In his comment in response to my previous post, Roger points out an article that I think is worth a read, if only for the humor.  A physician in Britain has penned this article to provide commentary on human health care systems and health care reform from his vantage point in the UK.  As one means of doing so, he contrasts health care access of UK citizens to their national health care system with what he thinks are some better features of a dog accessing (through an intermediary, as he puts it) the veterinarian of their choice in the veterinary health care system. 

There are multiple levels on which this commentary works, aside from its main purpose to weigh in on human health care reform.  For starters, it touches on the different payment systems in human medicine vs. veterinary medicine, one of the issues I think is raised by the notion of a tax deduction for qualified pet care expenses.

It also touches strongly on the role of the value of veterinary services to the consumer of such services, ... the client must think the services are worth the charge, or go elsewhere (with or without complaint).  Every practicing veterinarian knows, or soon learns, of the struggle to ensure that the value of services -- usually paid directly at the time of service and not by some mostly invisible third party -- is perceived by the client.  With respect to this latter point, this small piece frames the latter issue nicely; so many misconceptions...where to start? (thanks Charlie for pointing this out)

One of the neat things about being dean is all the wonderful people outside the university one gets to know... people from all walks of life, varied world views, interesting life stories, and all manner of perspectives who share with us a drive to improve the animal and human condition and who are committed to doing so with passion and excellence. (And, there are far more of these people than I'll ever be able to mention in this blog.) 

Recently, our School for Global Animal Health received a gift from two such people, Jan and Jack Creighton.  The Creighton's generous gift allows us to establish the Creighton Chair of Global Animal Health.  The income from this endowment and the leveraging opportunity it provides with respect to other funds will allow us to more rapidly catalyze efforts to improve animal health worldwide and thereby improve the health, well being, and economic security of people -- particularly those many millions who inhabit the poorest parts of the world and who still depend on healthy livestock for tilling, harvesting, transportation, and food and fiber...for their livelihood in every sense of the word.

We thank the Creighton's for their commitment and enthusiasm for the mission of our School for Global Animal Health and the transformative effect their gift will have to speed our progress.  Their gift reflects not only their shared commitment to our goals but also a trust in our abilities that is accompanied by a challenge to succeed.  I think our faculty, staff, and students are up to that challenge and I appreciate the Creighton's shared trust that this is the case.

I am also very pleased to announce that the Director of the School for Global Animal Health, Guy Palmer, has been named to fill this new Creighton Chair.  The Creighton's agree that Guy is an excellent choice fill this chair; from this position he will be able to leverage their generosity to more rapidly advance School's programs, including, for example, seed funding for high risk/high return exploratory projects, creative enhancements to graduate education, and fostering global faculty and scholarly exchanges.   

One of my accomplishments on vacation (sitting in this spot) was to finish Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which is the WSU common reading for this fall...and the subject of a previous post.

I recommend that anyone interested in animal agriculture read this book.  Agree or not, it is a thought-provoking analysis of where our food comes from and argument about why we need to think about it more.  The subject is far more complex than can be dealt with in 400 pages, and it is pitched at a general audience, so there are areas that probably receive too simplistic a treatment, but I cannot really fault it for that.

The specific purpose of this post is to comment on his treatment of the ethics of eating animals.  I have wrestled with the moral issues surrounding human-animal relationships for many years, and I am always interested in what intelligent people have to say in this regard -- whether I agree with them or not.  I must say that his treatment of his own wrestling with this question is about the best I've read so far.  Typically, writers try to persuade to their point of view.  In contrast, Professor Pollan (mostly in Chapter 17), provides a balanced look at his own "on the one hand...but on the other hand" tussle with various aspects of this very complicated issue.  Highly recommended.