What Rights Do Pets Deserve?
ROGER COSSACK, HOST: Do you think of your pets as your children? If you divorce, who gets custody? Can you collect for pain and suffering if they're killed in an accident or deliberately? More than just property, the law in many cases treats pets as nearly human, deciding in their best interest even over the desires of their owners. How far should courts go in determining animal rights?</s>STEVEN WISE, ANIMAL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: If it turns out that animals that we use for food have the kinds of minds that would warrant fundamental legal rights, then they should no longer be killed.</s>COSSACK: Does it stop with dogs and cats? What about snakes, fish, birds or pigs? Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Roger Cossack in for Bobbie Battista. All over the country, court cases are being fought and won on behalf of pets. Now, we are not talking about animal cruelty cases, but the type you might usually associate with human family members, suits over custody, pain and suffering, and judges who consider the animals best interest. In California, there are even attempts to have pet owners declared legal guardians of their animals. Now, here to talk about legal rights for animals is Barbara Newell, an attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Richard Cupp, an attorney and professor of Pepperdine University, a school of law. Barbara, let me start with you. What kind of rights should animals have?</s>BARBARA NEWELL, ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: Well, really, I don't know that we are talking about legal rights for animals just yet. I think we are talking more about the concerns of humans that live with those animals as family members. We've been filing briefs in cases involving animals, which often are actually cruelty cases, but they're handled at the civil level. In other words, sometimes an individual's beloved dog is shot by a neighbor and under the traditional concept of the law, there was only the government that could go after the neighbor for cruelty. But if they didn't, the person whose dog was shot had basically no recourse against the neighbor except maybe the price of a new dog, which if it was a dog from the shelter, that is effectively zero. So that is really not -- we are not talking about rights of the dog in that case. And the other area of cases that we are filing in is custody disputes and all we are basically saying is that when two people are disputing with which of them a dog or a cat should live, at least part of the consideration needs to be the interest of that dog or cat. It's not just -- it doesn't just boil down to who has the better bill of sale, particularly if one of those people is abusive.</s>COSSACK: Well, Barbara, let's take it one step forward and let's say that in the hypothetical -- the first one you gave where we're talking about the neighbor hurting or injuring my pet, my -- let's just assume that it's my dog and I sue that neighbor for injuring my dog. What kind of damages could I get? Let's say that the person says to me, well, you can go replace that dog for $500 or $200. Should I get anymore than that?</s>NEWELL: Well, if you can show that, that dog was really your best friend in the world, if you can show that you had a real important bond of companionship with that dog, if you can show that you had severe emotional distress, let's say, if your neighbor mutilated your dog, which I am sorry that does occur -- we get tens of thousands of calls at Animal Legal Defense Fund every year from people absolutely distraught about things that have happened to their animals and they get the message from lawyers who, let's say, aren't aware of some of these newer cases, who say, you know, it's just property, all you can get is the cash value, and believe me, not one of these people is interested in the cash value, they are very upset because they lost their family member.</s>COSSACK: Well, then, what would happen if, for example, I took my dog to a veterinarian and the veterinarian didn't do a good job and I wanted to sue the veterinarian for malpractice; what kind of damages should I get in that, I mean, anything more than what the value of the animal is?</s>NEWELL: Well, again, if you can show -- and of course, not everyone can show this -- but if you can show that you had a true bond of companionship, that you love that dog like a child, as I hear a lot of people sincerely say to me, or if you can show that you experienced severe distress, if you couldn't go to work because you were so distraught, and believe me, that also happens, and of course, you also have to show that your vet committed wrongdoing. This isn't just a matter of, you know, going after good vets and making their life difficult. We are talking about veterinarians who are mangling animals...</s>COSSACK: All right.</s>NEWELL: ... and I certainly hope they're a small percentage, but the point is they need to be -- people need to be compensated for that.</s>COSSACK: All right, let me interrupt you for a second and go to Richard Cupp, professor of law from Pepperdine University. Richard, if we start giving these kinds of rights, or we start giving these kinds of rewards, if you will, to people who have lost their animals either by veterinarian's hand or by the neighbor, what kind of -- what does that mean in terms of rights for animals, and what does that mean in terms of pet owners and economics?