0215FORUM.
QXD 9/30/2005 1:41 PM Page 514
Commentary
Developing an ethic for the handling,
restraint, and discipline of companion animals
in veterinary practice
Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, and Charlotte A. Lacroix, DVM, JD
R ecognition and exploration of the role of pets as
family members during the 1970s resulted in a
change in attitudes that has permanently altered the
way society views companion animals.1 Subsequently, a
large body of research establishing the link between
animal abuse and other forms of family violence result-
ed in broader awareness of the importance of prevent-
ing the mistreatment of animals.2,3
Public outrage over deliberate acts of animal abuse
have often prompted legislative attempts to strengthen
animal cruelty laws. In 31 states, at least one form of
animal cruelty is now considered a felony (up from
about 15 in 1995),4 and even though animals do not
have explicit legal rights, they are considered a special
form of property, with limitations on their treatment
firmly grounded in centuries of common law.5 A recent
proposal in San Francisco, California, would change
the word “owner” to “guardian” in all city-wide
statutes pertaining to companion animals.6 Although
largely symbolic, this proposed change is indicative of
the extent to which society has moved away from the
notion of companion animals as property.
Many pet owners and animal caregivers share the
commonsense view that animals experience positive as
well as negative emotional states.7 The increasing
attention given to provision of adequate pain control in
animals in clinical situations is further evidence of how
important the subjective experiences of animals are to
society and the veterinary profession.8
The power of the human-animal bond has trans-
formed every aspect of the veterinary profession. Even
a cursory review of professional journals, trade publi-
cations, and the lay press provides ample evidence of
how the profession has explicitly and implicitly pro-
moted and benefited from the enhanced status of com-
panion animals. Not surprisingly, one consequence of
this changing social ethic is that animal caregivers have
come under increased scrutiny, and greater considera-
tion is being given to what types of handling, restraint,
and discipline may now be considered mistreatment.
For instance, an exhaustive review of dog training
practices has recently been compiled by an expert
From the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, 200 Westboro
Rd, North Grafton, MA 01536 (Patronek); and Priority Veterinary
Legal Consultants, 24 Coddington Rd, Whitehouse Station, NJ
08889 (Lacroix).
514 Views: Commentary
panel of trainers, animal behaviorists, and veterinari-
ans.9 This document questions and sometimes rejects
some long-established training practices as inconsis-
tent with current humane sensibilities and lays out
principles and ethics for humane dog training.
As a result of these new attitudes, it is essential
that the manner in which veterinarians care for and
handle animals be consistent with current sensibilities
about appropriate treatment. Veterinarians as well as
others whose profession involves caregiving and whose
motivation is helping animals may be offended at the
thought that their handling methods or other aspects
of care could be challenged on humane grounds.
Nevertheless, within the past few years, several veteri-
narians have been investigated or prosecuted because
of their treatment of animals in clinical situations, and
several animal shelters have been subject to harsh pub-
lic criticism as a result of concerns about animal care
and handling.
To our knowledge, there are no universally accept-
ed guidelines for proper handling, restraint, and disci-
pline of companion animals in veterinary practice. State
anticruelty laws generally provide little help, as their
wording is frequently quite broad and often does not
address specific situations or acts related to restraint
and discipline. In addition, some states (eg, New Jersey)
exempt dog training from anticruelty provisions. When
specific actions are explicitly addressed in state anticru-
elty laws, the focus tends to be on prohibited actions
rather than optimal conduct. Furthermore, many state
statutes were modeled after a New York state law writ-
ten in the 19th century that focused on prohibiting
“overworking, overdriving, or overloading, or inflicting
unnecessary cruelty upon” working animals.10 Many
state statutes retain similar antiquated language that
does not explicitly cover actions that could be deemed
inappropriate by modern sensibilities, leaving interpre-
tation to the courts when individuals are charged with
cruelty to animals. Thus, development of guidelines
concerning appropriate methods of handling, restrain-
ing, and disciplining companion animals in veterinary
practice would be useful.
Corporal Punishment of Children
An understanding of the controversies surround-
ing appropriate methods for disciplining children, par-
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 4, February 15, 2001
0215FORUM.QXD 9/30/2005 1:41 PM Page 515
ticularly methods that involve corporal punishment,
could be helpful in understanding the nature and
intensity of societal attitudes toward treatment of vul-
nerable family members and in developing guidelines
for handling, restraint, and discipline of companion
animals in veterinary practice. Whether corporal pun-
ishment is an acceptable method of disciplining chil-
dren is currently very controversial. Corporal punish-
ment is outlawed in 8 European countries (Austria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Norway,
and Sweden) and other nations are considering a ban.11
Recently, the European Court of Human Rights has
ruled that the Victorian-era law covering child disci-
pline in the United Kingdom was outdated and inhu-
mane. The British government is now considering
amending the law to make it illegal for parents to hit
children on the head and also outlaw caning. The pro-
posed changes, however, would still permit parental
spanking.
