by Michael
(London, UK)
State prosecutors won’t file charges against veterinarians for the crime of animal abuse when declawing cats. Have you ever wondered why a veterinarian and their human client (the cat’s “owner”) get away with mutilating cats in the USA, when declawing them? I have. I am shocked. If two people, neither of whom was a veterinarian conspired to amputate the last phalange of all the toes of a cat’s forepaws for their convenience it would be a crime in the USA. I have randomly, selected the state of Oregon to argue my case. In Oregon such an act would be a crime under statutory provision number 167.315 (2008). Here are the actual words:
OR. REV. STAT. § 167.315 (2008). Animal abuse in the second degree.
(1) A person commits the crime of animal abuse in the second degree if, except as otherwise authorized by law, the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to an animal, (2) Any practice of good animal husbandry is not a violation of this section, (3) Animal abuse in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanour. {Note: it must be irrelevant that the vet amputates the last phalange of the toe with skill etc. (some don’t!) as the cat is left with a severe physical injury after the operation.}
It might well be a more serious crime but for the sake of this argument I will stick with the least serious crime.
Taking, therefore, one state of the United States, Oregon, the state prosecutors of Oregon could file charges against almost any of the veterinarians of the state of Oregon for animal abuse/cruelty as nearly all of of them declaw cats for non-therapeutic reasons. They could also prosecute the cat’s owner. The prosecutors should prosecute as they have a duty to do so but they will not. The same scenario, I say exists across much of America and Canada. Why don’t they prosecute vets? The answer is found in the “exemptions” to the above 167.315 clause. The following are the exact words, that on face of it, let the vets off the hook (the relevant section is in bold):
OR. REV. STAT. § 167.335 (2008). Exemption from ORS 167.315 to 167.333
Unless gross negligence can be shown, the provisions of ORS 167.315 to 167.333 do not apply to:(6) Animals subject to good veterinary practices as described in ORS 686.030;
So, if the vet is practicing “good veterinary practices” when he or she declaws a cat, they are exempt from being prosecuted under the criminal code of Oregon, USA. What does clause ORS 686.030 say, exactly. Here it is:
The clause in my opinion says no more or less than briefly summarise what vets do. It does not describe “good veterinary practice”. This clause therefore needs to be qualified and clarified and the best way to do that (to allow an accurate interpretation) is to read it in conjunction with the vet’s oath. The vet’s oath makes it clear that the vet must protect animal health and welfare and prevent and relieve animal suffering. The vet promises to practice their profession in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. On that basis declawing cannot be considered as a good veterinary practice as it is in breach of their oath. Declawing as we know is for the benefit of the person and against the health interests of the cat. Accordingly, I argue that the procedure of cat declawing falls outside of the veterinarian exception to the criminal code relating to animal cruelty. The vet could and should be prosecuted.
The criminal code of Oregon allows licensed veterinary technicians to report to the police or humane society examples of animal abuse in preparation for prosecution proceedings (ref” § 686.445 (2008)). The person reporting abuse is immune from criminal or civil liability.
The door is therefore open for a conscientious vet tech to report a vet for declawing and ask the police to charge the vet and the prosecution service to prosecute the vet.
It should be noted that individuals cannot bring private prosecutions in the United States as I understand it1.
Before I finish this article, I would like to return to the vet’s client, the person who pays the vet to do the declawing. They are not except from being prosecuted for animal cruelty under the Oregon legislation. As they pay a person to do the abuse aren’t they criminally liable?
If I have missed something please tell me. Is there someone out there in Oregon who can either (a) report declawing to the police or (b) tell me if and why I am wrong?
In an earlier post I said that cats need animal advocates to enforce the law. I argued in that post that the consent of the cat’s owner prevented a prosecution. I am sure that is part of the problem why vets and clients are nor charged with animal cruelty.
Note:
1. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/pripro01.htm
