'Mandated Reporting of Suspected Animal Harm by Australian Veterinarians: Community Attitudes' by Donna Acutt, Tania Signal and Nik Taylor in (2015) 28(3)
Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals 437-447 comments
Research demonstrates that animal abuse is linked with various forms of interpersonal violence and that veterinarians themselves are concerned about this link. However, Australian veterinarians are not currently mandated to report cases of suspected animal abuse (AA), a position outlined by the Australian Veterinary Association under their “Animal Welfare principles and philosophy–Animal Abuse” section. A range of barriers to reporting suspected abuse cases have been identified. Barriers specifically mentioned in the AVA statement regarding the non-mandatory reporting stance were presented to a community sample of 209 participants. While 161 (77%) indicated they were aware that certain professionals were mandated to report animal abuse, notably 76% of these (n=123) indicated (incorrectly) that veterinary professionals in Australia were so mandated. Over half of the participants (n=117, 58%) indicated that “Concerns about the continued welfare of the animal victim” was, in their opinion, the most significant barrier to introducing mandatory reporting for the veterinary profession in Australia. The implications of community opinion regarding veterinarians and mandated reporting, along with acknowledgement of barriers and potential consequences of mandated reporting, are discussed.
The authors state
Veterinarians are health professionals and their unique role in
caring for the health and welfare of the nonhuman population
potentially means they have a role to play in the identification
and possible prevention of interpersonal violence directed at both
nonhuman animals and humans (McHendrix 2009). While important for
animal welfare alone, the positive identification by veterinarians of
non-accidental animal mistreatment may also herald other forms of mistreatment within
human relationships including domestic violence (DV) and child abuse (Gallagher, Allen and
Jones 2008; Williams et al. 2008).
As outlined by the Australian Veterinary Association’s (AVA) statement under “Animal
welfare principles and philosophy–Animal abuse” (AVA 2013, Policy 1.2), veterinarians in
Australia are not currently mandated to report suspected cases of animal abuse (AA) or child
abuse (which in some Australian states includes mandated reporting of suspected exposure
to domestic violence, CFCA Fact Sheet 2014). Although the AVA recommends the reporting
of suspected AA to the relevant authorities, members are under no legal obligation to do so.
The primary—and understandable—justification for this stance is the concern that members
of the public will be reluctant to bring ill or injured animals to the attention of veterinarians for
fear of being reported, thus placing abused animals at further risk (AVA 2013, Policy 1.2). This
echoes the concerns raised by the American Medical Association when mandated reporting
of suspected child abuse was implemented in 1966 (Vulliamy and Sullivan 2000).
Two studies, one based in the US (Ascione and Barnard 1998) and the other in Australia
(Green and Gullone 2005), have investigated potential barriers to mandated reporting of AA
as perceived by veterinarians. Both studies identified three significant barriers: 1) inadequate
training in recognizing and definitively identifying AA or neglect, 2) ethical and legal obligations
in the context of client/patient confidentiality, and 3) lack of knowledge regarding relevant
community-based support agencies for all concerned parties (i.e., services for perpetrators
and/or possible victims of family violence). Potential loss of income was also noted as a
possible factor behind not reporting suspected AA both in Australia and New Zealand (Green
and Gullone 2005; Robertson 2010).
Identification of AA can be challenging for a number of reasons including the often
covert/solitary nature of the abuse, controlling behaviors of the abuser, embarrassment/shame
on behalf of the witnessing owner/caregiver, as well as the aforementioned definitional issues
regarding what constitutes AA (Ascione 2005; McPhedran 2009). However, members of society in close proximity to the perpetrator (e.g., parents, family members, neighbors, teachers;
Dadds, Turner and McAloon 2002) as well as community health professionals who may come
into contact with the family are in a unique position to identify AA (Flynn 2000a; Balkin, Janssen
and Merck 2013). Various community professions have been identified as important stake-
holders (Lawrie 2008) vital to the identification and prevention of AA, namely, law enforcement
agencies (particularly police), animal protection officers, teachers, social workers, animal management officers (e.g., dog control), environmental health workers (in Indigenous communities),
and veterinarians. Lawrie argues that these community professionals have the potential to be
in a prime position to witness first-hand the confirmation and potential consequences of
animal/human abuse—perhaps without even recognizing the relationship between non-
accidental injury of animals and other forms of family violence.