There is a growing body of data suggesting that
corporal punishment is not usually delivered in a con-
trolled manner. Although 90% of US families report
using spanking at some time to reduce the incidence of
undesirable behaviors, studies have shown that parents
are more likely to use aversive techniques of discipline
when they are angry or irritable, depressed, fatigued,
and stressed.12 Forty-four percent of those surveyed
reported that more than half the time they used corpo-
ral punishment because they had lost control, and 85%
of parents expressed moderate to high anger during
punishment. Furthermore, the percentage of US resi-
dents that approve of corporal punishment has
decreased from 94% in 1968 to 68% in 1994.13
Because of concerns about the use of corporal pun-
ishment, the American Academy of Pediatrics devel-
oped the following guidelines for disciplining chil-
dren12:
Corporal punishment ranges from slapping hands of a
child about to touch a hot stove to identifiable child abuse
such as beatings, scaldings, and burnings. Because of this
range in the form and severity of punishment, its use as a
discipline strategy is controversial. Spanking refers to
striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or
extremities with the intention of modifying behavior
without causing physical injury. Punishments that may be
dangerous to the health and well being of a child and
should never be used include striking a child with an
object, striking a child on parts of the body other than
extremities or buttocks, striking a child with such inten-
sity that marks lasting more than a few minutes occur,
pulling a child’s hair, shaking a child, or jerking a child by
the arm, or physical punishment delivered in anger and
with intent to cause pain.
Although there seems to be a range of opinions
about the appropriateness of spanking and other forms
of corporal punishment used by parents, there is much
more consistent rejection of corporal punishment of
children by caretakers in institutional settings.
Corporal punishment in schools is banned in every
industrialized nation except the United States and
Canada and in 1 state in Australia. In the United States,
27 states have banned corporal punishment in the
schools.14 Media stories of child abuse by caregivers
have heightened public awareness, and concerns for
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 4, February 15, 2001
children left in the care of nannies and day care centers
has risen to such an extent that electronic surveillance
methods (eg, videocameras to record caregiving and
real-time Internet-based surveillance) that allow work-
ing parents to observe children and their caretakers
have been developed and marketed.
Humane Dog Training Initiative
Although veterinary practice does not necessarily
involve dog training in the conventional sense, atti-
tudes toward acceptable methods of training likely
reflect attitudes toward handling, restraint, and disci-
pline of companion animals in general. In 1998, a
major national initiative to define humane training and
ethical standards for dog trainers was launched
through the auspices of the American Humane
Association and the Delta Society.9 This initiative began
because of several instances in which dogs were seri-
ously injured after being subjected to extremely aver-
sive methods of training that many believed were out-
dated and inhumane. The trainers were prosecuted for
cruelty to animals but were found not guilty in part
because of the lack of widely accepted national stan-
dards for dog training and discipline and because the
techniques used were described and endorsed in pop-
ular books sold at major bookstores. Thus, the major
focus of the initiative was to identify inhumane train-
ing methods and determine the role of aversive meth-
ods in dog training. The resulting document9 stresses
that professionals engaged in the training of dogs
should adhere to the following guidelines:
' Understand the basics of canine behavior, and
whenever possible use this knowledge to antici-
pate behavior.
' Ensure that dogs are contained or controlled so
they are not a danger to themselves or others.
' Manage the training environment so that it is not
dangerous to people or dogs.
' Recognize the importance of understanding the
behavior of dogs based on ethological interpreta-
tions, not anthropomorphic ones.
Although most veterinarians are not engaged in
professional dog training, they are expected to repre-
sent the highest standards for the humane treatment of
animals. Therefore, veterinarians could be expected to
adhere to equivalent standards in their use of methods
of handling, restraint, and discipline of companion ani-
mals in veterinary practice.
Standards for Veterinarians
Caregivers in any profession have an extra duty of
trust, and it is not surprising, therefore, that violation of
the special status accorded caregivers is viewed by soci-
ety as a particularly intolerable form of betrayal.
