The AVMA: Best Interests of Animals Not Important

by Stephanie Ernst

categories: Companion Animals, Politics and Law

Published May 20, 2009 @ 05:54AM PT

 Want a prime example of why I take such issue with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)? (What--you didn't know I did? Then you must have missed this post.)

First, the good news: "The opinion, issued March 10, reverses a trial court's decision that pets are personal property lacking in the unique values typically associated with heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art that induce a strong sentimental attachment." Yeah, that's the good news. Animals (or rather, companion animals--not all animals) are now as "valuable" and as worthy of "sentimental attachment" as heirlooms and paintings in New Jersey. Great progress. But don't worry--they're definitely still "property." Here we go, straight from the AVMA's official journal, in response to this New Jersey court decision regarding the custody ownership of a dog after a couple split:

Many veterinary organizations are leery of rulings that tinker with the legal status of animals. They worry veterinarians will be exposed to increased liability from aggrieved pet owners if courts put an economic value on the human-animal bond. Rick Alampi, executive director of the New Jersey VMA, said the appellate court ruling is a slight departure from recognized animal law, but veterinarians in his state shouldn't worry.

"We did not view this as the sky is falling," Alampi said.

No, the sky would be falling only if animals--you know, the beings veterinarians and veterinary orgs are supposed to prioritize--were suddenly considered right-holding living beings rather than inanimate property. And of course, putting definitive price tags on animals is problematic not because they're living beings, but because such price tags might be high! Oh no!

The good news, Alampi continued, is the court did not set a noneconomic value to the pet, meaning the judges did not fix a price tag on the bond between Houseman and the dog. "You can argue a slippery slope here, but on the surface, the judges' ruling stopped right at the point of saying, 'Yes, this is a special kind of property, it has a unique value,'" he explained.

Veterinary organizations also welcomed the court's rejection of a best-interests-of-the-pet standard as urged by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lawyers in Defense of Animals. The best interests doctrine is typically used by family courts to determine what's best for children whose parents are separating or divorcing.

Yes, considering the best interests of the animal, of "it," would be just silly! Do those crazy animal advocates think veterinary organizations are supposed to be concerned with "best interests of the pet"? Oh, how adorably naive. Of course veterinary organizations adamantly oppose considering an animal's best interests. That's just logical.

Adrian Hochstadt, assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs at the AVMA, said, "It's important to note that while the court recognized that pets are a unique form of property, it did not reject the settled legal doctrine that animals are considered a type of legal property. In fact, the court expressly rejected a guardianship-type standard such as 'best interest of the pet' to resolve ownership disputes."

Thank-effing-god, right? They are property, damn it. Owned property. Like cars and lamps and stereos. The AVMA proudly says so in official policy:

The American Veterinary Medical Association recognizes and supports the legal concept of animals as property. However, the AVMA recognizes that some animals have value to their owners that may exceed the animal's market value.

Not all animals have substantial value, just some. And not intrinsic value, just "value to their owners." And I guess this means the AVMA, beyond begrudgingly recognizing that some animals may be worth a little more than their accepted price tag to humans, also recognizes that some animals may be worth less to their "owners" than "market value"--and treated as such. But hey, that's OK--because clearly, an animal's worth (and treatment) is and should be based solely on how much humans think he or she is worth in dollars and cents. The AVMA supports that view. Animals are property. Mere property. After all, our fellow animals don't have personalities or histories. They don't have likes and dislikes. They don't feel sadness and joy. They don't experience and express love. It's not like they're remarkably similar to us in all the ways that matter. They don't have intrinsic value as thoughtful living beings, independent of what value we ascribe to them.

What? You say they do  possess all those qualities? Someone better tell the AVMA. I'm sure they and their industry pals are just misinformed, not simply selfish cads more concerned with maintaining the bottom line and status quo than with the beings they're supposed to care about.