Now, all 50 states either allow or explicitly require veterinarians to report suspected animal cruelty, which often co-occurs with other types of family violence... And, although it created differential standards for farmed animals, Kentucky’s law is a significant step forward.
Summary: Kentucky has amended its law prohibiting veterinarians from
reporting suspected animal cruelty. Advocates worked for years to change
this law, which had good intentions regarding personal privacy but
unintended consequences for animal victims of abuse. Although it created
differential standards for farmed animals, Kentucky’s law is a significant
step forward. Now, all 50 states either allow or explicitly require
veterinarians to report suspected animal cruelty, which often co-occurs with
other types of family violence. Animals’ legal status as property shapes the
veterinarian-client-patient relationship and can create ethical conflicts.
On April 24, 2020, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear signed Senate Bill 21 into
law, which empowers veterinarians to report suspected animal cruelty. Before
the passage of this important legislation, Kentucky was the only state that
explicitly prohibited veterinarians from alerting authorities that an animal
in their care may be the victim of abuse.
In contrast to Kentucky’s previous law — which prohibited veterinarians from
releasing “information concerning a client or care of a client’s animal”
unless consent was obtained from the animal’s caregiver or a court order was
issued — SB 21 allows veterinarians to make good-faith reports if they
suspect an animal is being abused.
As is common with legislation, the bill underwent several amendments. For
example, the final version created differential standards for reporting
cruelty to farmed animals (discussed further below). It also made reporting
voluntary rather than mandatory. However, SB 21 is a significant step
forward for Kentucky’s animal protection laws.
An Anomalous Law
It may seem counterintuitive that state law would actively prevent
veterinarians from reporting suspected animal cruelty — especially since
they may be the only people to observe signs of abuse. As the only state in
the nation with such a ban, Kentucky was indeed an outlier. Liability and
confidentiality issues were the impetus for this unusual law. However, in an
effort to address these concerns, Kentucky’s ban went too far and resulted
in harm to animals.
From a public policy perspective, veterinarians’ liability and owners’
confidentiality concerns must be balanced with the state’s interest in
preventing animal cruelty. Indeed, other states with reporting laws have
found ways to keep client confidentiality intact while recognizing that
veterinarians are often the only witnesses to animal cruelty. Many
individuals and groups worked to change Kentucky’s restrictive law for
years, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund assisted with these efforts and
supported local advocates.
A spokesperson for the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, Jim Weber,
told WFPL that the previous reporting ban came about as an accident. The
KVMA sponsored legislation to make veterinary records confidential to
protect clients’ sensitive information, citing cases of domestic violence
where ex-partners tried to find a victim’s address through veterinary
records:
Reported domestic abuse cases sparked the group to seek the stronger privacy
protections. ‘We sponsored legislation that would make the records
confidential,’ Weber said. ‘Unfortunately, it was a case of unintended
consequences, where we failed to have an exemption being able to report
animal abuse.’
Weber said “his group has tried for almost 10 years to change the statute to
allow for reporting of animal abuse” but animal agriculture groups like the
Kentucky Farm Bureau actively opposed these efforts. To appease this
opposition and move the bill forward, a compromise was reached that created
differential standards for farmed animals.
Differential Standards for Farmed Animals
In addition to making reporting voluntary rather than mandatory, the final
version of SB 21 also created differential reporting standards for farmed
animals. The new law directs veterinarians to report suspected animal
cruelty to law enforcement — unless that animal is a farmed animal. Abuse to
farmed animals must be reported to the State Veterinarian for a second
opinion before a cruelty report can be filed.1
The original version of the bill directed all animal abuse to be reported to
law enforcement, but was amended to “only allow the veterinarian to report
abuse to the Office of the State Veterinarian for an animal for which an
on-farm livestock or poultry care standard has been promulgated or to law
enforcement for any other animal.”
Farmed animals often receive lesser treatment under animal protection
laws. Common problems include exemptions in animal cruelty statutes for
“customary” or “standard” agricultural practices (alluded to in the above
amendment) and underenforcement of laws that do exist. Exempted practices do
not have a legal definition and — to the extent they are defined at all —
are determined by the industry itself.
Farmed animals suffer tremendously on factory farms and receive minimal
legal protections. Undercover investigations and whistleblowers have
revealed time and again an entrenched and twofold problem: 1) individual
acts of egregious abuse committed by workers against farmed animals and 2)
the institutional cruelty inherent to the normal business model of factory
farms and slaughterhouses. Unfortunately, farmed animals are not cared for
with the same standards — including veterinary standards — that companion
animals are, and common exemptions make it unlikely that farmed animal
maltreatment will be recognized as abuse the way it would if the victim were
a dog, cat, or other companion animal.
