"It Almost Makes Her Human": How Female Animal Guardians Construct Experiences of Cat and Dog Empathy.

Understanding how humans perceive and construct experiences of non-human animal empathy (hereafter, 'animal/s') can provide important information to aid our understanding of how companion animals contribute to social support. This study investigates the phenomenology of animal empathy by examining how humans construct sense-making narratives of these experiences, with the hypothesis that anthropomorphic attributions would play a key role in these constructions. Comprehensive, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six participants, using established interpretative phenomenological analysis methodology to facilitate deep examination of how they interpreted and reacted emotionally. Participants were consistent in reporting changes to their companion animals' normal behaviour as the key to the identification of animal empathy experiences, yet they were highly paradoxical in their constructions of perceived internal drivers within their dogs and cats. Explanations were highly dichotomous, from highly anthropomorphic to highly anthropocentric, and these extremes were combined both within individual participant narratives and within some thematic constructs. This research demonstrates that experiences of companion animal empathy can be powerful and meaningful for humans, but the inconsistent mixture of anthropomorphic and anthropocentric reasoning illustrates the confused nature of human understanding of animals' internal states. Insight into how humans construct animal empathy has implications for the moral status of these animals and an application for companion animals used explicitly for social support, such as in animal-assisted therapy and emotional support animals.

The autonomy principle in companion veterinary medicine: A critique.

Following developments in human medical ethics, veterinary ethics has similarly shifted from a historic paternalistic approach, toward greater respect for autonomy. Veterinarians operate within a tripartite system where there is separation of doctor/patient dyad by animal owners. As such there are fundamental differences between veterinary and human medical sectors regarding application of the autonomy principle-specifically, to whom is autonomy afforded? This paper argues that the accepted transference of autonomy to owners constitutes a corruption of the principle. Privileges owners exercise over animal treatment decisions relate to their rights over property use, rather than application of self-rule over one's own person as described in bioethics literature. To highlight issues with the status quo, this paper outlines the negative consequences of "owner autonomy" on animal (patient) welfare, integrity of the veterinary profession's social contract and professional autonomy. A way forward is proposed that places greater emphasis on animal (patient) welfare being explicitly at the center of veterinary treatment decision-making via recognition that all such decisions are made by a proxy, and therefore more appropriate frameworks ought to be engaged, such as a best interests paradigm.