Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party
  1. Herwig Grimm1,2,3,
  2. Alessandra Bergadano4,
  3. Gabrielle C Musk5,
  4. Klaus Otto6,
  5. Polly M Taylor7 and
  6. Juliet Clare Duncan8
  1. 1 Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  2. 2 Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  3. 3 University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  4. 4 Pharmaceutical Sciences, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F Hoffmann La Roche, Basel, Switzerland
  5. 5 Animal Care Services, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  6. 6 Central Laboratory Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  7. 7 Taylor Monroe, Ely, UK
  8. 8 Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Scotland
  1. E-mail for correspondence; juliet.duncan{at}


Modern veterinary medicine offers numerous options for treatment and clinicians must decide on the best one to use. Interventions causing short-term harm but ultimately benefitting the animal are often justified as being in the animal’s best interest. Highly invasive clinical veterinary procedures with high morbidity and low success rates may not be in the animal’s best interest. A working party was set up by the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia to discuss the ethics of clinical veterinary practice and improve the approach to ethically challenging clinical cases. Relevant literature was reviewed. The ‘best interest principle’ was translated into norms immanent to the clinic by means of the ‘open question argument’. Clinical interventions with potential to cause harm need ethical justification, and suggest a comparable structure of ethical reflection to that used in the context of in vivo research should be applied to the clinical setting. To structure the ethical debate, pertinent questions for ethical decision-making were identified. These were incorporated into a prototype ethical tool developed to facilitate clinical ethical decision-making. The ethical question ‘Where should the line on treatment be drawn’ should be replaced by ‘How should the line be drawn?’

  • ethics
  • veterinary profession
  • human-animal interactions
  • clinical practice

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests PMT is also a member of the Veterinary Record editorial board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The second sentence has been added to the Acknowledgements statement.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.