State of the Art Lecture
Randall Lockwood, PhD
Dr. Lockwood is President of The American
Association of Humane Societies. He is a well-known speaker on the association
between cruelty toward animals and violence toward humans.
A decade ago, stories of animal cruelty
and human violence attracted little media attention and were not a significant
part of American popular culture. There was comparatively little professional
interest in the topic outside of the animal care and control community
and only limited discussion of the issue within the professions most directly
affected by the abuse of animals and its links to other forms of violence,
namely mental health, criminal justice, and veterinary medicine (Lockwood,
1999).
The situation has changed dramatically
in recent years. Serious animal cruelty cases receive national attention
in the U.S. and Canada. A recent incident of road rage in California involving
a Bichon Frise thrown into traffic by an irate motorist launched a national
manhunt and rewards in excess of $120,000. Similarly, the case of 13-year-old
Saskatoon girl charged in connection with a series of cat mutilations attracted
attention throughout North America. Many factors are responsible for this
shift.
First, there is stronger scientific evidence
for the connection between animal cruelty and violence against humans (Arkow,
1992; Lockwood and Ascione, 1998; Ascione and Arkow, 1999). Although much
of this literature existed well before 1980, it attracted little attention
until popularised by animal advocacy groups, social service workers, and
growing public fascination with the life histories of violent offenders.
Second, public interest in animal cruelty
is a natural corollary of growing concern about the overall proliferation
of violence in society and a strong movement to find effective tools for
identifying victims and perpetrators of violence at the earliest stages
of abuse. Finally, interest in the connection has been strengthened by
the practical validity of paying attention to the maltreatment of animals
when confronting violence. Law-enforcement officers benefit by taking the
actions of animal abusers seriously, social workers and mental health professionals
get useful information by asking clients about the treatment of family
pets, and therapists seeking interventions that will build empathy and
develop non-violent skills see the benefits of fostering compassion for
animals.
Professions other than humane agents
and animal care and control workers have begun to take interest in these
connections in recent years. Indicators of this change in the mental health
and law-enforcement communities are the inclusion of animal cruelty into
the diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder (American Psychiatric Association,
1994), the widespread distribution of material on animal cruelty by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (Lockwood, 1989), and substantial
inclusion of material on the subject in the Jumpstart training program
for newly appointed prosecutors launched in 1998 by the National Association
of District Attorneys and the American Prosecutors Research Institute.
In the U.S., veterinary involvement in
the animal cruelty/human violence issue has been comparatively slow to
build, but is attracting increasing attention. The topic has been addressed
in the veterinary literature sporadically over the last decade, usually
by non-veterinarians (Lockwood, 1985; Arkow, 1992; Rollin, 1994; Geisler,
1995; Christy, 1995).
This was followed by several first-hand accounts of the treatment
of animal injuries associated with suspicions of other ongoing violence
or the potential for violence (Butler and Lagoni, 1995; Craig and Loar,
1998). Landau (1999) surveyed the deans of 31 American and Canadian schools
of veterinary medicine. Of these, 97% agreed that veterinarians would encounter
instances of intentional animal abuse and 63% agreed that veterinary professionals
would encounter cases of animal cruelty associated with family violence.
Thirty-one percent of deans reported that their schools had a policy requiring
reporting suspected animal abuse. Two of these policies have been discussed
in the literature (Rollin, 1994; Arkow, 1999). However, based on inquiries
received by The Humane Society of the United States, many veterinary students
feel that the issue is inadequately addressed in their training. This is
consistent with Landau’s finding that only 17% of deans reported that students
are explicitly made aware of policies on responding to suspected abuse,
and her estimate that the average veterinary curriculum spends only eight
minutes on the issue of animal cruelty and human violence.
In another survey of small animal practitioners,
Sharpe (1999) estimated that the average practitioner saw 5.6 cases of
animal abuse per 1,000 patients, with little effect of location in a rural,
urban, or suburban practice. She reported that only 8% of the 368 respondents
felt that they had received adequate training in general abuse prevention
and fewer than 44% thought they adequately understood their rights and
responsibilities when responding to suspected animal or human abuse.
Arkow (1992), Rollin (1994), Yoffe-Sharp and Sinclair (1998),
Lagoni et al. (1999), and Lembke (1999) all point out the importance of
veterinary involvement in responding to suspected animal and human abuse,
but it is clear that veterinary professionals are uncertain about the role
the can and should play. They are several reasons for this.
First, there is no widely agreed upon
standard for identifying an injury or other condition in a veterinary patient
as being the result of intentional abuse or extreme neglect. In many ways,
veterinary professionals are working in an environment similar to that
of paediatricians prior to the efforts of Kempe et al. (1962) to define
the battered child syndrome. Several veterinarians have emphasized the
need to establish a similar body of data for animals (Munro,
1996,1998,1999; Patronek, 1998; Miller and Zawistowski, 1998).
As a result, veterinary involvement in such cases is most common when there
is unequivocal evidence of intentional harm.
