With respect to the first point of the FAWC, the notion of “best interests” allows the owner to include facts about the individual animal and its situation in the decision-making process and to discuss them in conjunction with the clinician`s medical knowledge. The inclusion of such information is therefore more likely to lead to an ethically valid result for the parties involved. Decisions regarding the medical treatment of animal patients involve two important decision-makers, the animal owner and the veterinarian. We want to show that these decisions should and can be based on the “best interest” of the animal, with both human decision-makers acting as advocates for the animal to be treated. We suggest that the role of the pet owner is similar to that of a parent in making decisions for a child, relying on legal affairs to show the limits of parental (and property) decision-making. In order to provide a stronger basis for “best interest” decision-making, we adapt the factors contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and show how they could be used in a typical clinical situation. Finally, we analyze decisions from an ethical point of view. Medical decisions concerning young children are taken by persons exercising parental responsibility, with legal participation taking place only if the decision is likely to harm the best interests of the child. Although legally classified as property, some argue that animals are in a similar situation to children; Treatment decisions are made by their owners, which is only a legal challenge if the proposed treatment has the potential to cause unnecessary harm or suffering as defined by animal welfare legislation. This paper formulates the approach for a calculation of “best interests”, using the factors contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and based on the exchange of information between the human parties concerned. While this form of decision-making must primarily protect the animal from unnecessary suffering, it recognizes that the information provided by the owner is crucial in articulating the animal`s non-medical interests and thus formulating what is in the animal`s best overall interest.

Although the law does not require consideration of animal “welfare”, it would be reasonable to expect that this approach would be considered a professional imperative for veterinarians. It is important to note that this version of a best interest calculation can be incorporated into existing ethical frameworks for medical decision-making and humane treatment of animals. For medical treatment to be legal, Coggon requires that the treatment be considered to be in the best interests of the patient (in the opinion of the relevant health care professionals); it is consistent with the patient`s values (e.g., through the patient`s informed consent); and that the necessary resources (including financial) are available to carry out the treatment [1]. Therefore, for adult patients with the capacity to give consent, the legality of treatment is clear. However, for patients without capacity, the picture is somewhat obscured by attempts to make decisions in their “best interest” when the latter term is considered vague, subjective and too difficult to determine [2,3,4]. For children, the best interests test was originally a legal requirement in common law custody cases and was later applied to paediatric health care [21]. A major problem with an objective standard of “best interests” is the difficulty of defining “best interests,” which, according to Baines, can be ontological (there may be no higher objective interests) or epistemological (best interests may exist, but there is no way to understand what they are).[22] It is perhaps not surprising that two of the most relevant contemporary ethical frameworks are related to human patient care and the human use of animals as a food source. These frameworks include several elements of normative ethics to allow not only the interests of the moral actors and patients involved to be taken into account, but also to take these interests into account from the perspective of different ethical approaches. It is important to note that although animal welfare legislation in the UK has recently shifted from a decidedly negative attitude (what an owner should not do to an animal) to a more positive attitude (what an owner must provide for an animal), it still does not promote animal welfare (as illustrated in subsections 3 and 4 of Article 9, , allow for lawful use and humane destruction).

As Robertson points out, animal welfare legislation emphasizes minimum standards rather than best practice [19]. Therefore, the consideration of decisions that prioritize the welfare of the animal under veterinary care requires substantial input from the field of veterinary ethics, as explained in the development of the veterinary ethics instrument by Grimm and others [18]. Although the latter authors emphasize “best interests” as the moral basis for decision-making in pet practice, based on restoring the animal`s health while striving to achieve a positive balance between quality of life, factors other than Bridgeman`s initial dependence (the parent`s or caregiver`s dependence on the physician for professional information and advice) are clearly essential to establish what is the “best interests” of an animal in its particular circumstances. In the case of the cat mentioned in the clinical scenario above, option 1 (perform discounted surgery or offer an appropriate payment plan) appears to be in the animal`s “best interest.” While Option 2 (abandonment of ownership) may satisfy the criterion of charity and non-malevolence in the narrower context of the animal`s health, it conflicts with the principle of the animal`s “best interests” for the reasons mentioned above and would likely have negative psychological effects on the owner. Even though option 3 (euthanasia) can treat the well-being of the cat`s current suffering, as it cannot suffer after death, it deprives the cat of the potential for a favorable balance between pleasure and suffering during its lifetime if successfully treated. If the decision is considered from the perspective of “scope”, it would also have negative psychological effects on the people involved. Although at first glance “the views of the child” and “the identity of the child” seem more applicable to children than to animals, they deserve closer examination. Given the growing knowledge about animal preferences, there may be a place for the animal`s views to be included in the list. By suggesting that the owner is best placed to account for the pet`s personality and preferences, we emphasize that pet owners in a role similar to those with parental responsibility have care responsibilities that give them a unique insight into the pet`s world. Nevertheless, assigning the role of animal preference interpreter to the pet owner may contribute to the burden many owners feel on the “caregiver” [36]. In addition, a number of reservations must be applied to the owner`s perception of animal welfare [37,38].

These warnings include assessing whether the owner has not observed and reported physical signs in the animal that the veterinarian would perceive as indicators of poor welfare, for example. obesity [39], or if, after noticing these signs, the owner does not consider them an animal welfare problem, for example breathing difficulties in brachycephalic dogs [40]. Thus, while the owner`s intention may be beneficial to the pet`s well-being, their interpretation of their welfare status should be limited by a professional welfare assessment, followed by appropriate discussion with the owner. This article is based on the one adopted for the 2020 annual conference of the Association for Sociolegal Studies in the Field of Animal Rights. When the conference had to be cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions, the authors revised the paper for publication. For paediatric and veterinary patients, the decision-maker is also the caregiver. By limiting the comparison with pets, we focus on animals that are often considered family members [11], making the appropriate decisions for them. Unlike decision-making in farm animals or laboratory animals, where interventions primarily benefit the individual (human) or society, the authors argue that decision-making in companion animals should ideally be made based on the “best interest” of each animal [12]. In children, decisions are made by an adult with parental responsibility.