AU: The unbearable lightness of being a greyhound

[filou007de]

From theconversation.edu.au

The unbearable lightness of being a greyhound

Background Briefing's program The Quick and the Dead exposed one of the key
animal welfare issues facing the greyhound racing industry: the high rates
of euthanasia of healthy dogs. During an interview, Brent Hogan, CEO of
Greyhound Racing NSW, stated that in NSW alone around 3,000 greyhounds bred
for.

Author Alexandra McEwan PhD Student, ANU College of Law at Australian
National University

Disclosure Statement

Alexandra McEwan does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive
funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this
article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics
and researchers.

We are funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU,
Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS,
UWS and VU.

3xr2p2rz-1353380134

What are our ethical responsibilities for racing greyhounds? Jo Anne
McArthur

Background Briefing's program The Quick and the Dead
<http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... 012-11-11/
4355398> exposed one of the key animal welfare issues facing the greyhound
racing industry: the high rates of euthanasia of healthy dogs.

During an interview, Brent Hogan, CEO of Greyhound Racing NSW, stated that
in NSW alone around 3,000 greyhounds bred for the racing industry are
euthanised every year. These include healthy dogs that have been deemed too
slow for competition, those whose racing "career" is at end, and others who
may be euthanised following injury on the track.

After listening to the program I remembered an article a friend had given me
<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... ound-in-go
od-hands-after-factory-fire/story-e6freuzi-1226477580143> about a
greyhound, Mandy, who had been rescued from a factory fire in Marrickville.
An attending paramedic recounted "It is the first time I've rescued a dog .
we treated her the same as you would a human for smoke inhalation and
dehydration". Mandy's owner said she would be
<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... -friend/st
ory-e6freuzi-1226478395015> "forever grateful" to the paramedics who treated
Mandy "like a person" to ensure her survival.

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/fil ... 1353294534
.jpgCody Williams

Then there is Ted Humphries, interviewed as part of the Background Briefing
program. A former vet for the racing industry, Mr Humphries euthanises
greyhounds as part of his veterinary practice. Under Australian animal
protection laws authorising the killing of an animal by the animal's owner
is lawful, as long as the pain and suffering inflicted on the animal during
the act of killing does not amount to cruelty. Mr Humphries explained that
if he was not willing to euthanise these dogs humanely, there is a distinct
possibility that they would meet a more brutal end: shot, killed by hanging,
drowning, gassed, or even hit over the head with a hammer.

These two stories sit in apparent contrast. One has to do with saving lives,
the other with killing. I wondered about the practice ethics underpinning
these scenarios.

Although they focus on different species, both vets and paramedics are
health practitioners. Their practice shares common ground in that it is
informed by an ethic of care, compassion, and the alleviation of suffering.

Indeed, in Mandy's case, the actions of the paramedics involved demonstrated
that this ethic of care crosses the species boundary. Mr Humphries's
practice also adheres to this ethic of care in that it ameliorates animal
suffering by preventing the cruelty inherent in other forms of killing. His
decision to euthanise healthy dogs is made between a rock and a hard place:
it is not something he takes lightly.

To my mind, vets like Ted Humphries carry a heavy moral burden on behalf of
the rest of society. Why is he put into this difficult position in the first
place?

To gain some insight it is worthwhile considering some basic principles
about the concept of animal welfare as the foundation for our animal
protection regulatory system.

The animal welfare paradigm allows for the use of animals on the basis that
the pain and suffering endured by the animals involved is for legitimate
human benefit. According to this utilitarian approach, human benefits must
be balanced against the interests of animals.

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/fil ... 1353294532
.jpgCody Williams

Ultimately, it is the side on which the scales fall that decides whether
specific forms of animal use and associated practices are imbued with
legitimacy. The question of whether animal use is for a legitimate purpose
generally accords with a hierarchy in which animal use for food and research
has a strong moral claim. In comparison, animal use for non-essential
purposes such as entertainment, sport, or luxury items, has a weaker moral
claim.

In these latter cases one might expect that, at least on occasion, the
interests of animals might trump ours.

Given that the greyhound racing industry requires the large scale killing of
animals each year (remember the 3,000 per year figure was for NSW alone), it
seems that the industry's claim on legitimacy is becoming increasingly
shaky.

Lastly, the question of practice ethics arises. Compassion figured largely
in the paramedics and Ted Humphries's interaction with animals. This made me
wonder about the core values underpinning human interactions with animals in
the racing industry. Would it be possible to develop an approach to animal
welfare that has compassion as its core?

In invoking compassion I am thinking of Milan Kundera's interpretation in
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unbear ... s_of_Being> . Kundera
explains that in Czech, Polish, German, and Swedish, the word "compassion"
has as it root "feeling" rather than "suffering". Hence, to have compassion
(co-feeling) means not only to be able to live with the other's misfortune
but also to feel with him any emotion - joy, anxiety, happiness, pain.

This kind of compassion signifies the maximal capacity of affective
imagination, the art of emotional telepathy. In the hierarchy of sentiments,
then, it is supreme.