</s>RICHARD CUPP, ATTORNEY/LAW PROFESSOR: Well, I think it's important first to distinguish between cases in which someone intentionally injures a pet and cases that would typically fall into the veterinary malpractice category, negligence directed toward a pet. If we have -- we had the scenario raised of someone, a neighbor intentionally shooting a dog, for example, in that kind of a situation, the courts would not just award in a civil lawsuit the dollar value of the dog; rather, they would add on punitive damages. The court system would reflect society's judgment that action like that is odious and needs to be punish. So depending upon the wealth of the defendant, the person who had killed the dog, the damages could be enormous from punitive damages. And even if you had a defendant that wasn't wealthy, they'd be enormous for that defendant. So I think that might be a little bit of a red herring that we need to deal with first. The issue I think that is more of a real problem, a real issue is a negligence kind of case, where, for example, if you take your pet to a veterinarian and a veterinarian doesn't intentionally mangle your pet or something like that -- if he or she does, they should be punished with large damages for punitive damages. But if they negligently mistreat your pet, which will happen from time to time, presently, as you indicated, the damages would be the market value of the pet, which my pet, I love very much, is a dog that I picked up at the pound -- I said before that his market value is probably less than his weekly dog biscuit, which is not going to be very much. But if we change the rules to start allowing damages additionally for emotional distress or loss of companionship damages, which is a similar form of damages, as some animal rights activists are arguing, I'm concerned that we're going to create a situation where pets are actually suffering more.</s>COSSACK: How could that happen, Richard?</s>CUPP: What will happen is that veterinarians are going to have to go out and buy more insurance to cover their malpractice rates. Presently, veterinarian malpractice rates are laughably low, $200 a year, $500 a year, something like that. We all know that the price of human medicine has skyrocketed enormously, in part because of the lawsuit tax that's attached onto human malpractice. The difference is with veterinarian medicine we have a much different demand curve from an economic point of view than we do with human medicine. People go to a vet and say, look, if you can fix my dog for $200, do so, but if it's over $200, put it to sleep. Or people don't go to a vet at all because they won't spend the money. Now, I'm not going to address whether that's right or wrong, but the consequences, if vets have to drastically increase the rates that they charge because they're having to pay more malpractice insurance, fewer pets will get medical treatment. Pets will actually suffer more.</s>COSSACK: Barbara, let me give you another hypothetical. Suppose that there comes a time when a husband and wife break up and the husband wants to go someplace, and there's been two dogs that have been in the family. And the husband says, I'm going to take one of the dogs and you can have the other. And the wife says, no, I think it's in the best interest of the dogs if they both stay here with me; look, that's all they know; I've got this big backyard; it's not fair to the animals if you separate them. In that case, what should happen?</s>NEWELL: Well, what we're seeing in our brief is that the animal's needs need to be part of the equation. We're not...</s>COSSACK: But how do we know what the animal needs are? I guess that's the point I'm getting to. I mean, we can't talk to them and we can't ask them.</s>NEWELL: Yes, and we're not asking any judge to try to go into something that's speculative. We do have scientific evidence: We know that mammals like dogs and cats experience things like hunger and thirst and physical pain, for example, if they're harmed, going back to the neighbor scenario. They experience those physical sensations similarly. And so those are things that we know are in their interest. And if you can show, for example, that one of those two people routinely beat the dog or deprive the dog of food or something, that ought to be part of the decision.</s>COSSACK: That -- and I agree with you. And that, of course, would be cruelty. But we've got to take a break. Barbara Newell and Richard Cupp, thank you both for joining us today on this abbreviated show. Animals for pleasure, animals for food, and what's the difference. And how do veterinarians fit into this picture? Is there a price to pay for animal rights? We'll talk to two vets who disagree, next.</s>COSSACK: Joining us now is Dr. Michael Fox, a consulting veterinarian, bioethicist and syndicated columnist. He's the author of a number of books, including "The Healing Touch" and "Understanding Your Pet." Also with us by phone is Dr. Arthur Tennyson, assistant executive vice president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Well, Mr. Fox, I want to ask you what kind of writes should pets -- should we now extend the law that our animals, our pets should have inalienable rights?