The ethics of animal breeding are tricky. A debate has recently crossed my path regarding whether breeders should continue to breed dogs with known deficiencies.
I’m a puggle owner; a puggle is a mixed breed dog that blends pug with beagle (mine is pictured left). A genetic deficiency that is common in this cross-breed is
“cherry eye,” which is a prolapse of the third eyelid that can cause inflammation and may even require surgical attention. It’s not a condition isolated to puggles (the trait is typically passed to them through their beagle ancestry) as many breeds of dogs have a history of it.
Dog owners who do their research prior to bringing home any breed (mixed or pure) should be aware that any animal can face common health issues that are characteristic to their breed. Some far more severe than others. Breeders should disclose the potential genetic issues that may arise when they sell an animal, but the debate in question revolves around whether their involvement should go further than that.
After a series of expensive vet bills to treat cherry eye, some puggle owners have suggested that the breeders responsible should stop mating any animal that produces offspring with this genetic ailment. Now, what if that same absolute reasoning were extended to human breeding?
Genetic engineering in humans is still shrouded by controversy, though many would refuse to accept the fact that parents who possess what are seen as faulty genetic traits should stop reproducing. So, is it going too far to have the same expectation about dog breeding? Or when there’s profit involved, should breeding practices operate under a different set of rules?
http://www.globalpost.com/notebook/global-green/091223/ethics-selective-breeding-pets
