EQUINE VETERINARY EDUCATION / AE / MAY 2015


III


Ethics: Altering a horse’s tail—why not? By Nat T. Messer IV, DVM


The authors of the AAEP position statements have carefully and thoughtfully drafted these statements to establish AAEP policy when it comes to all aspects of equine practice. Many of these position statements, including the Ethical and Professional Guidelines, serve as a template for all members to take into consideration in the context of his or her practice. It is incumbent on all practitioners to familiarize themselves with both the AAEP position statements and the Ethical and Professional Guidelines.


All members of the AAEP are expected to comply with the following: a) the Code of Ethics of the AAEP (or coun- terpart in foreign countries), b) the AAEP’s Ethical and Professional Guidelines, Bylaws and procedures of their enforcement, c) the Code of Ethics of the veterinary medical association of the state or province in which licensed, d) all rules and regulations of racing applicable at racetracks where practicing, e) rules of organizations governing horse shows, sales, equine events and all the rules of all breed registries in relation to veterinary practices, and f) all other laws of the land.


Dr. Nat T. Messer


With regard to the propriety of performing procedures that alter tails in horses such as docking, cutting (nicking) or blocking, the AAEP has a Position on Tail Alteration in Horses:


The American Association of Equine Practitioners condemns the alteration of the tail of the horse for cosmetic or competitive purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, docking, nicking (i.e., cutting) and blocking. When performed for cosmetic purposes, these procedures do not contribute to the health or welfare of the horse and are primarily used for gain in the show ring (nicking/ cutting, blocking and docking) or because of historical custom (docking). If a horse’s tail becomes injured or diseased and requires medical or surgical intervention, such care should be provided by a licensed veterinarian.


The AAEP urges all breed associations and disciplines to establish and enforce guidelines to eliminate these practices and to educate their membership on the horse health risks they may create. Members of the AAEP should educate their clients about the potential health risks, welfare concerns, legal and/or regulatory ramifica-


tions regarding these procedures based on the relevant jurisdiction and/or association rules.


Revised by AAEP board of directors in May 2015


This policy was promulgated for several reasons. First, these procedures will likely adversely affect the health and welfare of the horse and are only being done for cosmetic or competitive purposes and personal gain. In addition, there are both published1


and anecdotal2 reports of


serious, life-threatening complications associated with tail blocks, including such things as ascending hind-end paralysis, clostridial infections at the base of the tail, and sloughing of the tail and surrounding musculature. Second, because of item (e) above, it is unethical for an AAEP member to alter tail function of a horse by the application or administration of any drug, chemical,


Muscle atrophy/deformity four months after a tail block and resultant infection in the musculature above the base of the tail.


foreign substance, surgical procedure, or trauma that could result in alteration of normal tail function, carriage, conformation, or overall appearance as expressly prohibited by certain breed registries; and thus doing so would constitute unethical behavior as defined by AAEP’s Ethical and Professional Guidelines. And last, but certainly not least, docking and cutting tails are prohibited by law in several states, so in those states at least, performing those procedures would be considered unethical based on item (f) above in the AAEP’s guidelines.


So what should an ethical veterinarian do when asked by a client or trainer to alter tail function in a horse? The simple answer would be to refuse to do it and then explain why: because 1) it is not in the best interests of the horse’s health and welfare, 2) it is unethical for me to perform such procedures contrary to the rules of the breed continued on page IV


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84