Mobile version
spiked plus
About spiked
What is spiked?
Support spiked
spiked shop
Contact us
Summer school
Top issues
Arab uprisings
British politics
Child abuse panic
For Europe, Against the EU
Free speech
Jimmy Savile scandal
Parents and kids
View all issues...
special feature
The Counter-Leveson Inquiry
other sections
 Review of Books
 Monthly archive
selected authors
Duleep Allirajah
Daniel Ben-Ami
Tim Black
Jennie Bristow
Sean Collins
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
Frank Furedi
Helene Guldberg
Patrick Hayes
Mick Hume
Rob Lyons
Brendan O’Neill
Nathalie Rothschild
James Woudhuysen
more authors...
RSS feed
a-b c-d e-h i-l m-n o-r s-u v-z index
Fiona McEwen
researcher at the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London, and veterinary locum

The veterinary profession needs to fundamentally question how we see the relationship between animals and human society. Can we reconcile the principle of animal welfare being paramount with the role of animals in providing for the needs of human society - be it food, sport, companionship or research? Are vets there to ensure the welfare of animals, or to support the use of animals in providing for human needs?

The answer to this question affects every aspect of day-to-day practice. Placing the welfare of pets first can mean disregarding the beliefs and concerns of the owner, if these are incongruent with what is deemed best for the animal. As veterinary practice becomes more centred on animal welfare, we risk losing our compassion and respect for the people we deal with.

When animal welfare is paramount it also becomes increasingly difficult to justify vivisection. However, restricting animal research undermines the evidence base of our profession and may slow the pace of medical advance, potentially prolonging the suffering of human and domestic animal populations.

This leads to a second question: what importance do we assign to evidence-based medicine? If we are serious about it then we need to take a robust stance on issues such as homeopathy. One of the roles of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be to protect the public from costly treatments for which there is no evidence of efficacy – essentially quackery. To date there has been a reluctance to make a judgement on unproven ‘alternative’ treatments, lending them a legitimacy they don’t deserve.

I hope that in tackling these questions we will see the emergence of a confident profession that is proud both of its foundations in sound science and its role in supporting the use of animals in order to promote human welfare.

Survey home
What we found
Survey responses
RSS feed
Anjana Ahuja
Michael Baum
Peter Cochrane
Richard Feachem
Frank Furedi
Michio Kaku
Ken MacLeod
Jonathan Meades
Munira Mirza
Matthew Parris
Ingo Potrykus
Roger Scruton
Ben Shneiderman
Lionel Shriver
Raymond Tallis
Peter Whittle
Josie Appleton
David Baulcombe
Claire Fox
William Higham
Paul Lauterbur
William Graeme Laver
Ken MacLeod
Fiona McEwen
Victor Stenger