Legal Rights for Animals: The Debate

To some people, the question of "owner" vs. "guardian" is one of how much they love their pets. You don't say you "own" your children, so if you consider your pets as members of the family, it doesn't feel right to "own" them either, right?

Except it's more than a matter of choosing words that reflect how you feel about animals. These words are loaded with legal implications. When you "own" something, you have a lot more leeway to treat it however you like. Although that's not quite true with animals because there are animal welfare laws that provide certain protections for the living creatures we "own."

When you are a "guardian," your charge has independent rights, and you are responsible for providing the level of care that meets those rights. That doesn't sound too different than the way many people treat their pets anyway. In theory, it should give greater freedom to protect animals from animal abusers, making it easier to take animals away from situations where they're being neglected and mistreated, and to get justice for them in court.

But, of course, like any legal matter, granting "guardianship" status has a tangled web of potential unintended consequences (such as with Kentucky's patient-veterinarian privilege law that prevents vets from being able to report suspected animal cruelty.)

The International Animal-Law organization recently commented on two cases in New Zealand where emotional damages were awarded. They expressed concern about the potential negative impact on animal-related professions, such as veterinarians, whose liability is no longer limited if emotional damage claims can be made against them. These concerns essentially open up the field of veterinary medicine to all of the malpractice and "defensive medicine" issues faced by human medicine.

Defensive medicine could prove to be an even greater issue with pets since so few people have insurance. There have already been problems with people not taking their animals in to vets, or giving them up for adoption, because they can't afford the medical expenses in the current economy. If the guardians were required to pay for every procedure available to their pet, it could cause financial stress that would leave many animals homeless. There are also concerns that a person could be sued for providing inadequate care if they aren't able to afford treatment.

When an animal is clearly suffering or neglected, this makes sense. But what about cases like cancer that you could spend thousands of dollars treating and never cure? It's already a heart-wrenching decision for many people who know that specialty vet medicine may be able to prolong or improve their animal's life, but it's out of their financial reach. What if they didn't have a choice (again, assuming the animal is not suffering), or had to fear a lawsuit? Or what if you were prevented from exploring alternative medicine to heal your pet because it wasn't deemed an appropriate treatment by the authorities?

These are just a few of the issues raised by organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Animal Health Institute. I don't agree with them that the guardianship issue is part of an "agenda" as "the first step toward placing animals on the same legal plane as people." Maybe it is for some people, but for many others who I've talked to, they're frustrated by the difficulties of prosecuting animal cruelty and the weak penalties for animal abusers. They care for their pets like family and believe that deserves legal recognition.

A law wouldn't change the way I treat my animals on a day-to-day basis, but I'm not the person who this debate is aimed at (neither, I assume, are most you reading this). Having worked in animal shelters and rescues, and having spent a lot of time (and money) in vets' offices, I can see advantages to both sides of the debate. The key is to tease out those advantages to strengthen existing laws and create more targeted laws where we're lacking.

The legal system is never black and white, nor will it ever be as simple as owner vs. guardian.

Photo credit: karpov the wrecked train