Is veterinary medicine defensible?

[Gregis]

This came up in USPG2 and I wanted to continue the conversation, but it is on the fringes of relevance to US politics Captain Planet, so I'm making a thread. First post I'm just going to quote the discussion that's already taken place, I'll make other posts to share my thoughts.

First, some highly informative posts from @AnitaSarsleezian, you should click through to read both in their entirety but I quoted the most relevant sections.

[Squirrels are] not domesticated and you can't domesticate them. According to scientific fact, it takes about 25 generations to domesticate an animal. Because they're not domesticated like dogs and cats, the rules that apply to a domesticated pet don't apply to them. If your dog acts up you can scream at it or smack it and it'll run away yelping and go belly up and take it's lower place again in the pack in regards to you and your family. That shit doesn't work on a squirrel. Since it's a wild animal by nature, it's always on guard for what it might perceive as a threat and will react against that threat. So you get idiots who find a baby squirrel and attempt to keep it and raise it as a pet. Then it does squirrel things like piss on your couch or chew into your wood furniture and the human might attempt to swat it away or smack it which the squirrel will perceive as a threat, in which case the squirrel will react by biting and clawing causing the moronic human to realize squirrels aren't pets and then they'll throw it outside leaving a maladjusted* squirrel to attack humans.

[It's driving me crazy, I swear there was another post but I think it got swept; it detailed how "pet" squirrels are often ones suffering from neurological damage stemming from getting thrown out of a tree or because of mosquito spray, and strangely this commonly causes them to be more friendly. This helps contextualize the later objections to the care they receive.]

That peanut raid had repercussions that were devastating to the squirrel community. Dr. Emerson, a woman who's widely regarded as the greatest squirrel surgeon to have existed and quite honestly is a miracle worker with some of the stuff she's pulled off on squirrels had a sort of breakdown over the peanut situation and almost immediately after, completely closed up shop without warning [...]. This was a woman that people would travel to from all over when their non-releasables had life threatening medical conditions. She saved Momo the squirrel when Momo had a horrible sinus / ear infection that antibiotics were failing to fight. She opened Momo's skull and suctioned the infection out and saved her. She's removed tumors from Chipchloë's jaw and performed Thumbelina's hysterectomy.

It may almost sound like a joke but her leaving practice is a huge loss. Because squirrels are wild and not domesticated, their bodies aren't accustomed to the shit vets have done to cats and dogs for generations. So for example, since anesthesia isn't something encountered in the wild, squirrel bodies can't process it well at all and the mortality rate for squirrels from anesthesia hovers around 50%. It's always nerve wracking when a squirrel needs to go under because half the time they die just from the anesthesia. Dr. Emerson was almost a genius with knowing exactly how to finesse anesthesia when operating on a squirrel and it was extremely rare for her to lose a squirrel from anesthesia.

I'm sure some people might think what I say is almost a joke because it's "just a squirrel" but non-releasables in captivity can live up to 15-20 years so for anyone who's cared for a squirrel for 12 or 13 years, to lose it due to anesthesia, the loss is just as tremendous as if you had to put your 13 year old cat or dog down.

This prompts user @The best and greatest to question whether this is all reasonable.

Why the fuck would you or anyone else even think to waste medical resources on something like this?

You've never heard of veterinarians?

Yes and outside of ag animals I disagree with their existence as a needless luxury to begin with, but for a squirrel who is already fucked from birth?

How many hours of training do you suppose it takes to train a squirrel surgeon? How many medical resources are needed in practicing before they become certified? All of this takes time money and resources that would be better spent redirected towards people instead of fucking house pets.

@Oh! and @Catgirl Tyranid then offer some religious consolation.

We're stewards of God's creatures. Animals brought to vets are always affected by human civilization in some way. It's basic decency, the kind that separates civilized societies from savages. Humans have fundamentally altered the ecosphere and with that comes some onus to care for those affected especially if they're entrusted to our care. There's also an element of surrogacy; pet owners often (perhaps wrongly) view their pets/wards as their children/family, and are deeply emotionally invested in their well-being. It's fine if you don't understand such emotional attachments, emotions are fundamentally at odds with intense autism. It may also be irrational. However, it's still a powerful force and a manifestation of the same sort of compassion that led to the creation of society as we know it.

In Genesis 1:20-25, God created the fish, birds, and land animals, and declared them "good" before humans even appeared; they're part of good creation in their own right.
In Genesis 1:26-28, humans are created in God's image and are told to "rule" and "subdue" the earth, with "dominion" over animals.
In Genesis 1:29-30, both humans and animals are originally given plants to eat, they're seen as sharing the earth's provision.

I can't speak to why God made the world, but animals did come first and we were merely granted dominion over them as their rulers. As rulers it's our duty to care for them.

God made creation for Man to take delight in at His side, specifically setting Man over the animal as stewards. You can judge a man's character by the way he treats those he has power over including animals he owns.

'A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.' - Proverbs 12:10

Aaaand then I think think everyone dropped it and went back to being sodomized by an elderly, obese conman. But I want to sperg about it too, so I made this gay thread! TBAG pretty much just got downvotes but I do think the issues he raises are interesting and not trivial. What exactly is our relationship with wild animals, and to what end do we practice medicine on them? Is wildlife rescue just exotic pet ownership practiced responsibly? When it comes to non-rehabilitatable animals, is showing them to schools and "educational purposes" just an excuse to hang out with non-domesticated animals? Are there larger concrete benefits? And what do these practices say about our own society, and depending on how we model that, how do we justify them? I'm also very interested to hear from people actually involved in this stuff to ground the discussion in concrete facts of how this is practiced.

 

[Tablet County]

Does Veterinary Medicine have 7-inch thick armor plating?

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Secularly, there are numerous studies which show the benefits of helping animals, including concrete health ones. People who help animals unrelated to a job, be that in a volunteer capacity or as a pet owner, who the forms bonds with those animals, tend to have lower stress levels, lower blood pressure, and rate their subjective quality of life as higher.

On a moral and philosophical level, we are the stewards of this planet. We have bent and broken nature to fit our design, which makes us responsible for the well-being of the creatures which inhabit the Earth.

On a religious note, Proverbs was brought up already, but even looking at Church doctrine more concretely, Saint Francis of Assisi is the Patron Saint of Animals, widely regarded and referred to in his day as "A friend to children and animals." He intervened when an angry mob was going to kill a wolf which was attacking a town's livestock, and he went and domesticated the wolf instead, bringing it to the town so they could live in harmony as friends. The wolf became known as the "Brotherly Wolf," and was loved by the town until the wolf died of natural causes, whereupon the town mourned him as a beloved friend. This is regarded as a miracle and something good. The Feast Day of Saint Francis is October 4th, which is why when World Animal Day was created, it, too, was determined to be October 4th.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

TBAG pretty much just got downvotes but I do think the issues he raises are interesting and not trivial.

Their objection

Why the fuck would you or anyone else even think to waste medical resources on something like this?

outside of [agricultural] animals I disagree with [veterinarians'] existence as a needless luxury to begin with. [...] All of this takes time money and resources that would be better spent redirected towards people instead of fucking house pets.

rests on the idea that "resources" exist in some common pool, to be rationed between humans and animals. However, the time, skill, and money that make a squirrel surgeon possible belong to the individuals who earned them, and not to some collective stockpile. If someone values putting those resources towards a sick pet rather than a stranger's hospital bill, then nothing has been "wasted", for the resources have simply been directed according to the owner's judgment.
As soon as you get rid of this collectivist premise, the question becomes very straightforward. Does anyone value veterinary care enough to pay for it, and does anyone want to provide it? If yes, then the practice is legitimate. The only way it could be illegitimate is if those services were extracted via coercion, but then the issue would be the coercion itself.
Wild roaming animals are not agents with rights, so nobody owes them medical treatment. But once an animal has been brought under human ownership, caring for that animal falls under the discretion of its owner, just like any other property. And the work of a veterinarian is nothing more or less than a voluntary service to such owners. A communist might call this a "luxury" (smuggling in the same collectivist premise), but in reality it's just a plain exchange.

I'm also very interested to hear from people actually involved in this stuff to ground the discussion in concrete facts of how this is practiced.

To quickly go over your questions from my ethicist/philosopher point of view:

What exactly is our relationship with wild animals, and to what end do we practice medicine on them?

Why are you using some "our relationship with wild animals" language? There is no collective "we" that relates to animals. A wild animal is unowned until someone brings it under their control. At that moment, it ceases being "wild" and becomes someone's property. From that point on, care and medicine boil down to the owner's choice and willingness to contract with others. And as soon as you see it this way, questions like

Is wildlife rescue just exotic pet ownership practiced responsibly?

become easier to classify. Wildlife rescue is ownership + a stated purpose. The underlying structure is unchanged by the framing, whether the owner calls it "rehabilitation" or "educational purposes". The owner has assumed responsibility and others may voluntarily pay, volunteer, or ignore it.

is showing them to schools and "educational purposes" just an excuse to hang out with non-domesticated animals? Are there larger concrete benefits?

If schools or donors value contact with non-releasables, that's just exchange. Not a fraud, not an excuse.

And what do these practices say about our own society

The fact that people can afford to dedicate resources to squirrel neurosurgery or bird sanctuaries is a sign of wealth and specialization. It is only in sufficiently advanced economies that anyone has the margin to care about non-human patients at all.

how do we justify them?

Not by some mysterious stewardship or collective duty, but by purposeful voluntary action. Individuals direct their own resources towards what they value, and others are free to join or abstain.

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

If women had squirrels as pets instead of negro imports we wouldn't even have any issue

The only kind of companionship with (wild) animals is - you feed them and they don't eat you
Animals in general don't care about your property, some are just worse at it.
Birds shit everywhere, cats need to be trained to shit ... etc
Domestic foxes are the more insane one to have, piss and stink everywhere

The squirrel is a non issue. It will bite you but it is tiny and "harmless" compared to a cat or a dog. Unless it's rabid it's not on offensive.

 

[Gregis]

So actually I am kind of struggling to write my response to this. Honestly, @XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG voiced a lot of my objections, I think I was kind of triggered by the communistic assumptions of TBAG's wording, but I realized I really do not want this to turn into Deep Thots Communism Debate vol LXIX. I'll just say very briefly that I believe the idea that we're even training squirrel surgeons is a bit misleading, as far as I know the woman is a unique specialist purely on her own initiative and through her experience; vets are more commonly expected to treat a variety of animals, and note that even this squirrel surgeon who has specialized in a species is less specialized than doctors who only work with a single system (e.g. nephrologists) in humans. Also just to briefly touch on the idea of veterinary and human medicine trading off against each other, assuming that there is any overlap in the drugs and other supplies used for each it's not zero sum, and diversifying sources of demand could help encourage stability of supply. I feel like I'm always making these libertarian/Randian arguments, but I do see the argument that medicine is a valid place to apply a bit of socialism; but the same arguments don't apply to veterinary medicine, so if there's an emergency or whatever, you can just seize the squirrel anesthetics to use on humans, hell, the vets would probably just donate them.

But as I said, I don't want to just talk about economics or question the premise of how we talk about "apportioning" jobs or goods or effort. It's valid to ask what it says about our culture that we do these things, whatever your philosophy (except for XL etc who is an ancap or whatever and bases everything on ownership, and I'm just asking again, please don't just turn this into the economics thread (although I do appreciate and largely share your perspective!)). For instance there's a prevalent idea that as either a symptom or cause of an extended adolescence, people are replacing children with pets. Also, when it comes to this idea of stewardship of nature, there are questions around how you define nature, and what choices we have in shaping it; and there are some (think Zizian types, effective altruist "rationalists") who entertain ideas of preventing animal suffering either by just making them all extinct because nature is too mean and life is pain, or by getting predators onto vegan diets. I have some thoughts about what drives us to care for these animals, what it teaches us about ourselves, and how it can have broader benefits, but I am going to try to gather them better and post again soon.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I don't want to just talk about economics

grrrr, saying that after making some, in my opinion, contentious points in the first paragraph
but I'll humor you

what it says about our culture that we do these things, whatever your philosophy

Caring for pets or rescued animals is not some mandate or collective duty, it is a natural consequence of what people choose to value once they're no longer at immediate risk of starvation. Contingent on having reached a level of wealth and stability where they can indulge concerns beyond immediate survival, such as hobbies, art, and veterinary care.

there's a prevalent idea that as either a symptom or cause of an extended adolescence, people are replacing children with pets.

That observation also makes sense in terms of demonstrated preference. Raising children and raising animals are not interchangeable, but both are outlets for care, companionship, and responsibility. Choosing the lighter burden shows that individuals make a tradeoff, and the wisdom of that tradeoff can be questioned. But the simple fact is that people are directing their lives according to what they find more manageable or fulfilling.

when it comes to this idea of stewardship of nature, there are questions around how you define nature, and what choices we have in shaping it; and there are some (think Zizian types, effective altruist "rationalists") who entertain ideas of preventing animal suffering either by just making them all extinct because nature is too mean and life is pain, or by getting predators onto vegan diets.

