In recent years, an idea that would have seemed strange at the end of the last century has become natural: that of considering dogs as part of the family. And it is, without a doubt, one of the greatest cultural advances in our relationship with them. This form of coexistence, closer, more daily and above all more aware of their emotional and social needs, better responds to what dogs are, deeply social animals, dependent on man for thousands of years and who find real well-being by actively participating in our daily lives. However, alongside this positive development, something different has developed, a tendency which merges with this well-directed affection but actually distorts it, the so-called fur baby culturethe phenomenon of treating dogs as if they were furry human childrennot out of affection, but out of literalness.
A group of veterinarians, increasingly concerned, decided to denounce the risks involved in this idea. His warnings appear in the book. Veterinary controversies and ethical dilemmas. The message that its authors, all professionals in different veterinary fields, want to convey is that a poorly understood humanization gives rise to very serious animal welfare problemspromoting unnecessary diagnoses, excessive treatments and veterinary decisions that, even if they come from good intentions, do not always benefit the animal that receives them.
When humanization is the problem
The warning seems harsh, but it responds to a reality that veterinarians know well. As one of the book’s authors explains: “Some of us see the rise of this culture as a major problem for animals and their welfare. » And this adds the uncomfortable element of highlighting that while some professionals are trying to stop it, others, including large companies in the sector, see it as an economic opportunity.
The team of authors analyzes a phenomenon they call encouraged anthropomorphisman actively promoted anthropomorphism, in which dogs begin to be treated like furry human children, not only in everyday conversations, but also in clinical decision-making. This can lead to surgical or therapeutic interventions that do not improve their quality of life, but compromise it, because the starting point is no longer their ethology and their real needs.
Another author points out that there is a idealization growing bond between humans and animals who, without malicious intent, forget that this bond can also generate burdens, stress and bad decisions.
Not loving them as much and loving them better
Although it may seem obvious and obvious, dogs must be treated according to their ethology, their species and what they actually need, which is not, it is important to emphasize, incompatible with considering them part of the family. The error occurs when the affection becomes an anthropocentric fiction which forces them to adapt to a human mold and we expect them to eat like us, to socialize like us, to deal with pain, fear or frustration like us. This is the breeding ground where humanization ceases to be harmless and begins to cause harm.
The expression dogs It may function as an affectionate joke, a knowing wink to those of us who live with dogs, but when it is interpreted literally, when it becomes a parental model transferred to the animal without considering its physiological and behavioral limitations, it begins to erode fundamental decisions.
And it’s a very nice border. The social progress which has led to people ceasing to consider dogs as tools, objects or consumer accessories should not push them to an opposite extreme where their canine nature is denied.
The mirage of “perfect treatment”
The book devotes a good part of its analysis to dismantling a myth established both among citizens and in part of the veterinary sector, according to which the most advanced, the most technological or the most expensive option is automatically the best. According to the authors, this perception is fueled by commodification growth of veterinary practice and entry of large investment funds into the sector.
Tanya Stephens, the lead author, points out that animals live longer with preventative medicine, but warns of the risk of making their lives longer but not necessarily better. The difficulty of deciding the right time to say goodbye, the pressure to continue caring “because it can be paid” and the fear of holders of being judged and made guilty fuel a circle where veterinary medicine ceases to be at the service of well-being and places itself at the service of human expectations (and demands).
Disinformation and social networks
Veterinarians also describe in the book a scenario in which the goodwill of those who live with animals collides with an ecosystem of misinformation that makes decision-making extremely difficult: influencers offering advice without scientific evidencediagnoses researched on the internet before going to the consultation, preconceived ideas about so-called “natural” treatments which do not meet real needs.
The result is an increasingly tense relationship between animal health professionals and caretakers who come to the consultation, where both want the best for the animal but operate from different information frameworks. And to this wear and tear is added another, that of the veterinary staff themselves, overloaded, often mistreated by frustrated clients, stuck between economic limits, almost impossible expectations and increasingly compromised mental health.
The authors’ proposal is to return to a point of balance and live with dogs in an emotional, close and conscious way, without ever forgetting that it is a different species from ours. This involves an active effort to understand their signals, respect their needs, accept their limits, and make decisions based on what is best for the animal, not what calms our distress or fuels our expectations.
Reference:
About The Author
