I am a veterinarian and ethicist and have always had an interest in the welfare of humans and animals. I have worked in a variety of settings: practice, teaching future agricultural producers and animal health technicians, evaluations of biting dogs, ethics committees on the use of animals in research, pet therapy in long-term and palliative care, science popularization, etc. I was also president of the Order of Veterinary Physicians of Quebec and advanced its position in animal welfare. I am a citizen sensitive to environmental issues, daughter of agricultural producers, mother of four adults and grandmother of three young children.
Posted at 12:00 p.m.
In recent days, two events inspired me to write this text. This Thursday, November 3, is World One Health Day (USS). Moreover, around the middle of the month, the human population will peak: 8 billion people!
We face a major challenge: to feed, provide adequate living conditions and ensure the health of eight billion people by preserving the health of our ecosystems as much as possible.
The USS approach considers the social and physical environment, plant, animal and human health. Our world being complex, a more global approach allows a better understanding of the issues and to provide appropriate solutions.
A counter-productive polarization
At the same time, we are divided on issues of animal ethics.
Some adopt an abolitionist position in the face of several activities. They wish to banish and even prohibit practices they oppose, such as breeding, research on animals, fishing and hunting, for reasons of justice between species (antispeciesism). For them, improving living conditions does not make farming more ethical.
People refuse and contest any euthanasia of dogs after they have assaulted and even mutilated children or adults. Demonstrations and legal challenges take place to prevent the slaughter of deer. Organizations import unsocialized animals destined for consumption abroad at great expense in order to save their lives, at the risk of importing diseases here, some of which are difficult to detect and transmissible to humans.
These are just a few examples of polarizing situations. Can we take into account all the issues?
I collaborate in my work with professionals and researchers from different disciplines. They carry out research and prevention in animal health, food safety, transmission of diseases between animals and humans and vice versa, have carried out global health projects, worked in collaboration with various indigenous communities, etc.
Their more holistic approach allows consideration of the impact of the choices we make on humans, communities, animals themselves and ecosystems.
Animal wellbeing
In terms of relations with animals, Quebec society, like many others, is changing rapidly. It is desirable that it continue its efforts to improve the living conditions of animals based on common values and objective data.
For me, as for many people from various backgrounds, ensuring the health and well-being of an animal during its lifetime has a determining impact on the ethics of our relationship with it.
Cultures, traditions and nutritional needs
Based on their arguments for animals, abolitionists believe it is morally justified to impose their views on others. In doing so, they deny the right of other people and communities to have a different view of respecting nature and animals.
Certainly, proteins of plant origin can meet a significant part of our needs. It is to be hoped that our new habits will really make it possible to reduce our ecological footprint, among other things through less waste, since a vegetarian diet is not automatically more ecological. Many are working to make our agriculture sustainable. Elsewhere in the world, the importance of livestock in the life of rural communities is paramount and the abolition of these activities would lead to a loss of food security.
Human beings being fundamentally omnivorous, diets free of all animal products are very difficult to balance and often require the taking of supplements. Only wealthy people can do it.
A necessary dialogue
Any societal debate on issues as fundamental as our diet and our relationships with other animals and ecosystems must include all groups of the population concerned: consumers, people from various communities and traditions, nutritionists, doctors, health experts. animal being, fishermen, farmers, ecologists, biologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists and public health experts, etc.
This diversity of points of view, combined with a real openness to others, will allow a real dialogue from which we will all benefit.