By Rose Morshead - United Kingdom
Introduction
The use of prosthetic limbs on humans has proved crucial for the livelihoods of those who need them. They have provided amputees with a new lease of life. However, should these mechanical wonders be used on animals? In this article, I am going to talk about the beneficial effects of prosthetic use on animals, while also addressing the problems.
Hermes the Tortoise
The most common response to this question, believe it or not, is no. The natural human response to the notion of a beloved animal having a metal part attached to it seems unnatural. While people seem to jump to the conclusion that using prosthetics on animals is a barbaric and somewhat selfish thing to do, there are some who believe that the beneficial effects on humans from prosthetics, is carried forward to animals.
In early 2018, an Irish vet by the name of Noel Fitzpatrick, undertook a seemingly impossible challenge. Hermes, a 20 year old tortoise, was found by his owner with 3 of his legs bitten off by rats ("HERMES"). Hermes had been hibernating for several months, and the rats had eaten what they could. It is important to note that tortoises have an average lifespan of 60 years, a large factor in the decision Dr Noel Fitzpatrick would make, a decision that received plenty of backlash. He decided to attach 3 prosthetic legs as a replacement. The surgery itself was practically and mentally challenging due to the fact that Hermes had lost over 70% of his blood. This meant that time was of the essence to ensure success. Another challenge was the knowledge of the views of others. This was one of the only times in the veterinary world where the use of prosthetics was being taken so far. Some vets, including from Royal Veterinary College, saw it as selfish and experimental, purely to fulfil the satisfaction of Dr Fitzpatrick’s curiosity. But many saw it as a revolutionary and impressive moment such as veterinary professors and students from various colleges around the world.
Without the surgery, Hermes would have died within hours. The provision of the ability to walk, stand up, and move in general, gave Hermes 2 months or so. That is where the backlash came. Hermes was given a chance at a new lease of life, yes. But, Hermes died of internal bleeding and was, undoubtedly, in a significant amount of discomfort towards the end. So, does this mean it was a cruel and selfish mistake to use prosthetics on an animal?
Where the line should be drawn
In this case, prosthetics were used to enhance quality of life, so no. When using prosthetics on a human, the risks remain the same as when they are used on animals. If one removes the right and privilege of scientific availability from vets, doctors and all those in the medicinal world, then there is no point in offering solutions. A large argument, mainly by animal right activists, is that animals don’t get their say, and that we as humans, are cruel in deciding how far is too far.
However, the moral drive, as owners of animals and as people, is to keep creatures alive and give them the best chance possible. If that means taking a risk, then it should be taken. However, if an animal is in pain, we can not just do what we want and keep it alive. That IS cruelty. Prosthetic limbs or other parts provide an alternative path for people to choose to use on animals in order to give them a chance at life.
The line should be drawn when the quality of life is no longer adequate. Prosthetics reverse the effects of damage and injury, and return to animals, the quality of life they have lost. Without prosthetics in the veterinary world, RTAs; these are major road traffic accidents and Neoplasia; a form of uncontrolled cell growth, would all mean that victims of such incidents would have to be put down due to the devastating long terms effects caused, such as amputations, internal bleeding and more. It is worth mentioning that prosthetics are better at maintaining blood flow than sewed off amputations, further bettering the quality of life for animals.
The backlash of Hermes the Tortoise
Prosthetic use on animals is risky, expensive and challenging. The backlash Dr Fitzpatrick received was mainly due to the fact that the tortoise only lived a couple more months. Other vets saw the decision to use prosthetics as the wrong decision, describing the Irish vet as ‘guilty of malpractice’ (Harrington).
Prosthetics as the future of veterinary science
It can definitely be argued that it was not ethical to try and save the tortoise’s life since it constituted a scenario characterised by substantial risk and minimal gain. But, if the prosthetics had not been implanted, would Hermes have even survived a few more hours? The decision to use prosthetics in order to give an animal a chance at life is a decision to be made by the person who owns the animal, in a domestic situation; or by a vet, in a wildlife situation. It is a decision that is filled with yes and no, but ultimately, using prosthetics on animals has allowed humans to keep them alive, and undoubtedly, will be vital in the future. If prosthetics are being successfully used on animals in the years 2010-2023, then just imagine the effect they will have in 30 years time. Prosthetics are part of the future of veterinary science, and therefore part of the future for the survival of all animals.
Bibliography
"HERMES." The Supervet, www.thesupervet.com/stories/hermes/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2023.
Harrington, Suzanne. "Supervet Noel Fitzpatrick: New Book Is a Tale of One Man and His Dog." Irish Examiner, 28 Oct. 2023, www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/people/arid-41257411.html. Accessed 10 Nov. 2023.
留言