Second, veterinarians are trained to
base diagnostic assessments, in part, on the facts presented to them by
their clients, who are generally truthful. They are often not prepared
to deal with a client history that is intentionally misleading. Also, like
their paediatrician counterparts of the 1960s, many veterinarians seem
reluctant to believe that a client who intentionally harmed an animal in
his or her care would seek medical treatment for these injuries.
Third, when confronted with suspected
cases of intentional abuse and possible abuse of human family members,
veterinary professionals may be legitimately concerned about the safety
of themselves or their staff if the suspected perpetrator is confronted
about these suspicions. At very least, they may have a reasonable fear
of losing a client, developing a poor reputation in the community, or facing
possible litigation if they act on their suspicions.
Finally, the legal mandates and protections regarding veterinary
response to suspected abuse in the U.S. are currently inconsistent, poorly
publicized, and poorly incorporated into basic or continuing education.
The 1996 Animal Welfare Position Statement of the American Veterinary Medical
Association states that: “The AVMA recognizes that veterinarians may have
occasion to observe cases of cruelty to animals, animal abuse, or animal
neglect as defined by state or local ordinances. When these observations
occur, the AVMA considers it the responsibility of the veterinarian to
report such cases to the appropriate authorities. Such disclosures may
be necessary to protect the health and welfare of animals and people.”
Currently, such reporting of suspected
cruelty to animals is specifically required in only a few states, including
West Virginia, Minnesota, and Alabama. Other states (Arizona, Wisconsin,
and California) only mandate veterinarians to report suspected abuse related
to dog fighting. Some states (Idaho, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California,
and Arizona) encourage reporting abuse by providing immunity for veterinary
professionals who make good-faith reports.
Veterinary mandates to report suspected
human abuse is even more fragmented. The growing recognition of the significant
overlap of child abuse and cruelty to animals (DeViney et al., 1983; Davidson,
1998) contributed to growing interest in cross-training animal care and
control professionals to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Such
reporting is mandated in California for state humane officers (cruelty
investigators) and animal control officers. The mandate for veterinarians
in that state is unclear since they are not specifically listed among the
mandated professions, but could be construed to be mandated under the general
rule for licensed health practitioners. According to the San Francisco
Council on Child Abuse (Loar, personal communication), child protection
officials do not generally consider veterinarians to be mandated reporters
in California and have no records of professional referrals made by such
practitioners, nor of any actions taken against a veterinarian for failing
to report.
Colorado appears to be the only state clearly mandating veterinarians
to report child abuse, but not cruelty to animals. In 1999, Illinois became
the first state to add veterinarians to list of professionals mandated
to report suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the elderly. This
complex landscape is further complicated by the fact that in about half
of the states in the U.S., all adults are considered mandated (and protected)
reporters of suspected child abuse, regardless of profession.
The association of animal abuse with
the dynamic of domestic violence has been well documented (Ascione, 1998).
Given the prevalence of domestic violence and the incidence of animal cruelty
associated with such abuse, it is virtually certain that most companion
animal practitioners have one or more clients whose pets have been injured
or killed in the context of spouse abuse. However, unlike the requirements
for reporting of suspected animal, child or elder abuse, the legislative
assumption in the U.S. has been that victims of domestic violence
are capable of disclosing their victimization to authorities
and any mandates, when present, are usually limited to medical professionals
who gain direct evidence of domestic violence in the direct conduct of
their responsibilities.
Public support for strong and rapid response
to animal cruelty and its associated family violence continues to grow.
As of July of 2000, thirty-one states in U.S. have felony provisions in
their animal cruelty codes making some forms of intentional abuse punishable
by large fines and prison sentences of up to 10 years. This represents
a dramatic increase from only five states with such provisions a decade
ago. It is certain that veterinarians, as key advocates for animals in
society, will increasingly be expected to respond to these concerns. Also,
as Rollin (1994), notes: “... as health care professionals with an
obligation to public health and welfare, they must act to ferret out those
individuals likely to move from animal abuse to human abuse, particularly
child abuse.”
There are many opportunities for veterinary
professionals to become active in helping their communities creatively
address the overlapping circles of family and community violence:
*Playing a key role in the investigation
and documentation of animal cruelty.
* As expert witnesses in the prosecution
of animal cruelty.
* As sentinels for other forms of societal
violence, particularly child abuse, domestic violence and elder abuse.
*As participants in multi-disciplinary
response teams and safe haven programs that provide emergency shelter and
care for the pets of victims of domestic violence.
*As participants and instructors
in cross-training with social service and animal care and control professionals
on the recognition of animal abuse and neglect.
*As supporters of and participants
in animal-oriented prevention and intervention programs for at-risk populations.
Violence affects
all of us, either directly as victims or friends or family of victims,
or indirectly as citizens who must bear the costs of law-enforcement and
social service systems that try to prevent or respond to the interconnected
webs of victims and perpetrators. The goal of the humane movement has always
been to work at the roots of these problems and to foster an ethic of compassion
that extends beyond individual, family, racial, political, and species
barriers. As professionals who already have extended their interest and
concerns in this way, veterinarians are well-suited to play a central
role in helping to find creative approaches to address violence in society
and provide healing that extends far beyond the animals in their care.