We need to recognize that restraint is, by its nature, a harm, no matter how good our techniques. Restraint dictates that we move into the animal's personal space without the animal's permission. This move is not morally neutral.
JESSICA PIERCE: A central feature in our lives with companion animals is the use of force. Instances of physical restraint in the home are ubiquitous. We hold our animals still so often that we might not even be aware that we are doing it: when we are clipping nails, giving a bath, allowing a child to hug a dog or cat who is struggling to get away, physically pushing a dog or cat into a crate against their will, even holding our dog down as we try on his… Halloween costume…
Indeed, physical restraint has been so normalized in our relations with companion animals that we hardly give it a second thought. But it needs a second thought, and a third, because it has the potential not only to inflict fear in the short-term, but it also can have long-term negative psychological fallout…
Within veterinary medicine, some form of restraint will be experienced by nearly all canine and feline patients at some point in their care. Dogs and cats are physically held down by technicians and veterinarians, are muzzled and crated, wrapped in towels, and given intramuscular injections of tranquilizers… As veterinarian Lore Haug notes in a DVM360 article on restraint of animals, “Effective restraint is one of those aspects of veterinary medicine that we…take for granted”…
The risks of using restraint, even in situations involving force applied for compassionate reasons, are clearly outlined in the medical literature… After coercion, psychiatric patients cited long-term effects such as fear, helplessness, and loss of trust. There is no reason to think that dogs and cats under restraint would experience any less emotional trauma than these human psychiatric patients.
Indeed, we know from a huge body of literature in human psychology — most of it involving experiments on animals in a laboratory setting — that involuntary physical restraint is stressful and can result in psychological injury… The experience of restraint, paired with painful or scary stimuli, induces mental breakdown…
We also need to recognize that restraint is, by its nature, a harm, no matter how good our techniques. As Haug says, “Restraint dictates that we move into the animal’s personal space without the animal’s permission.” This move is not morally neutral…
Whereas in human medicine the trend, at least over the past few decades, has been toward greater and greater respect for patient autonomy, the same trend is not recognizable in veterinary medicine. We move into the personal space of animals as a matter of course and without really thinking about it. Indeed, the use of the term “autonomy” in relation to animal patients is generally met with resistance and even puzzlement.
The Fear Free movement emphasizes that forcing treatment on dogs and other animals is stressful and potentially traumatizing for them. Saying we should reduce fear is still a long way from saying we should get consent or respect autonomy, but it is a step in the right direction.
Physical restraint may be unavoidable at some junctures in our care of dogs and cats. If we do decide that use of forceful restraint is necessary, we can then set our minds to minimizing harm and maximizing compassion. In the human context, compassion maximization involves maintaining patient engagement and respecting autonomy to the greatest degree possible. We can think hard about what this might look like with our dogs and cats. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: