Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article explores ethical obligations for caring for disabled animals, suggesting a need for moral responsibility.
Most domesticated animals are created for the purpose of humans to exploit or use them in some way. But what happens when these animals cannot fulfill the “purpose” they were created for? This article explores what humans owe toward these disabled domestic animals. Using Tom Regan's theory of animal rights, along with existing human medical ethics and individual case studies, the topics of euthanasia, quality of life, and veterinary ethics are all explored. The article concludes that we have a moral obligation to care for the animals that we have created to be reliant on us. This obligation does not disappear because of an animal's “unprofitability,” disability, or illness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kira R. Kiesler (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: