** The conclusions and opinions made in these papers are not necessarily those of the School of Veterinary Medicine or St. George’s University but those entirely of the author. We hope that you will enjoy and learn from what you will read.

James A. Synowsky

October 5, 2006

Ownership or Guardianship

Boulder Colorado led the way in 2000 by becoming the first city in the nation to pass a law redefining pet owners as guardians in a movement started by the organization In Defense of Animals. Several cities have followed the precedent amidst the controversy in an attempt to improve the views on and the treatment of companion animals. Although the new codes are not changing anything in the laws except the terminology, many people and veterinarians believe that this could lead to unforeseen and unwanted ramifications.

The Guardian Campaign, which began as the brainchild of Elliot M. Katz, D.V.M., president and founder of the nonprofit, activist organization, In Defense of Animals, has now expanded to encompass all of Marin County California, Rhode Island, and 16 cities in the United States and Canada and with a goal of six more cities joining by the end of 2006. Most of the codes simply equate the term “owner” with “guardian” and specify that that the rights and responsibilities associated are still the same. Katz believes that this simple change in terminology will bring about raised awareness of the responsibilities associated with taking care of companion animals as well as change society’s attitude of animals from being a piece of property to a member of the family. Animal shelters have made a similar change in recent years when they began referring to the placement of animals as “adoption” to indicate the responsibilities associated with taking care of a pet. This terminology has become widely accepted despite controversy as it was first enacted.

However, the American Veterinary Medical Association has made its position statement against this move declaring that “Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners, including “guardian,” does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, harm it.” Their statement goes on to state that “Such changes in terminology may adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.”

Although the proponents of this change believe it will have no legal consequence, the AVMA, as well as several lawyers and legal analysts, believe that this may bring about unexpected and unwanted changes that will in turn affect the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. In the AVMA 2003 convention notes, one person proposed that this might bring forth questions such as “To whom does a veterinarian owe a duty? Does a veterinarian owe a duty of care only to the animal or to the animal and the guardian? If the interests of the animal and the guardian are in conflict, to whom does the veterinarian owe the superior duty?” to more complex questions such as “If there is a conflict between the interests of the animal and the interests of the guardian (the best interest of the animal is to have an expensive surgical procedure that the guardian cannot afford) must a special guardian be appointed by the court to represent the interests of the animal for the purpose of deciding what treatment the animal receives?” These questions sound farfetched to the advocates of the Guardian Campaign, but opponents point out that once the law is in the books, it can be used as a building block or stepping stone to further laws or new interpretations of the law. The term guardianship has already been linked to a myriad of cases dealing with the guardianship of children, where there is a very different interpretation of the word. Guardianship has the potential to lead to the sharing of the decision making rights and responsibilities with the courts and other third-parties who claim an interest on the animal’s behalf as it has in cases with minors.

Despite the rather small change in the codes and laws and the good intentions of The Guardian Campaign in changing the mindset of people with animals, the change in terminology could bring forth unnecessary and unwanted complications for veterinarians and animal owners. These changes, although meant to improve animal welfare, could have the unfavorable effect of making it more difficult to obtain or provide services to animals and ultimately lead to animal suffering.

Bibliography

Chapman, Tara, “Owner or Guardian?” Trends Magazine, March/April 2005. http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/owner_or_guardian.pdf

Nolen, R. Scott, “Owners or Guardians?” JAVMA News. April 15, 2001. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr01/s041501b.asp

“Ownership vs Guardianship: Terminology Describing the Relationship Between Animals and Their Owners” Position Statements, AVMA. http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/ownership.asp

“Pet Owner or Guardian?” Animal Health Institute, November 2005. http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/owner_guardian_ahi.asp

“State Legislators Oppose Animal Guardianship, Noneconomic Damages Laws” JAVMA News, December 1, 2004. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec04/041201d.asp

Scott, John F. D.V.M, JD, “The Veterinary/Client/Patient Relationship” AVMA 2003 Convention Notes, July 21, 2003.

“The Guardian Campaign” In Defense of Animals. http://www.guardiancampaign.com/index.htm