The repercussions of AA, whist initially presenting as personal and private, have the potential to negatively impact the community (Flynn 2000a; Baldry 2003; Wright and Hensley
2003). Australian researchers, Fawcett and Gullone (2002), suggest that patterns of AA
mirror
those of DV, in that animals are just as likely as human victims of DV to experience physical or
sexual abuse, neglect, and/or psychological abuse. Human victims of DV, overwhelmingly
women and children, may be further traumatized through the actual mistreatment and/or
threatened mistreatment of their pets. This has implications for the management of animals in
violent situations as well as for the relationship between family members and their animals,
which may well be strengthened due to their joint experiences of abuse (Flynn 2000a; 2000b;
2012). Conversely, those experiencing family violence may take out their frustrations and anger
on the animal, a behavior more commonly seen in children of families who experience DV
(Fawcett and Gullone 2002). Fawcett and Gullone (2002) argue that the recognition of the
relationship between AA and forms of interpersonal/familial violence by community welfare
organizations (specifically, animal welfare agencies, child welfare groups, DV experts, and law
enforcement organizations) is needed, concluding that there is a need to promote cooperation, cross-reporting, and cross-training between community welfare agencies and public
health professionals (both human and nonhuman focused).
The importance of cross-reporting within domestic (or family) violence situations has been
highlighted by a number of researchers. For example, Volant et al. (2008) interviewed 102
women currently accessing DV services in Victoria, Australia and 102 matched “community”
women without a history of DV in their presenting relationship; all women in the study had a
pet. Similar to previous (American) studies (e.g., Ascione et al. 2007) they found there was a
significantly higher prevalence of threatened and/or actual AA in the women accessing DV
services. The children of these women were also more likely to have observed and/or
engaged in AA than those children from the community group. Importantly, the study also reinforced
previous findings that women often delay leaving DV situations based on concerns for their
animal’s continued welfare, with the attendant possibility of an escalation in violence (e.g.,
Ascione, Weber and Wood 1997; Taylor, Signal and Stark 2006). Volant et al. concluded that
the positive identification of “at risk” members of the community (both human and animal) by
community professionals (i.e., veterinarians, animal welfare agents, police, child welfare agents,
counselors) may enable the negative consequences of AA and the potential for interpersonal
violence to be addressed more effectively.
However, when Tiplady, Walsh and Phillips (2012) interviewed 26 women with experience of
DV to examine the effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on the welfare of companion animals,
only two participants (8%) reported specifically mentioning AA to the veterinarian treating their animal despite a number of animals reportedly being euthanized due to injuries suffered. The
remaining 24 women (92%) stated that they would be hesitant about discussing AA with a veterinarian. Several reasons were given for this reluctance: 1) general shame regarding the abuse,
2) a fear of being judged by the veterinarian, sometimes combined with a fear the veterinarian
would not believe them, 3) a fear of the consequences if the abuser found out they had spoken
to a veterinarian, and 4) some women simply did not feel as though they could talk with their
veterinarian about AA. Thus, it is clear that there are numerous barriers for those experiencing
interconnected AA and familial violence in approaching veterinarians and/or reporting the AA.
However, research also demonstrates that support from the human services addressing family
violence is often limited in regards to AA (e.g., Taylor, Signal and Stark 2006). This can leave
vulnerable women and children who have companion animals with few, or no, options when
seeking to leave violent situations. Consequently, it is important to look at multiple ways that this
might be addressed. One such way is through veterinary reporting schemes. However, this is not
without its own set of problems. As well as reluctance to approach veterinarians by women ex-
periencing linked animal abuse and family violence, there are barriers from the veterinarian’s point
of view and these are often exacerbated when considering
mandatory
reporting.
