A non-profit I support, The Nonhuman Rights Project (NHRP), is making a difference through court actions. Their goal is for the courts to define various sentient species as “legal persons” with Rights.
Corporations are defined as People with Rights
Well, the US Supreme Court has defined corporations as people for certain purposes. Read NPR’s article, “When Did Companies Become People?”
Why not Nonhumans defined as People with Rights?
So why not consider rights for nonhumans who love, problem solve, have personalities, emotions, and relationships?
I’m so excited to report that the New York Supreme Court recognized dogs as immediate family members. From NHRP’s report,
“Specifically, Justice Maslow ruled that Nan Deblase may recover emotional distress damages for having witnessed the death of her son’s dog Duke who was hit by a car while they were walking through a crosswalk.
“In 2024, the NhRP filed two amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs in the case, arguing that justice and the flexible nature of the common law require allowing the plaintiffs to recover emotional damages for having witnessed Duke’s death.”
After I lost one of my “Nonhuman” family
From a personal standpoint, I’ve had to go back to work immediately after losing one of my nonhuman family. I was expected to carry on because the company’s bereavement leave policy only included humans. This added to my burden of loss. I bet you or someone you know had the same experience.
The NhRP report explained so clearly today’s truth,
“Too often, courts reflexively apply outdated precedents that treat animals as mere property, even when those precedents no longer reflect common sense. Today’s decision shows the justice system at its best: fulfilling its fundamental duty to deliver justice based on facts and reason, not outdated legal fictions. The Nonhuman Rights Project is proud to have contributed to this important outcome. It serves the interest of justice to recognize that Duke was not a legal ‘thing.’ He was a member of the family.”
Good work is being done by so many organizations for nonhuman persons. The Nonhuman Rights Project’s strategy is bold and should give us “animal/nonhuman lovers” cause for celebration!
Read, 10 things you can do to increase kindness to animals
A Thoughtful Response to the DeBlas Decision: Exploring the Ripple Effects
Thank you for sharing this powerful piece about the DeBlas decision,
Maribeth.
The Nonhuman Rights Project’s work truly represents a watershed moment in how our legal system recognizes the profound bonds we share with our animal companions. Justice Maslow’s ruling that Nan DeBlas could recover emotional distress damages for witnessing Duke’s death marks more than just a legal victory—it acknowledges what pet owners have always known: these aren’t just property relationships, they’re family bonds.
The Human-Animal Bond Recognition
Your personal experience with workplace bereavement policies perfectly illustrates the disconnect between legal frameworks and lived reality. When we lose a beloved animal companion, the grief is real, the loss is profound, and the need for recognition and time to heal is genuine. The fact that corporations can be granted personhood while sentient beings who love, grieve, and form deep relationships with us have been relegated to property status has always been one of those legal contradictions that defy common sense.
The Veterinary Medicine Perspective
This shift raises fascinating questions for veterinary medicine that deserve thoughtful consideration. If animals are recognized as more than property, veterinarians may face increased malpractice exposure, potentially driving up insurance costs. Some worry this could make veterinary care less accessible. Yet there’s another side to consider: might this elevation in legal status improve the quality of care by encouraging more thorough communication, informed consent, and accountability?
The veterinary profession has always walked a delicate line between being healers and being service providers in a property-based legal framework. Perhaps recognizing animals as family members legally will better align the law with how most veterinarians already approach their calling—as healers caring for beloved family members, not just fixing broken property.
The Profound Paradox: Status vs. Compassionate Choice
Here’s where we encounter one of the most complex paradoxes of this legal evolution. Currently, when our animal companions are terminally ill or suffering, we can make the loving, difficult decision to let them go peacefully. We can spare them prolonged pain and ensure their final moments are filled with love and dignity. This compassionate choice is both a privilege and a tremendous responsibility that comes with our guardianship.
But as we elevate animals’ legal status, a crucial question emerges: will we inadvertently lose this ability to provide merciful endings? If pets gain greater legal recognition as sentient beings with rights, could we face a situation where we’re legally required to pursue expensive, painful treatments regardless of the animal’s suffering or quality of life?
This creates a profound ethical dilemma. The very legal advancement that recognizes animals as more than property might paradoxically force us to treat them in ways that could increase their suffering. Currently, we can choose compassion over prolonging life at any cost—something we often struggle to do for humans bound by different legal, ethical, and medical frameworks.
The question becomes: how do we balance recognizing animals’ inherent worth and rights while preserving our ability to make loving end-of-life decisions on their behalf? Can we craft legal frameworks that honor both their elevated status and our responsibility to prevent unnecessary suffering?
Moving Forward: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
The DeBlas decision opens up rich territory for exploration. How do we balance increased legal recognition with practical considerations like veterinary costs and accessibility? How do we honor the emotional reality of human-animal bonds while maintaining reasonable standards for professional liability?
Perhaps most importantly, how do we use this legal evolution to become better guardians? If our pets are family members in the eyes of the law, what additional responsibilities does that place on us as their advocates and decision-makers?
The Nonhuman Rights Project’s work is creating space for these crucial conversations. As you noted, good work is being done by many organizations, and each legal victory like the DeBlas case creates precedent that ripples outward, potentially transforming how we think about consciousness, personhood, and the relationships that truly matter.
Questions Worth Pondering
As we celebrate this progress, it’s worth considering:
What would a world look like where the legal system fully recognized
the emotional and cognitive lives of animals?
How might veterinary practice evolve?
How could we structure support systems—like bereavement leave—to acknowledge these losses?
And how do we ensure that elevating legal status translates into better lives for the animals we love?
The conversation you’ve started here touches on law, ethics, medicine, and the deepest questions about what makes a life valuable and worthy of protection. That’s exactly the kind of multifaceted dialogue we need as we navigate this evolving landscape together.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Debra! Definitely thought provoking!