Animal abuse: are we right to be suspicious?

Jul 10, 2017

—

When I was 14, I watched a documentary aired as part of Channel 4’s “Banned” season. Called The Animals Film, the programme was about the way humans use and abuse animals for their own ends, with the emphasis very much on abuse.

I didn’t sleep very much that evening and became a vegetarian overnight.

The film didn’t make me want to become a vet (James Herriot had already seen to that), but it did make me realise why I wanted to be a vet. I wanted to be a voice for those that had no voice. I wanted to help relieve the suffering of those that couldn’t tell you when they were suffering.

Well, it’s been quite some time now since I was anything-teen and, like a lot of the middle-aged, looking back at the angry kid I was, I’m not sure how successful any of it was; the best I can say is I’m still a vegetarian. Did I really help all that much? I’m not sure.

I haven’t watched the film since, and I don’t think I want to, but one thing was clear – humans are spectacularly good at being cruel to animals when they put their minds to it.

Injuries caused knowingly

Here’s something that’s been on my mind recently – have I ever actually seen a case of animal abuse?

The short answer is yes, of course I have – neglect is abuse and I’ve seen plenty of cases of that in my time, as well as inadvertent cruelty caused by compulsive hoarders, and significant and lasting harm caused by unscrupulous dog breeders. But even though they cause real – and, in many cases, severe – suffering, that’s not really what I’m talking about. Those cases are easy to spot and can be managed. I mean actual physical abuse – injuries caused by owners beating their animals. It happens – I know it must do.

Statistics and court cases prove it, and I understand the way humans work (I am one, after all). But, despite all that, I have never actually knowingly seen injuries caused by animal abuse in my consulting room – and the key word in this sentence is “knowingly”.

Juggling act

Consulting is, as we all know, an art form; a juggling act of compromise between what the client wants, what he or she can afford and what is best for his or her pet. It requires trust on both sides and, as a vet, I tend to trust what the owner tells me, unless I am strongly suspicious to the contrary.

I have never seen injuries in circumstances suspicious enough to suspect anything more than an accident has occurred. The closest time I can remember is a femoral fracture in a kitten, where the owners were extremely vague about how it happened.

Discussion took place in the practice about what we should do, and the owners eventually admitted their young son had dropped the kitten while they were letting him hold it.

They seemed worried and guilty enough that I believed them, but could they have still been lying?

Assault or accident?

Could any of my clients have been lying? How many injuries I treated through the years were caused through deliberate assault rather than accident? None? One? Ten? Twenty? I never recognised it – it’s possible I never saw it at all, but, being generous, I think it’s fair to say it’s statistically unlikely.

The 14-year-old me believed humans were capable of extreme violence to animals – he certainly wasn’t naive. The veterinary surgeon I became trusted his clients. Have I had the wool pulled over my eyes? The thought horrifies me, but it’s probably true.

Maybe it’s the population of clients I have seen. Maybe the type of person who takes his or her animal to the vet at all is unlikely to have abused it in the first place. There’s probably some truth in that, but, I suspect, not enough. I must have seen it; I must have. Never knowingly.

See no evil

So, here’s the point of this ramble. Some animal abuse is hidden – it happens behind closed doors, to creatures that can’t fight back and have no words to ask for help. If I was fooled then maybe some of you have been, too.

Maybe if we talk about it more, we can learn to recognise it for what it is. So this is me talking about it. Am I being overly pessimistic in thinking I’ve missed it? Have I been lucky or naive?

What are your experiences?

Comments

4 responses to “Animal abuse: are we right to be suspicious?”

Dr Sean Taylor BVSc GPCert(F&L) MRCVS MAE

July 11, 2017

Hi Nick, thanks for posting this article and being honest about how you may have missed physical abuse cases in the past. In my experience it is not an uncommon feature of veterinary practice. This is not because vets donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know how to recognise abuse it is because they fail to include it within their list of differentials at the time of examination. In addition, historically abuse is not something that has been given particular attention at University on the undergraduate curriculum and therefore is not often listed as a cause of physical trauma in the teaching literature. Ground breaking work done by Munro & Thrusfield in the 1990Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s identified diagnostic indicators which raise the index of suspicion that physical abuse may be the cause of injuries evident. The problem in identifying physical abuse is that it has no single diagnostic feature (unlike physical abuse in children) and therefore many cases are only identified upon the 3rd, 4th or 5th occasion that an animal is presented with physical injury. I undertake forensic case work for a number of different parties and a common feature of the clinical notes evidenced in these cases is that the animal was presented to the veterinary practice on a number of occasions with physical injury that was treated on the assumption that the mechanism of injury was accidental (falling down stairs, being stood on, accidentally spilling boiling water, falling off the settee, etc). Only after the animal has been presented multiple times (which is one of the diagnostic indicators suggested by Munro & Thrusfield) does the vet begin to suspect foul play and begins to look at the case as a potential physical abuse situation. These cases often involve a couple (husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend) in which one is performing the abuse to which the other is oblivious. It is often the non-abusing partner who presents the animal for examination. This adds further difficulty to the assessment since the history is being provided by the partner who did not witness the Ã¢â‚¬ËœaccidentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ resulting in a very vague description of the injurious events. So in answering your question, no I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you are being overly pessimistic in thinking you have missed it, it appears to be a regular feature in veterinary examination of cases suspected of being physical abuse. However, you rise some vital points. We need to talk about it, be aware it is out there, include physical abuse on the differential list of diagnostic possibilities and importantly, have a practice SOP on how to handle such cases efficiently. Like the GDV that walks through the door, once they are in front of you there is very little time to consider, evaluate and act appropriately and within the constraints of data protection.

Reply
1. Nick Marsh
  
  July 12, 2017
  
  That’s incredibly helpful, thank you Sean; that’s exactly the sort of helpful advice I was hoping for! Interesting, if rather depressing – perhaps we don’t talk about it so much because we find it hard to imagine, or because we see enough misery caused by neglect to worry about even more?
  I don’t suppose you have any links or places to look at the Munro and Thrusfield studies you mention?
  Thanks again, very helpful.
  
  Reply
  1. Dr Sean Taylor BVSc GPCert(F&L) MRCVS MAE
    
    July 12, 2017
    
    Hi Nick, if you Google ‘Munro Battered Pet Syndrome’ there are a number of articles related to this subject by Professor Ranald Munro and his wife Helen.
    
    Reply
Fenris Wilson

July 12, 2017

The problem is that if clients lose faith and trust in their vet then they simply will not bring their animals in for treatment. How much damage do you think one wrong report would do to the client base? At least the animals you see have been brought in for treatment. Think of the parallels with child cases. People fear social workers. They are afraid to take children to hospital for fear of just this sort of accusation. Some of those most in need of help avoid it at all costs. I think you have your priorities right. Provide uncritical treatment so long as there is no definite proof.

Reply