As Gullone and Clark (2008) point out, most studies into the feasibility of mandatory (cross)
reporting of animal and human directed abuse between various human and animal welfare organizations have occurred in the US, Canada, and the UK. These studies have resulted in the
promotion of legislative changes surrounding AA, and consequentially policies regulating the
(cross) reporting of AA in conjunction with DV and child abuse have been initiated. These
policies govern child protective service providers, social welfare groups, and animal health
professionals (e.g., AVMA 2014). According to the AVMA (2014), there are now eleven states
of the US with mandatory reporting of suspected AA by veterinarians.
In contrast, the stance of the Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association (CVMA 2013) is
that while there is a moral duty to report AA, there is no “legal obligation” (p. 3) to do so.
Despite this, it is now mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of AA in three
provinces of Canada (Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Manitoba). The British Veterinary Association
(BVA) also acknowledges the relationship between AA and other forms of interpersonal vio-
lence, further suggesting that veterinarians can play a significant role in identifying this cycle
(BVA 2013). The Code of Professional Conduct of the Veterinarian Council of New Zealand
(VCNZ n.d.) states that New Zealand veterinarians have a legal and professional obligation to
act swiftly if they become aware that an animal is being mistreated.
In one of the few studies examining perceptions of Australian veterinarians on this topic,
Green and Gullone (2005) surveyed 185 veterinarians regarding their knowledge of AA, atti-tude toward reporting it, and opinions regarding the possible role of veterinarians in addressing the AA/human violence link. Participants were mainly from small animal practices (arguably
the most likely to “see” AA) located in suburban areas. Approximately 40% indicated seeing
AA cases 1–3 times a year and only 8% indicated never seeing/diagnosing them. Barriers to
mandatory reporting mentioned by participants included: concerns about client confidentiality, uncertainty whether the case would be handled effectively, inadequate training in recognizing definitive abuse (animal and/or human), and loss of income through reducing their client
base. These results reflect similar conclusions reached in previous US and NZ studies (Ascione
and Barnard 1998; Williams et al. 2008). Green and Gullone (2005) concluded that, in order
for Australian veterinarians to better assist the animal victim and possibly the human victim, they
should be better equipped through increased knowledge-based education and improved
awareness of community resources for all participants.
While each State and Territory in Australia has its own veterinary registration board which
enforces policy and standards, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is the professional
organization that represents veterinarians across Australia. As noted earlier in regards to AA,
AVA policy states that it is not mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of AA in
Australia; however, it is recommended that such cases are reported to the relevant authority.
The stated reason for not mandating reporting is that “ ... members of the community may be
reluctant to bring in sick or injured animals for treatment for fear of being reported” (AVA 2013).
Although the motivation behind the policy is laudable, there appears to have been no assessment of whether this is actually the case for members of the community, that is, that they will stop taking their animals to veterinarians. Arkow (1994), for example, found that members
of the general population regard members of the veterinary profession as playing a key role in
animal protection. Indeed, recent commentary in New Zealand asks whether, given increasing attention paid to issues of animal welfare, non-reporting of suspected animal abuse puts
veterinarians at risk of both “public criticism and adverse legal accountability” (Robertson 2010,
p. 114). One of the side effects of the current AVA stance (i.e., encouraging but not mandating reporting) is that veterinarians who do report are not provided legislative immunity. As
Robertson (2010) points out, although a veterinarian may make an anonymous report to the
RSPCA or animal welfare enforcement agency (including police), any subsequent investigation
is likely to involve assessment of previous veterinary treatment and thus lead back to the veterinarian concerned. Anonymity is therefore exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to preserve
for the veterinarian. With mandatory reporting (and attendant legal immunity in case of un-substantiated reports), one advantage is that veterinarians would be protected from liability. As
it currently stands in Australia, veterinarians may be in the unenviable position of meeting community expectations to report suspected cases of AA as a key stakeholder in animal welfare/animal protection but on the other hand not being (legally) supported if they do report
suspected AA.
Given the complex nature of the problem, it is timely, and helpful to the debate, to assess
the opinions of members of the general (Australian) community regarding mandatory report-
ing by veterinarians. In particular, it is helpful to investigate the problems and benefits they
identify in implementing mandatory reporting and what demographic characteristics (e.g., gen-
der, awareness/endorsement of the link between animal and human violence) might affect
these attitudes
