jo Singer (Unverified)
Skylark. Perhaps if you run across someone that gives that "rationalization" for declawing, more than likely the individual hasn't a clue about what the procedure entails OR the inherent risks associated with it. We do know that declawed cats frequently stop using litter boxes and resort to inappropriate elimination (one of the greatest reasons for declawed cats to be surrendered to shelters), and tend to bite- which is far more dangerous than a cat scratch or a tattered sofa. That is why it is so important to share this information with someone who doesn't understand cats and may be "taken in" by those declawing discount offers. It is indeed a shame that so many veterinarians continue to spread this unfounded rumor and don't take the time to fully educate themselves about the actual reality concerning the fate of declawed cats.
Ruth UK (Unverified)
A person who says that is unfit to have a cat and the chances are high that they will return the cat to the Shelter if/when problems from the declawing begin and the cat may well be unadoptable again and face being caged for life or killed.Why deprive the cat in the first place of the chance of another person coming along who truly loves cats and knows they need their claws ?