How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

Anthony Dennison — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:44:14 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31279/how-the-law-doesn-t-protect-animals-from-over-treatment/248153#248153"]So someone has a new technique they want to try. They do it with owner consent. But it's never been done before so therefore by definition is experimental and without the Home Office paperwork very shaky ground. [/quote]

I think this is why a lot of novel techniques are first recorded/published from institutions outside of the UK. Once a case report has been published with outcomes and follow ups, how long before it is not considered experimental?

For example, the TEER procedure I think has been performed in Japan for a few years, and is only now in the UK. Is that experimental or just a new technique for UK specialists to learn?

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

David Mills — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 02:27:00 GMT

One angle for this is the grey area between accepted veterinary practice and experimental (ASPA).

So someone has a new technique they want to try. They do it with owner consent. But it's never been done before so therefore by definition is experimental and without the Home Office paperwork very shaky ground.

It happens a lot. Then gets published as a case series!

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:22:22 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31279/how-the-law-doesn-t-protect-animals-from-over-treatment/248126#248126"]But I would not put it past some enthusiastic (in original sense) RSPCA manager to initiate a prosecution if some disgruntled owner (or busybody neighbour) chose to go running to them.[/quote]

But again, I think it would be a hard one to prosecute someone for over-treatment when it is almost always with the best of intention.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31279/how-the-law-doesn-t-protect-animals-from-over-treatment/248126#248126"]And if you feel it would always fall short of that – well, you have still to define over-treatment. I know what it means, you know what it means, Peter Fordyce knows what it means, but our versions of what we know might differ...[/quote]

I'm sure you're right. There are so many subjective factors in what constitutes over treatment. How much is the dog suffering? What are the chances of it suffering less as a result of treatment? For how much longer, and does that justify the means? And so on and so forth.

The point of the film is not to dictate where the limit lies, but just to encourage everyone, owners and vets, to think about the factors that can lead to over treatment.

I'm a little nervous of raising the veterinary factors, for fear of it being seen as criticism (which it is not): desire not to disappoint or to avoid failure, desire to do something exciting, commercial pressures etc. One other thing which Peter didnt mention is whether vets, like (in my experience) doctors, have a sort of built-in bias towards treatment based on the fact that that's your job. In my daughter's case, we had, on occasion, to fight hard AGAINST treatment doctors seemed ideologically wedded to.

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:01:32 GMT

Well, yes, and I quite understand your points.

But I would not put it past some enthusiastic (in original sense) RSPCA manager to initiate a prosecution if some disgruntled owner (or busybody neighbour) chose to go running to them.

And if you feel it would always fall short of that – well, you have still to define over-treatment. I know what it means, you know what it means, Peter Fordyce knows what it means, but our versions of what we know might differ...

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 17:52:17 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31279/how-the-law-doesn-t-protect-animals-from-over-treatment/248122#248122"]Well, OK, but doesn't the Animal Welfare Act make it an offence to do something that is likely to cause unnecessary suffering?[/quote]

Hi Evelyn Barbour-Hill as far as I can see, yes, but I'm not sure it makes much difference, because I cant see how the government would ever prosecute an owner or vet for 'over-treatment', for which an argument can always be made that a positive outcome was sought and expected. I'm sure this could be said of the most extreme, experimental surgery possible (not sure what that is these days). So over-treatment really does seem to be beyond the reach of the law.

RE: How the law doesn't protect animals from over-treatment

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:24:32 GMT

Well, OK, but doesn't the Animal Welfare Act make it an offence to do something that is likely to cause unnecessary suffering?