The problem with all of these proposals is that they treat "nature" as a modeling clay for the hand of a planner. But "nature" is not some singular entity out there to be stewarded or redesigned, it's the aggregate outcome of countless organisms pursuing survival on their own terms. The notion that "we" should extinguish predators or engineer them into veganism is obviously just cruelty disguised as compassion.
Personally I take huge issues with environmentalists and "nature" fetishists. These people treat human action as a kind of original sin. At its core, this ideology demands that humans sacrifice their minds and their works for the sake of non-humans. It's the idea that man must not live for himself. But to reshape mountains, forests, or ecosystems is precisely how humans secure their continued survival. To declare this evil is to deny the very conditions of human life.

 

[candlejack]

I think we as a species do have a responsibility towards wild animals, though not down to every individual seeking vet care for every individual squirrel.
We've irreversibly changed almost if not all habitats on earth. When we dam a river it is our responsibility to ensure that fish and other animals who live there are able to continue upstream. A well-known example is salmon populations falling due to inability to swim upriver to spawn. When we remove an apex predator from an ecosystem we have to step in or the prey species overpopulate and then crash from resource scarcity. The survival of wild animals is imperative for our own survival. We don't live in a vacuum.
I started writing this a FRICKIN hour ago and keep being interrupted. I'll be back.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Does Veterinary Medicine have 7-inch thick armor plating?

Yes, but it isn't angled and lacks any form of ERA.

 

[Apustajan apustaja]

Human medicine is downstreams from veterinary medicine. You can try shit on animals it would be unethical to do to a human.

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

There is obviously a degree of decadence in how wealthy people take care of animals, and the squandering of resources which would more properly have been directing towards helping their fellow man. It’s not right to spend tens of thousands of dollars to extend the lifespan of an animal by a year or two when that could be better used to help people. To the extent that this kind of spending detracts from assistance to humans it’s wrong. However, the use of resources to help animals is still itself an inherently moral act. Rather than comparing it only to the most moral use of resources (helping other humans) we should also compare it to the various other uses of resources with are amoral or even immoral, such as recreation, warmongering, hoarding, etc.. Ultimately appropriate criticism of these kinds of animal welfare groups/activities is that they represent a striving after a lesser good, rather than the highest good.

So shouldn’t we only strive after the highest good? No. The allocation of resources within society is not a zero sum game, and a truely moral society should strive after all goods proportionally to their value. Many people who work to protect and help animals do so tirelessly and excessively because it’s their calling. The alternative for these people is not always that they dedicate that same passion towards helping people, they might just be a same self-centred apathetic person like the rest of us. So it isn’t right to criticise those people for not striving after the highest good, they are still striving after something good. Moreover, the users of this forum are not the people to cast the first stone against animal helpers, how many hours have we each squandered on the internet, helping nobody?

 

[Otterly]

Animals are capable of suffering, pain and also happiness. We see that, and it reflects what we see of ourselves. It is profoundly ‘something’ in us and even that is in animals too - your dog coming to comfort you if you’re sad for example.
To reduce animal suffering is to speak to that ‘something.’ Call it humanity or goodness or a spark of divinity or whatever you like.
Humans also have reason, which tempers the situations where we intervene. We might put a beloved pet to sleep because we understand it is less suffering. We might rescue one squirrel and be ok with not rescuing all the squirrels because we know we can’t. The desire to help animals is the combination of that something plus reason.
We are also not apart from the rest of creation. We ARE part of nature. Why would we not want to help where we can?

 

[National Defense Advocate]

What kinda retard faggot gets mad at treating sick animals?
We're the only animal on the planet capable of taking care of every other animal on the planet.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

animals > humans

>is giving medical care to fat people defensible?
>they are so fat because they didnt want to eat less, now they are unhealthy and clog up the medical system
>is it fair that type 1 diabetics have to pay the same price for insulin as type 2 diabetics?
>is it fair that the vaxxed have access to medicine even tho they are unhealthy due to their own choices?
>is it fair veterinarians are banned from helping humans, even tho they are far more trustworthy then doctors for humans?
>is it fair that animals get to buy medicine at fair prices while humans need a recipe and the same medicine costs 10 times as much?

is showing them to schools and "educational purposes" just an excuse to hang out with non-domesticated animals?

whats the problem with finding an excuse to hang out with non-domesticated animals?