</s>DR. MICHAEL FOX, VETERINARIAN/BIOETHICIST: Well, initially, we are talking about the emotional value of animal companions, and when we look at people's health bills who have an animal companion, they have fewer trips to see the doctor, hospital and so on because of the emotional, physical benefits of having a companion animal. But as for the rights, we do acknowledge that animals have certain rights: not the right to an education or to vote, but a right to humane treatment, a right to proper veterinary care when needed, a right to good nutrition, a right to being understood. And when we put all this together, we're seeing essentially a new covenant of communion with these animals and a shifting toward a more "equalitarian" attitude. We're not saying equal rights; we're saying equal and fair consideration, because these animals can suffer like we. They're physiologically and emotionally more similar to us than they are different.</s>COSSACK: Why aren't we saying equal rights? I mean, why -- why don't we draw the line? Obviously, we say they're not entitled to an education, but you know, in some ways we could say, look, they're entitled to the kind of good care, good health care. Those are the same kinds of things that we would give our family members.</s>FOX: Well, education, you could say, well, training is a good investment. You train your dog. Some animals -- cats, for example, don't need to be trained and goldfish and so on. But in terms of respect and compassion and responsible care, custodianship -- we're even moving away from the concept of a person being an owner and the language of pet -- to saying custodian or guardian and animal companion. So there is a so-called paradigm shift going on. We are reevaluating our relationship with non-human animals and our responsibilities. Some can say: Well, animals really do not have rights. But we do have obligations, duties, responsibilities.</s>COSSACK: Dr. Tennyson, if you -- I think if follow what Dr. Fox says, there is an implication here that animals would have certain needs that should be met. But the problem is: How do we know what those needs are? How do we know what they want? What are we, as people who are good people, want to do the right thing, how do we know what to do?</s>TENNYSON: Well, I think that that's a key element. And I fully agree with Dr. Fox that we have a responsibility and an obligation to care for our animals humanely and with respect, and to provide for their needs. That is our obligation and our responsibility as part of our right to own animals. But animals in themselves are unable to express their own rights. And they can't carry out the responsibilities that go with it, because they haven't that kind of judgment and ability. It is our responsibility. And therefore, the association and the veterinarian profession, predominantly, look more towards a concept of animal welfare as the responsibility of owners than the rights of the animals themselves.</s>COSSACK: Well, then let me -- then let me jump in and ask both of you gentlemen the question. If that is all true -- and we hope that it is -- then how come are we not all veterinarians, if we're looking at for the welfare of animals? It is not in their best welfare to become our steaks.</s>DR. ARTHUR TENNYSON, VETERINARIAN: Well, one could go back to "Genesis," where humans were given dominance over the animals for their benefit. And that can be argued in various different areas. But as food, fiber, and so on, animals have been our servants as beasts of burden, as helpers, through ages. And to provide food for humans has been a condition that has existed throughout time.</s>FOX: So for me to chip in here: When you look at "Genesis..."</s>COSSACK: Dr. Fox, please go ahead.</s>FOX: The book of "Genesis," dominion originally means -- comes from the root verbiarad (ph), from ancient Hebrew. And it means to come down to -- to have communion with. And it is an injunction not to dominate, but to really engage in compassionate stewardship. And we should remember that while animals eat each other, and some of us choose to eat animals, there are humane slaughter laws in most civilized countries that recognize the rights of animals to humane treatment, even to the point of death. There is also humane transportation laws.</s>COSSACK: Doctor, humane slaughter -- is to me, sounds to me like an oxymoron: two words that just don't make sense when you put them together. You know, human slaughter just doesn't make much sense to me, sir.</s>FOX: Well -- when -- when you see -- when you see inhumane slaughter, you will know the difference.</s>COSSACK: But the bottom line is the bottom line, and which is that...</s>FOX: Is killing.</s>COSSACK: ... is killing. And you know, hopefully, I mean -- we would hope that, you know, obviously, you know, I am not a hypocrite in the sense that we understand that we -- these are animals -- but if you -- both of you gentlemen are talking about humane treatment and that obligations that we have for animals, I mean, what do we do about this? Where do we draw the line? I mean, why is the cow...</s>FOX: In some countries...</s>COSSACK: ... less valuable to us than our dog?</s>FOX: In some countries -- in some countries, dogs are killed for food. It's unthinkable here. In other countries, it's unthinkable to kill cows for food. We are beginning to change, to explore and examine the legal status of animals, cultural traditions, and I think, beginning to see animals in and for themselves, and having intrinsic value and a life of their own. And this is a radical change in perception. And I think it's all for the good.</s>COSSACK: Well, I am afraid we are out of time on this abbreviated version of TALKBACK LIVE today. Thanks to all of our guests, and our studio audience, and you too, for joining us. We'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. And I will see you then.