Event Title
Supporting Clients’ Ability to Navigate the Ethics Surrounding the Treatment of Cancer in Animals
Abstract
Supporting clients’ ability to navigate the ethics surrounding the treatment of cancer in animals
As a society, our relationship with animals has evolved, with companion animals today often esteemed as valued members of the family. With the human-animal bond shown to correlate with the quality of veterinary health care sought,1 demands for improved veterinary health care over the past three decades have challenged the profession to provide ever-increasing levels of sophistication in medical services.2, 3 This has resulted in the development of specialty fields of practice,4 such as veterinary oncology, to provide comprehensive, state-of-the art care. Oncological treatment modalities have evolved to include what are now considered traditional in veterinary cancer intervention: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy.
Despite these societal-driven advancements, attitudes towards the treatment of cancer in animals vary, as identified in recent qualitative and quantitative studies.5 For clients, this creates substantial psychological dissonance as they attempt to care for their pet while pushing against a current of spoken and unspoken criticism and judgment. Such dissonance is an added burden for clients already traumatized by the diagnosis of a serious, life-threatening cancer. As social workers, it raises the imperative to be aware of this phenomenon – sourced from contradictory ethics on the treatment of cancer in animals – and support clients’ ability to successfully navigate the cancer journey while being cognizant of one’s own attitudes. Diverse societal mindsets concerning resources, the human-animal bond, and animal welfare challenge the larger ethics that define the limits of intervention.
- Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:531-540.
- Dennis JS. Referrals: What, where, and why. Vet Med 1997;92.:954-961.
- Villalobos, A. (with Kaplan L). Canine and Feline Oncology: Honoring the Human-Animal Bond. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
- Rollin BE. The use and abuse of Aesculapian authority in veterinary medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1144-1149.
- Stoewen DS. Clients’ Service Expectations and Practitioners’ Treatment Recommendations in Veterinary Oncology. PhD Thesis, 2012.
Track
Ethical dilemmas in social work and animals
Preferred Presentation Format
Podium: 30-minute podium presentation
Location
CUMBERLAND ROOM
Start Date
13-4-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
13-4-2013 9:30 AM
Supporting Clients’ Ability to Navigate the Ethics Surrounding the Treatment of Cancer in Animals
CUMBERLAND ROOM
Supporting clients’ ability to navigate the ethics surrounding the treatment of cancer in animals
As a society, our relationship with animals has evolved, with companion animals today often esteemed as valued members of the family. With the human-animal bond shown to correlate with the quality of veterinary health care sought,1 demands for improved veterinary health care over the past three decades have challenged the profession to provide ever-increasing levels of sophistication in medical services.2, 3 This has resulted in the development of specialty fields of practice,4 such as veterinary oncology, to provide comprehensive, state-of-the art care. Oncological treatment modalities have evolved to include what are now considered traditional in veterinary cancer intervention: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy.
Despite these societal-driven advancements, attitudes towards the treatment of cancer in animals vary, as identified in recent qualitative and quantitative studies.5 For clients, this creates substantial psychological dissonance as they attempt to care for their pet while pushing against a current of spoken and unspoken criticism and judgment. Such dissonance is an added burden for clients already traumatized by the diagnosis of a serious, life-threatening cancer. As social workers, it raises the imperative to be aware of this phenomenon – sourced from contradictory ethics on the treatment of cancer in animals – and support clients’ ability to successfully navigate the cancer journey while being cognizant of one’s own attitudes. Diverse societal mindsets concerning resources, the human-animal bond, and animal welfare challenge the larger ethics that define the limits of intervention.
- Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:531-540.
- Dennis JS. Referrals: What, where, and why. Vet Med 1997;92.:954-961.
- Villalobos, A. (with Kaplan L). Canine and Feline Oncology: Honoring the Human-Animal Bond. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
- Rollin BE. The use and abuse of Aesculapian authority in veterinary medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1144-1149.
- Stoewen DS. Clients’ Service Expectations and Practitioners’ Treatment Recommendations in Veterinary Oncology. PhD Thesis, 2012.
Speaker Bio
Dr. Debbie Stoewen has a DVM and MSW, and most recently, a PhD in epidemiology, specializing in veterinary communication and decision-making. She is interested in promoting the many bridges between veterinary medicine and social work.
University of Guelph, recent PhD graduate, DVM, MSW, PhD