THE SPECISM EVIDENCED IN THE INDEMNITY AMOUNT FOR MORAL DAMAGES ARBITRATED IN THE CONDEMNATIONS FOR HUMAN AND VETERINARY MEDICAL ERRORS

Abstract

The present article proposes a critical analysis of the discrepant values of indemnity for moral damages that have been arbitrated by the brazilian courts when proceeding with the conviction for human medical error in return for veterinary medical error. Considering the legal criteria for valuation of moral damage that have been used by the Judiciary and the indemnity quantum commonly fixed, there is a considerable and important imbalance in the valuation of the lives of humans and non-human animals, with a clear tendency of judicial decisions to give a higher value to the life of the species homo sapiens to the detriment of the life of other species. Through doctrinal bibliographic research and, above all, jurisprudence of brazilian courts, the scientific work in question has, therefore, the ability to demonstrate how specism is also present and implicit in the convictions of moral reparation for defects in medical services provided to men and animals, thus pointing out that there must be more balance in the establishment of indemnity values for moral damages in a legal system that already recognizes the institutes of the multispecies family and animal dignity.