|
Devocalisation - NLPR speaks out Julie Hamilton |
|
|
The American Association of Avian Veterinarians
refuses to condem devocalisation but in the UK
and other civilised countries it is
regarded as unethical and would lead to the
expulsion of a vet from the relevant professional
associations were he to practice the procedure.
The AAV's standpoint is evasive, as you can see from the sequence of Email correspondence between them and NLPR |
Devocalisation is the deliberate burning of a parrot's syrinx by
physical heat, administration of chemicals or by radio-surgery. It is
in itself painful and often damages adjacent structures such as the
oesophagus. Birds often do not survive the process: those that do, emerge
physically and emotionally harmed.
With the intention of forcing a formal statement from the American AAV, New Life Parrot Rescue wrote to the organisation in April 2000: There has lately been a much-heated debate on the Internet concerning the subject, following the publication of a very emotive story of a Blue and Gold Macaw that was de-voiced and the resulting effect on the bird. I was recently passed an unofficial statement that is an independent answer in reply to an e-mail received by one of your board members. I detect a somewhat cautious approach by this veterinarian to this surgical procedure. However, what is astonishing is that the AAV does not apparently have a formal stand on de-voicing. Ritchie, Harrison and Harrison state in "Avian Medicine: Principles and Application" that, "The authors and editors consider devocalization a cruel and unethical practice; therefore, a procedure will not be described. Birds with vocalization patterns that are unacceptable to a client should be placed in new homes." De-voicing, de-clawing and other similar surgical procedures applied to parrots in zoological bird gardens and to companion animals are considered by all the British veterinary associations to be unethical and inhumane. Any veterinarian found acting against this honorable code would be subject to disciplinary action followed by expulsion from the veterinary fellowship. The general consensus of gathered information from the Internet, the avicultural fraternity and large animal welfare organizations about the subject of de-voicing parrots (as with other species of birds, dogs also), both here in England and the USA, is that this practice is considered barbaric, immoral, unethical and inhumane. Parrots are, by nature, very vocal, raucous creatures. They use different tones and sounds to communicate with each other and to express their exuberant nature. They mimic our language for reason of integrating into a human flock. The ability to mimic is used as a substitute for the safety they would otherwise find amongst their wild flock. De-voicing robs a parrot of its inherent characteristic. The psychological damage is irreversible. This must surely authorize a unanimous agreement that this procedure is inhumane from such a respected quarter of the veterinary profession as the AAV. The veterinary oath and principles are believed and understood by the public to pledge saving the life of an animal, ease suffering and ensure a quality of life wherever possible. Disabling a particular ability and inherent characteristic of an animal, for no medical reason, is perceived to be dishonorable and contradictory to the ethical code and principles of the veterinary association. Please may I draw your attention to the enclosed clipping with reference to the aforementioned de-voicing of a Blue and Gold Macaw. I do hope you are able to comment on it and indicate what action the AAV sees as appropriate. In the (enclosed) unofficial statement it is mentioned that "We do not know of any avian veterinarians that routinely de-voice birds." However, it is alleged that one avian veterinarian in the Phoenix/Tempe AZ area performs many de-voicing procedures, mainly on roosters and peafowl but is about to experiment with his own flock of Conures. Similarly, I have heard it claimed that another avian vet, also in the Phoenix/Tempe AZ area, performs many de-voicing operations on parrots. Clearly, the extent of the practice needs to be established as quickly as possible. I hope that I have put a reasonable case before you for the AAV to conclude that de-crowing/voicing is unethical and should therefore be a prohibited procedure for your members." The AAV replied (eventually)
Dear Ms Hamilton,
I am sorry that we cannot assist you in this matter.
Dear Mr Harris, DVM
I have to ask what hope is there within the overall context of parrot welfare if
the AAV cannot openly condemn the practice of de-voicing amongst its members and
the whole of veterinary sector? With all due respect, the AAV has a moral
responsibility to the welfare of birds, therefore, should not evade voicing against
the cruel and unnecessary act of de-voicing parrots and other species of bird.
