Shifting attitudes on animal ‘ownership’: Ethical implications for welfare research and practice terminology

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1177/17470161231186060
Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez
{"title":"Shifting attitudes on animal ‘ownership’: Ethical implications for welfare research and practice terminology","authors":"Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez","doi":"10.1177/17470161231186060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231186060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对动物“所有权”态度的转变:福利研究和实践术语的伦理含义
在过去的几十年里,伴侣动物在我们生活中扮演的角色发生了巨大的变化。与此同时,我们用来描述人与动物之间关系的术语也发生了变化。一个例子包括使用术语“所有者”或“监护人”来指代人类看护人。虽然社会的偏好似乎表明,人们对将伴侣动物的看护人称为“监护人”越来越感兴趣,但也有人警告不要使用这种称呼,或试图限制这种称呼。此外,动物福利术语的使用对我们如何进行福利研究和实践有直接的影响。我们的论文从以下方面考察了“所有者”和“监护人”的使用:(1)改变术语对其使用的功能、清晰度和统一性的影响,以及(2)每个术语的使用对道德和福利的影响。我们的目标是提出可以影响未来福利研究的术语考虑,以及帮助指导我们与伴侣动物的互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1