Cargando…

A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Animal health and welfare policy in the UK often raises important ethical questions. Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling and the use of wild animals in circuses are good examples of controversial policy issues. In the UK, animal health and welfare advisory bodies such as the Farm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCulloch, Steven P., Reiss, Michael J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29875347
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8060088
_version_ 1783336325907218432
author McCulloch, Steven P.
Reiss, Michael J.
author_facet McCulloch, Steven P.
Reiss, Michael J.
author_sort McCulloch, Steven P.
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Animal health and welfare policy in the UK often raises important ethical questions. Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling and the use of wild animals in circuses are good examples of controversial policy issues. In the UK, animal health and welfare advisory bodies such as the Farm Animal Welfare Committee do no not have adequate expertise to inform the moral dimensions of such policy issues. This paper proposes a body to be termed the “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing ethics Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). We conclude that the Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent of government and its members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A six-stage ethical framework is proposed that would help the Council to reach conclusions about such issues as whether badgers should be culled in an attempt to control bovine TB and whether wild animals should be permitted to perform in circuses. ABSTRACT: Substantial controversy is a consistent feature of UK animal health and welfare policy. BSE, foot and mouth disease, bovine TB and badger culling, large indoor dairies, and wild animals in circuses are examples. Such policy issues are inherently normative; they include a substantial moral dimension. This paper reviews UK animal welfare advisory bodies such as the Animal Health and Welfare Board of England, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the Animals in Science Committee. These bodies play a key advisory role, but do not have adequate expertise in ethics to inform the moral dimension of policy. We propose an “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). The Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent from government and members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A pluralistic six-stage ethical framework is proposed: (i) Problematisation of the policy issue, (ii) utilitarian analysis, (iii) animal rights analysis, (iv) virtue-based analysis, (v) animal welfare ethic analysis, and (vi) integrated ethical analysis. The paper concludes that an Ethics Council for Animal Policy is necessary for just and democratic policy making in all societies that use sentient nonhuman species.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6025636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60256362018-07-16 A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making McCulloch, Steven P. Reiss, Michael J. Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Animal health and welfare policy in the UK often raises important ethical questions. Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling and the use of wild animals in circuses are good examples of controversial policy issues. In the UK, animal health and welfare advisory bodies such as the Farm Animal Welfare Committee do no not have adequate expertise to inform the moral dimensions of such policy issues. This paper proposes a body to be termed the “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing ethics Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). We conclude that the Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent of government and its members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A six-stage ethical framework is proposed that would help the Council to reach conclusions about such issues as whether badgers should be culled in an attempt to control bovine TB and whether wild animals should be permitted to perform in circuses. ABSTRACT: Substantial controversy is a consistent feature of UK animal health and welfare policy. BSE, foot and mouth disease, bovine TB and badger culling, large indoor dairies, and wild animals in circuses are examples. Such policy issues are inherently normative; they include a substantial moral dimension. This paper reviews UK animal welfare advisory bodies such as the Animal Health and Welfare Board of England, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the Animals in Science Committee. These bodies play a key advisory role, but do not have adequate expertise in ethics to inform the moral dimension of policy. We propose an “Ethics Council for Animal Policy” to inform the UK government on policy that significantly impacts sentient species. We review existing Councils (e.g., the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and The Netherlands Council on Animal Affairs) and examine some widely used ethical frameworks (e.g., Banner’s principles and the ethical matrix). The Ethics Council for Animal Policy should be independent from government and members should have substantial expertise in ethics and related disciplines. A pluralistic six-stage ethical framework is proposed: (i) Problematisation of the policy issue, (ii) utilitarian analysis, (iii) animal rights analysis, (iv) virtue-based analysis, (v) animal welfare ethic analysis, and (vi) integrated ethical analysis. The paper concludes that an Ethics Council for Animal Policy is necessary for just and democratic policy making in all societies that use sentient nonhuman species. MDPI 2018-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6025636/ /pubmed/29875347 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8060088 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
McCulloch, Steven P.
Reiss, Michael J.
A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title_full A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title_fullStr A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title_full_unstemmed A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title_short A Proposal for a UK Ethics Council for Animal Policy: The Case for Putting Ethics Back into Policy Making
title_sort proposal for a uk ethics council for animal policy: the case for putting ethics back into policy making
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29875347
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8060088
work_keys_str_mv AT mccullochstevenp aproposalforaukethicscouncilforanimalpolicythecaseforputtingethicsbackintopolicymaking
AT reissmichaelj aproposalforaukethicscouncilforanimalpolicythecaseforputtingethicsbackintopolicymaking
AT mccullochstevenp proposalforaukethicscouncilforanimalpolicythecaseforputtingethicsbackintopolicymaking
AT reissmichaelj proposalforaukethicscouncilforanimalpolicythecaseforputtingethicsbackintopolicymaking