Sophie Shipp
N12149837
BSB105 The Future Enterprise
The ethical dilemma of Pre-Purchase Financial proof for dog
ownership
Tutor: Jack Adams
Report
The ethical dilemma at hand involves whether prospective dog owners should be required to
provide proof of financial stability before purchasing a dog. This issue raises concerns about
animal welfare, responsible pet ownership, and potential discrimination against certain
demographics.
Relate
As the owner of three beautiful dachshunds, I have first-hand experience with the significant
financial responsibilities that come with being a pet owner. From high-quality food and
regular veterinary check-ups to unexpected emergencies and specialised care, the costs can
quickly add up. However, I also recognise that financial constraints can vary widely among
individuals and families. Imposing a strict financial requirement could exclude responsible
and caring individuals from owning a pet. It’s important to know the balance between
ensuring responsible pet ownership and preventing unnecessary barriers for potential pet
owners.
Reasoning
From an ethical perspective, this issue can be analysed using various frameworks. A practical
approach might prioritise minimising harm, suggesting that financial requirements could
reduce animal neglect. However, this could also limit access to pet ownership for responsible
individuals. An obligational perspective emphasises duty-based ethics, arguing for ensuring
adequate care for animals. Yet, this could lead to discrimination and potential abuse of power
by sellers. Lastly, a virtue ethics perspective emphasises education and responsible pet
ownership over strict financial criteria, fostering a sense of moral responsibility in potential
owners. Potential stakeholders involved in this issue include dog owners who may be
struggling financially, animal shelters and rescues that rely on donations and adoptions,
breeders and pet stores that may be impacted by increased regulations, veterinarians who
provide healthcare for animals, and animal welfare organisations advocating for animal rights
and welfare. The social impact of requiring financial proof could be significant. It could limit
access to pet ownership for lower-income families and individuals. This could potentially
lead to increased loneliness and isolation as well as, reduced social interaction and negative
impacts on mental health. For businesses, implementing a financial requirement could reduce
the pool of potential customers. However, it could also improve their reputation as
responsible sellers and can potentially attract customers who are willing to pay premium
prices for well-bred and healthy dogs.
Reconstructing
To address the ethical dilemma of requiring financial proof for dog ownership, I propose a
multifaceted approach that prioritises responsible pet ownership and inclusivity. A task force
consisting of representatives from various stakeholders, including animal welfare
organisations, veterinarians, breeders, and consumer advocates, should be established to
develop guidelines and best practices for responsible pet ownership. Public awareness
campaigns should be launched to educate potential pet owners about the responsibilities and
costs associated with pet ownership, utilizing workshops, online resources, and partnerships
with schools and community organisations. Encouraging pet stores and breeders to offer
flexible payment plans would make pet ownership more accessible. Additionally, promoting
adoption from animal shelters and rescue centres and providing support services to adopters
is crucial. Finally, advocating for legislation that promotes responsible pet ownership without
imposing overly restrictive requirements is essential to ensure fair access to pet ownership for
all.
Whilst reflecting on the dilemma of requiring financial proof for dog ownership, here are
some opportunities for diverse perspectives, including those facing financial hardship or
cultural barriers; improving active listening skills to truly understand the concerns and needs
of different stakeholders; analysing the complex interplay of factors contributing to the
issues, including economic, social, and ethical considerations; exploring innovative solutions
that balance the needs of all stakeholders, such as flexible payment plans, education
initiatives, and community partnerships; developing a strong ethical framework to guide
decision-making and prioritise the well-being of both humans and animals; and considering
the broader implications of policies and practices related to pet ownership.
In conclusion, whilst ensuring responsible pet ownership is crucial, imposing strict financial
requirements could exclude caring individuals and potentially lead to negative consequences
like increased animal abandonment. A more balanced approach which includes, focusing on
education, flexible payment options, and supporting animal shelters, would promote
responsible pet ownership while ensuring accessibility for a wider range of people.
Referencing
Animal Medicines Australia. (2022). Pet ownership in Australia 2022:
Report. https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/
AMAU008-Pet-Ownership22-Report_v1.6_WEB.pdf
GlobalPETS. (2024, April 26). Country report: Australia Zooming in on the boom in
pet ownership - GlobalPETS. https://globalpetindustry.com/article/country-report-
australia-zooming-boom-pet-ownership
Libatique, R. (2024, March 14). HCF highlights importance of insurance amid rising
pet care costs. Insurance Business
Australia. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/breaking-news/hcf-
highlights-importance-of-insurance-amid-rising-pet-care-costs-481233.aspx
Patel, Z. (2024, October 11). Cost of owning a dog.
DogTime. https://dogtime.com/lifestyle/163963-cost-of-owning-a-dog
Racwa. (2024, June 6). PET Census 2024 | RAC WA. RAC WA - for a Better
WA. https://rac.com.au/home-life/info/pet-census
