Money-Driven Medicine, Veterinary Edition
posted by Frank Pasquale
There’s a great article in BusinessWeek on the American pet economy. We spend about $41 billion per year on pets. By contrast, the amount of money in dispute in the recent battles over children’s health insurance is about $7 billion per year. Don’t be surprised to see many in the medical field investing more in the lucrative “pampered pet” market and less in, say, the developing world.*
Some of that money translates into “extraordinary measures” at the end of pet’s lives. Some analysts are beginning to question their appropriateness:
Projecting human needs onto pets in matters of clothing or therapy is one thing. Prolonging their lives through extensive surgery and drugs is another. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, says pets shouldn’t be subjected to extraordinary measures that give owners a few extra months of companionship. “What I worry about is the ability of vets to guilt people into spending a lot of money for marginal benefits,” says Caplan. He dismisses analogies to old people with terminal illnesses. “Grandma can be self-reflective and enjoy a birthday. A cat just suffers,” he says. “They’re still pets. They’re not the moral equivalent of children.”
Surprisingly, even some animal advocates agree: “Daphna Nachminovitch, a senior executive at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says: ‘A lot of good people are now putting pets through procedures that just subject the animal to more pain.’” But there’s a good deal of profit to be made here, so I expect the market to produce an ample supply of advisors promoting the humanity–no, the necessity–of ultra-luxe pet care purchases by anyone who can afford them.
* By the way, I understand that the relation between drug development for pets and that for the poorest billion is not necessarily a zero-sum game. Perhaps the former ultimately subsidizes the latter. The moral question is whether that pattern of provision of care for the poorest makes more sense than a more systematic allocation of resources to this cause.
Photo Credit: Banksy, The Elephant in the Room.
August 1, 2007 at 8:26 am
Posted in: Culture
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Patrick S. O'Donnell - August 1, 2007 at 9:44 am
Indeed, sometimes it is important to recall the ethical and, yes, spiritual boundaries (however blurred or permeable at places) between human and non-human animals. And projection or anthropomorphism remains a recalcitrant problem.
And of course irrationality is conspicuous in “a society in which a dispassionate, utilitarian attitude to factory-farming coexists with affectionate and sympathetic relationship with domestic pets.” From James Serpell’s delightful book, In the Company of Animals (1986). Or, as Cass Sunstein illustrates, cognitive dissonance and ethical schizophrenia are ubiquitous: “through their daily behavior, people who love [their] pets, and greatly care about their welfare, help ensure short and painful lives for millions, even billions of animals that cannot easily be distinguished from dogs and cats.” From his introduction to the volume he co-edited with Martha Nussbaum, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (2004).
In short, I think we can agree (and thus there is no cognitive dissonance in believing) that the pampered-pet market is utterly repugnant while retaining our conviction that something must be done to bring meaningful rational and ethical consistency and coherence to our relations with all non-human animals.
Daniel Goldberg - August 1, 2007 at 10:42 am
I went through this quite recently with my beloved Boston Terrier, Cadbury, who died of cancer in March. At risk of intellectualizing my loss, I was amazed at how much thinking about my relationship with my dog illuminated health care issues for humans.
And I ran directly into the issue you speak of. Cadbury had a hemangiosarcoma, an aggressive, invasive, incurable blood vessel cancer. The veterinary oncologist simply did not hear me at all when I expressed my wishes for a palliative approach; he kept talking about trying to take a 90-mile-an-hour-car and slow it down to 25-miles-an-hour. He did not understand when I said that I did not care how fast the car went so long as Cadbury was comfortable on the ride.
Complicating the issue further is that pain in animals is even more difficult to read than pain in humans (the latter of which is the subject of my dissertation), and is especially problematic with dogs because they are pack animals who are likely to avoid displaying overt signs of pain for fear of disturbing the pack.
Sue - August 1, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Patrick: Huh??
Daniel: Refusing to pay the bill would have gotten his attention quickly!
O.K., this posting is a joke on a law blog, right?
But, in case it isn’t, let me say that I don’t understand homo sapiens obsession with their pets at the expense of other homo sapiens, but, I can see where those involved so with their pets can ignore the world around them. Seen such in people in my family. I personally think it has to do with everyone fear of dying, but hey, what do I know.
Patrick S. O'Donnell - August 1, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Sue,
Your comment was intended as a joke, right?
If not, perhaps you should read blogs more suited to your taste and comprehension. CO happens to be about “the Law, the Universe, and Everything,” as stated above.
Eric Goldman - August 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I think it’s terrific that pet healthcare has improved so much recently. It gives us more options. However, as a recent consumer of such services, I’ll confess that I found it horribly complicated and confusing to make smart decisions. The vets I dealt with usually couldn’t answer basic Qs like “how much will this cost, and what results do we expect”? Eric.
Frank - August 1, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Hey Sue, that’s why you have to click the links! Click on “developing world” and you’ll get to a law review article.
We have to put our work into context some times.
Miriam Cherry - August 4, 2007 at 12:16 am
Love Banksy! Frank, you rock!
Leave a Reply