Lack of knowledge and resources are among the factors that contribute to lax
enforcement of cruelty laws when the victim is a farmed animal. To address
these issues, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has created farmed animal
cruelty prosecution guides to assist prosecutors and law enforcement with
the various stages of animal cruelty cases involving farmed animals. We are
also working legislatively to repeal common exemptions in animal cruelty
laws that exclude “standard agricultural practices” and leave farmed animals
vulnerable to abuse.2
Veterinary Reporting Laws
With Kentucky’s new law, which becomes effective in July 2020, all 50 states
now permit — either by statute or the absence of prohibitive legislation —
veterinarians to report animal cruelty. Approximately two-thirds of states
have reporting laws, which either require veterinarians to report suspected
animal cruelty or expressly permit them to do so. The remaining states have
no laws that address reporting, making them implicitly permissive.
In addition to state laws, administrative regulations may mandate reporting
animal cruelty as a duty through state veterinary rules of professional
responsibility. If a veterinarian fails to report in such a state, they may
face disciplinary action by the state licensing board or even lose their
license.
Both mandatory and permissive laws generally provide some protection from
civil liability for veterinarians who make good-faith reports. For a
comprehensive list of state reporting laws, see the Animal Legal Defense
Fund’s resource, “Laws in favor of veterinary reporting of animal cruelty.”3
The Connection Between Animal Cruelty and Interpersonal Violence
Animals are increasingly integrated into human families, which is both good
and bad, depending on the family. In a loving family a companion animal may
be respected and cared for, but in a violent family, the animal will likely
be abused along with other vulnerable family members.
Research has repeatedly shown that violence against people and violence
against animals are interconnected.4 While abusing an animal is always
wrong, growing awareness of the co-occurrence of animal cruelty with
domestic violence and child abuse has helped elevate the issue in public
policy and law. Particularly in the fields of criminal justice and mental
health, evidence of this connection has brought much-needed attention and
resources to the issue as a pressing societal problem.5
In domestic violence contexts, there is often a hierarchy of victims,
with children and animals occupying the most vulnerable positions due to
their inability to escape the situation. Though possessing more situational
agency, adult victims face multiple barriers to safely leave an abusive
partner — including the fact that abusers frequently threaten to harm or
kill a beloved animal as a way to terrorize, control, and manipulate the
human victim into staying. A 2017 study showed that 56 percent of women in
domestic violence shelters had delayed their escape out of fear for their
animals and a desire to protect them (Barrett et al. 2017). Unfortunately,
violent partners often follow through on these threats. Compounding the
difficulties that survivors face in fleeing an abusive partner, many
domestic violence shelters do not allow companion animals.6
In addition to domestic violence, animal cruelty and child abuse often occur
together.7 For this reason, veterinarians play an important role not only in
identifying animal cruelty and helping an animal in distress, but also in
alerting authorities that there may be child abuse happening in the home.
Therefore, Kentucky’s new law will help not only animals, but may help human
victims of abuse as well.
Animals’ Legal Status and the Veterinarian-Client-Patient
Relationship
Like most issues affecting animals, the veterinarian-patient-client
relationship is framed by animals’ legal status. Although the animal is the
patient, the human owner is the veterinarian’s client and generally has
ultimate decision-making authority because animals are classified as
property. Property status affects the veterinarian’s role and
responsibilities and can create ethical conflicts.
For example, an owner may bring their healthy companion animal to a
veterinarian to be killed for any number of reasons. Veterinarians can
refuse to comply with this request on ethical grounds, but there is no law
against this; the only legal restriction is that the killing must be done
using a method deemed “humane.”8 The case of Emma, a dog killed last year in
Virginia because Emma’s deceased owner wanted to be buried with her, brought
this issue to light.
Emma was a healthy, friendly Shih Tzu mix who was killed upon her owner’s
death because the owner left this directive in her will. Staff at the
shelter where Emma spent two weeks following her owner’s death said they
could have easily found her a new home. Yet, the executors of the will were
determined to carry out the deceased woman’s instructions. The shelter
complied and released Emma to the executors, who had her killed by a
veterinarian.
This incident, which received widespread media coverage, understandably
shocked many. However — highlighting one of the problems with animals’
current legal status — it is generally not against the law to destroy one’s
personal property, provided it is done via legally authorized methods.9 When
animals are property of their owners, incidents like this routinely happen,
although they do not typically make the news.10
In Emma’s case, some veterinarians told the media they would not have
carried out the pet destruction clause. Yet, the executors obviously found a
veterinarian willing to fulfill the owner’s wish. However, for many
veterinarians being asked to kill a healthy adoptable animal creates a
difficult conflict, which arises directly from animals’ legal status as
property.
Conclusion
For more than a decade, Kentucky ranked last in the Animal Legal Defense
Fund’s annual rankings of state animal protection laws. In 2019, the state
broke its losing streak and rose to 47th place after criminalizing the
sexual assault of animals.11 This new law continues that upward trajectory.
While there is still much room for improvement to ensure animals are
adequately protected in Kentucky, allowing veterinarians to report suspected
cruelty is an important step forward.
Further Reading
References
Return to Companion Animal Care