It is noted that the AAV has an ethical committee, and yet what may I ask is its
purpose? given your response, I have no ground in which to place the USA, AAV with
any credit. Therefore, I can only conflict with your reply and presume the AAV
consider de-voicing an ETHICAL procedure (unlike the UK’s AAV) because it is legal
and are not prepared to make a moral stand.
As a registered charity, we have a constitution; a moral code of conduct and a
standard to uphold. I believe this is a normal procedure for all organizations.
Should any of our trustees or members violate a serious principle of our constitution
then action would be taken to expel the offender. It really is as simple as that!
I will naturally take your brief reply as the official statement which I requested.
It will be published in the next issue of our ‘Periodical’, which follows on from the
de-voicing feature that I published in our July issue, as this subject has generated
a great deal of interest and many people are waiting in anticipation to see what side
of the fence you are sitting.
I still beseech you to openly condemn de-voicing/de-crowing and incorporate it as a
prohibited procedure under the ‘Ethics Committee’, by self-regulation.
Dear Ms Hamilton,
I suppose also being British has influenced my personal attitudes towards the creatures
I steward.
Dear Mr Harris, DVM
Naturally, I, as with many other groups and individual parrot people, wish that the
USA’s AAV would make an open stand and speak out against de-voicing/de-crowing and
make it a prohibited procedure. However disheartened I feel about my fruitless efforts,
I will now resign to the fact that no more can be done to protect parrots/birds from
this type of butchery. As always, they remain at man’s mercy!
From one compassionate British animal caregiver to another, I would like to ask you
to speak about this subject at your next convention in honour of the parrots/birds
that have lost their lives or worse still, in honour of those parrots who are suffering
the psychological effects. This would initiate discussions and set an honourable example.
It is also a step in the right direction to, HOPEFULLY, abolishing this barbaric
procedure, which certainly belongs to the 19th Century!
|
|
Jonathan Newman MA VetMB MRCVS, a British vet writes:
Parrots are highly social birds with many
studies revealing a complex vocabulary; specific
meanings being attributed to different calls.
Anyone who has kept parrots will know this
instinctively. Anyone who has seen the birds in
the wild could also never doubt the importance of
voice to any psittacine. Whether Macaws winging over
a forest or dense packs of Budgerigars in Australia,
voice is essential in communication between flock
members. This is equally true in captivity.
De-vocalisation of birds is barbaric and unethical. To deprive a bird of its main means of communication for human convenience seems unbelievable. If someone finds the voice of Conures or Cockatoos excessive, perhaps they should keep Finches! When my Amazon has a prolonged screaming match, I accept it as part of keeping a large parrot. The arguments relating to surgical risk, while valid, seem less important to me. As a veterinarian, parrot owner and deep admirer of these birds, I feel appalled that any clinician or owner could even contemplate such a mutilation. We all have a duty of care to these birds, and that does not include de-voicing. Julie Hamilton of NLPR writes: I felt it my duty to print both sides of the correspondence so that it presented a full picture. It is regrettable that I only got as far as I did, however, I feel justifiably as strongly about this barbaric procedure as when it initially came to my attention. I feel there is no room for argument where this serious matter is concerned. I am aware that I sounded like an old record but it just wasn’t sinking in - I guess the AAV thought the same! I feel the only way to achieve the objective is by persistent badgering. Of course, the more people who speak up against this surgical procedure, the chances are higher of eventually getting a positive result. This argument has turned out to be a political platform. As with all significant changes, they are only achieved through being strength in numbers. I understand the American AAV has had their annual conference. I will be e-mailing Mr Harris to hopefully obtain a summary of the conference, with reference to the discussion on de-voicing. Should I obtain it, I will publish the relevant details. |
|
| Important: Not unexpectedly, good people are outraged by the barbaric surgery described here but it is not the intention of NLPR to incite personal warfare against individual vets. |
|
Want to know how you can help stop this ?
|
| More Articles | Links |