Are there larger concrete benefits?

children see what animals are like
the animals are treated humanely
how is that not a benefit?
>is it defensible to teach niggers to swim?

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

What kinda retard faggot gets mad at treating sick animals?
We're the only animal on the planet capable of taking care of every other animal on the planet.

Welcome to the Autistic Thunderdome where everything pisses someone off.

 

[Oh!]

Thanks for following up on this. I'm gonna try to put on my thinking cap.

I'll set aside religion for the moment unless people really want to dig into that.

There's a whole matrix of arguments to be made here but it really does boil down to individualism vs. collectivism:

Individualists can still be duty-bound to provide care for animals, but for them that duty comes from within and not without. The key question for them is, "Why should I?" They might find a compelling answer and they might not, and that's the end of it.

Collectivists ostensibly have an implicit duty which makes things more complicated, and the question of "How can I know what's a net benefit?" comes into play. Let's say you're going on a nature walk with your son and you come across a bird with a broken wing. If you take the bird home and spend weeks rehabilitating it, you might teach your son a valuable lesson about compassion. That might inspire your son to be more compassionate in his life thereafter, which could be interpreted as a net benefit to the world as your son would likely propagate those values and help others.

However, if your son doesn't end up becoming more compassionate as a result, is it still a net benefit? Would that time have been better spent picking up trash, working at a soup kitchen, or listening to and learning from your wise elderly neighbor? Have you retroactively yielded a net negative?

What if that bird, brought back to full health, goes on to fly into Fabio's face on a rollercoaster, breaking his nose? The bird is now dead and Fabio's nose is now broken. If you hadn't rehabilitated the bird, it would still be dead, but Fabio's nose wouldn't be broken. Are the lessons in kindness you may or may not have imparted onto your son more valuable than potentially ending Fabio's career as a model? Fabio could have made a lot more money, donated that money to charity, and enriched the lives of many more children than just your son.

That might be a silly example, but it illustrates how it all becomes very murky very quickly. If we ask the question of "Is veterinary medicine defensible?" then it really matters through what lens you're hoping to defend it, e.g. compassion, efficiency, survival, tradition, etc.

I'll probably have more to add later but my brain is fried for now. Just wanted to contribute something before I crapped out for the night.

 

[Neodanthril]

This came up in USPG2

> the dumbest shit ive ever seen
uspg2 is the news article comment section of this site

 

[BulkForceFive]

The amount of medication that is wasted every day simply by spillage, expiry and refrigerator failure dwarfs the amount of medecine used in veterninary care/

 

[Tablet County]

animals > humans

>is giving medical care to fat people defensible?
>they are so fat because they didnt want to eat less, now they are unhealthy and clog up the medical system
>is it fair that type 1 diabetics have to pay the same price for insulin as type 2 diabetics?
>is it fair that the vaxxed have access to medicine even tho they are unhealthy due to their own choices?
>is it fair veterinarians are banned from helping humans, even tho they are far more trustworthy then doctors for humans?
>is it fair that animals get to buy medicine at fair prices while humans need a recipe and the same medicine costs 10 times as much?

whats the problem with finding an excuse to hang out with non-domesticated animals?

children see what animals are like
the animals are treated humanely
how is that not a benefit?
>is it defensible to teach niggers to swim?

I joke a lot about how people's avatars are actual portraits of the users but after reading that I think yours might be an accurate depiction.

 

[Blindeye]

I was thinking about this a lot after reading that debate in USPG2, my arguments against the idea that we shouldn't help animals because it's a waste:

If a man wants to become a veterinarian to treat animals and is not interested in treating humans, is it right to force him to be a human doctor?
If a man wants to become a sculptor or author or any other field that is technically useless but he nevertheless sustains himself by it, is it right to force him into a factory floor to produce something useful?
If the problem is a waste of resources, should we then cease making animal feed to feed more humans, stop making collars and leashes to weave more pants?
Should we also melt down all gold jewelry for circuitboards, and replace cattle pens with space-efficient insect farms, and mandate only corn can be grown to maximize yield per acre?
If we should not use any resources to sustain beings that are lesser than us, why would this not apply to lesser groups of humans, and why shouldn't your betters apply it to you?

And finally and most importantly, we sons of Adam were tasked by God to be the stewards of animals, and those suited to the task blessed with a nature to sincerely love this duty