Veterinarians have an even greater burden in caring for
companion animals, because they are viewed as mem-
bers of one of the most trusted professions. For this rea-
son, it may be helpful for veterinarians and other animal
caregivers to be attuned to attitudes towards corporal
punishment, violence in society, the special responsibil-
ities of caregivers, and the status of animals to gauge
how this evolving social ethic may be applied to their
Views: Commentary 515
0215FORUM.QXD 9/30/2005 1:41 PM Page 516
daily activities. Such an understanding is essential for
establishing guidelines for handling, restraint, and disci-
pline of companion animals that are more consistent
with their status as valued and vulnerable family mem-
bers. A recent court case in which a veterinarian was
convicted of animal cruelty as a result of inappropriate
discipline or restraint provides evidence that this evolv-
ing social ethic could guide interpretation of the law.15
Even though this case was subsequently overturned on
appeal,16 the trial judge’s written decision suggests that
prevailing societal attitudes were at least implicitly taken
into account to arrive at a guilty verdict.
By extrapolation from the related literature and
analysis of the written decision in this case, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the following actions are
inappropriate when handling, restraining, or disciplin-
ing companion animals in veterinary practice:
' Use of force that exceeds that necessary for self-
defense or the protection of others.
' Use of force as punishment.
' Punishment delivered in anger and with the intent
to cause pain.
' Striking an animal on the head or other sensitive
or injured body parts.
' Choking an animal.
' Shaking an animal violently.
' Striking an animal with an object.
This list seems in step with the current social ethic
towards interpersonal violence and protection of vul-
nerable family members. It could serve as a model for
professional conduct that would help to preclude alle-
gations of abuse. Veterinarians would also be wise to
avoid interpreting and reacting to animal behavior in
anthropomorphic terms.
It is equally important to recognize that failure to
adhere to these guidelines, or violation of one or more
of the principles, should not be interpreted as prima
facie evidence of animal cruelty or abuse. Specific crite-
ria that could be used by courts to assist judges and
state board members in determining whether a veteri-
narian’s actions constitute animal abuse have been pub-
lished.17
Use of Force
Although some degree of cooperation is necessary
for proper care,7 it is entirely natural for animals to not
cooperate in the potentially fearful and stressful envi-
ronment of a veterinary clinic. Even in child protection
circles, it is acknowledged that there are situations in
which use of force cannot be avoided. International
standards, US laws, and standards imposed by states on
custodial facilities accept that there are circumstances
such as self-defense and protection of others under
which force may be necessary when dealing with juve-
niles.18 However, the force used should be limited to
the extent needed, and force should never be used as a
form of punishment. These seem to be reasonable
exceptions that could also be applied to veterinary
practice. Furthermore, they are consistent with other
proposed standards on use of force during clinical pro-
cedures in which use of force has been described as
permissible if caregivers using force are in full control
516 Views: Commentary
of their emotions, only the minimum amount of force
needed to achieve compliance is used, and force is used
with an understanding of the animal’s nature, with
empathy for the animal’s feelings, with the goal of ani-
mal care, and as if the owner were observing or the
patient were an infant.7
Practice Management Issues
Veterinarians have a duty not only to adhere to
proper methods for handling, restraining, and disci-
plining animals in their care but also to ensure that
their employees do also. There are warning signs that
veterinarians may use to help avoid problems with
their employees. For instance, Amnesty International
has identified conditions that facilitate the improper
use of force towards humans and that may reflect insti-
tutional deficiencies as well as personal misconduct.18
These warning signs seem applicable to veterinary
practices as well:
' Inadequate training in working with children and
defusing tension.
' Lack of skills that reduce the necessity for use of
force.
' Overcrowding, which increases tension and likeli-
hood of violence.
' High turnover of staff and loss of expertise.
' Weak systems of accountability and inspection.
There are several steps that all veterinary practices
can take to minimize liability and optimize the treat-
ment of animals in the practice setting. The first is to
provide professional and lay staff with written guide-
lines for proper handling, restraint, and discipline of
animals. The authors are not aware of any hospitals
that have adopted policies that provide guidance as to
the types of restraint techniques that could be viewed
as inappropriate but recommend that veterinarians
identify appropriate and inappropriate methods of
restraint to limit the incidence of allegations before
state boards and courts. At least two veterinary schools
already have adopted policies that provide procedures
to address suspected cases of animal abuse and neglect
in animals seen as patients.a,b However, these policies
are not specifically worded to address animal mistreat-
ment within the hospital setting. They emphasize the
signs and situations that veterinarians and staff should
watch for in client-owned pets. One veterinary schoolc
has a policy that encourages reporting of concerns
about animal treatment that specifically includes ani-
mals in the hospital and in teaching settings.
A model practice policy should include definitions
from the state statute on cruelty to animals as well as
any additional features that the practice owner feels are
needed to clarify the often vague language used in
many state statutes. A reporting policy should state to
whom in the practice the report should be made, and
specify that no punitive action will be taken for a
report made in good faith. The guidelines proposed by
the American Academy of Pediatrics on the disciplin-
ing of children are a good starting point, as they can
easily be adapted to veterinary practice and provide
some guidance as to the types of conduct that could be
viewed as inappropriate in a clinical setting.
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 4, February 15, 2001
0215FORUM.QXD 9/30/2005 1:41 PM Page 517
Procedures for properly documenting suspected
cases of animal abuse in client-owned pets seem to be
a logical adjunct to policies addressing treatment of
animals within the hospital setting. Such policies are
necessary to heighten the awareness of those who
come in contact with clients’ animals and encourage
veterinarians and staff members to intervene when the
welfare of animals and humans are at risk. A guide for
veterinarians interested in recognizing and reporting
animal abuse has been published.19
In addition to establishing internal policies, hospi-
tals should also include in employment contracts a
provision that states that mistreating an animal is
grounds for immediate termination. Such a provision
would sensitize employees to the gravity of the offense
and discourage them from acting inappropriately. More
and more veterinary employers are including such pro-
visions in their employment agreements as they
become aware of how devastating the negative public-
ity surrounding allegations of animal abuse by veteri-
narians, technicians, or lay staff members can be to
their practices.
a
Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania policy regard-
ing animal abuse and neglect, March 1998.
b
Hospital policy on suspected cruelty, Colorado State University,
School of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Sep
10, 1987.
c
Policy on animal care and welfare, Tufts University, School of
Veterinary Medicine, Jun 28, 2000.
References
1. Beck A, Katcher A. Between pets and people. West Lafayette,
Ind: Purdue University Press, 1996.
2. Lockwood R, Ascione FR. Cruelty to animals and interper-
sonal violence. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1998.
3. Ascione FR, Arkow P. Child abuse, domestic violence and ani-
mal abuse. Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and inter-
vention. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1999.
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 4, February 15, 2001
4. First Strike Campaign fact sheet. State animal anti-cruelty
laws with felony provisions. Washington, DC: Humane Society of the
United States, 2000.
5. Tannebaum JT. Animals and the law: property, cruelty,
rights. In: Mack A, ed. Humans and other animals. Columbus, Ohio:
Ohio State University Press, 1999;125–193.
6. Minton T. SF Guardian plan goes to supervisors. San
Francisco Chronicle. Dec 10, 1999:A25.
7. McMillan FD. Compassionate animal care in veterinary
practice. Part II. Expectations and goal setting. Vet Tech 1996;17:
259–265.
8. Holton LL, Scott EM, Nolan AM, et al. Comparison of three
methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc
1998;212:61–66.
9. Brakeman L. AHA publishes new humane dog training
guidelines. DVM Newsmagazine 2000; May:2s, 12s.
10. New York Statutes Agriculture and Markets Law. Chapter
69 of the consolidated laws, Article 26, Animals, S 353.
11. Britain grapples with discipline. Plan affirms rights of par-
ents, with limits. Boston Globe. Jan 19, 1999:A02.
12. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidance for effective dis-
cipline (RE9740). Pediatrics 1998;101:723–728.
13. Strauss MA, Mathur AK. Social change and trends in
approval of corporal punishment by parents from 1968 to 1994. In:
Frehsee D, Horn W, Bussman K, eds. Violence against children. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1996;91–105.
14. The Center for Effective Discipline, 1998. Facts about cor-
poral punishment. Available at: http://www.stophitting.com/
facts_about_corporal_punishment.htm. Accessed Jan 27, 2000.
15. Nolen RS. New Jersey veterinarian convicted of animal cru-
elty. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999;215:918.
16. Brakeman L. Three-year nightmare ends in acquittal for NJ
DVM. DVM Newsmagazine. 2000;June:35–36.
17. Brakeman L. A “new ethic.” As societal views change
toward animal welfare, DVM’s are being targeted, second-guessed
on medical decisions. DVM Newsmagazine 2000;March:1, 9, 10,
16.
18. Amnesty International. Concerns about children prosecut-
ed in the juvenile justice system. Available at: http://www.amnesty-
usa.org/rightsforall/juvenile/report/juvenile-07.html. Accessed Jan
19, 2000.
19. Recognizing and reporting animal abuse. A veterinarian’s
guide. Englewood, Colo: American Humane Association, 1998.
Views: Commentary 517