Siobhan Mullan

Principles of ethical decision-making in veterinary practice

VETERINARY surgeons are frequently faced with ethical dilemmas. Consideration of animal welfare and ethical issues is an essential component of good clinical practice in veterinary medicine and surgery. This article discusses the key steps involved in the ethical decision-making process. While using the ethical frameworks described may not change the actual decisions made by clinicians, an understanding of ethical issues is important for client communication, improving job satisfaction and maintaining a positive public profile - for both the individual vet and the profession at large.

Knowledge and attitudes of 52 UK pet rabbit owners at the point of sale

The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and attitudes of pet rabbit owners at the time of buying their rabbit(s) and to investigate factors influencing the planned husbandry and housing of their rabbit(s). A questionnaire was used to assess the impact of demographics, knowledge and attitudes on the likelihood that respondents would neuter their rabbit(s), feed them an appropriate diet, house them in appropriately sized housing and provide them with an appropriate companion. Knowledge and attitudes were significant factors in whether respondents planned to neuter their rabbit(s) and provide them with an appropriate companion. The attribution of secondary emotions to rabbits was associated with plans to feed a mix-type diet. The majority of owners had carried out prior research into pet rabbits, but owners had a limited knowledge of the needs of rabbits, particularly with respect to their diet and social needs. Respondents who had decided to purchase a rabbit on the day were less likely to intend to get their rabbit neutered than those who had taken more time to decide to buy a rabbit.

The current state of welfare, housing and husbandry of the English pet rabbit population

BackgroundThe welfare of pet rabbits is an area of growing interest in Europe and the UK. This study analyses questionnaire results from a diverse population of 1254 rabbit owners from three different geographical areas in England with the aim of providing an accurate representation of how pet rabbits are currently housed and cared for and key aspects of their health and welfare.ResultsRabbits were kept in a variety of different housing types, the most common being a traditional hutch/cage (59%). Although the majority had additional exercise areas, access was often unpredictable, or ill-timed, which may compromise welfare. Only 41.9% of owners kept their rabbit with conspecifics, limiting their ability to engage in social behaviour. Of those rabbits housed with a companion, although many were reported to be amicable and to engage in positive interactions, over a quarter were reported to fight at least occasionally (25.3%), whilst 22.7% guarded resources and 27.1% avoided one another. Whilst low levels of some of these behaviours may be a normal part of social interaction, the relatively high levels reported here suggest that not all cohabiting pairs of rabbits are compatible, which is potentially a significant welfare issue.Although the vast majority of owners fed hay for over 10% this was less than daily. Pelleted foods were very popular (71.4% at least daily) compared to commercial muesli mixes (32.6%). As in previous studies, dental problems were commonly reported (12.2% of rabbits); however, so were eye problems (12.9%), digestive problems (11.5%) and parasites (11.3%). A large proportion of rabbits (58%) were thought to be fearful of loud noises, and 61% were not reported as calm when handled by their owner, which may be a significant concern for this species.ConclusionThis study has confirmed and expanded on previous findings: many pet rabbits were found to be in good health, had compatible companions and were provided with enriched living areas. However, it also found numerous welfare issues that affect large numbers of pet rabbits. We suggest further studies are required exploring the accuracy of owner reports (which possibly under-report many problems) and prioritising the issues raised here.

Towards a 'Good Life' for Farm Animals: Development of a Resource Tier Framework to Achieve Positive Welfare for Laying Hens

Simple Summary Farm animals can be said to have a ‘good life’ if their quality of life is substantially higher than the current legal minimum and includes positive experiences such as pleasure. In commercial farms, animals can be provided with different resources such as bedding, exercise areas and enrichment objects. We used scientific evidence and expert opinion to determine which resources laying hens need to contribute to a ‘good life’. These resources were organised into three tiers, of increasing welfare, leading towards a ‘good life’. We describe how we developed the resource tiers and suggest how the overall framework might be used to promote a ‘good life’ for farm animals. Abstract The concept of a ‘good life’ recognises the distinction that an animal’s quality of life is beyond that of a ‘life worth living’, representing a standard of welfare substantially higher than the legal minimum (FAWC, 2009). We propose that the opportunities required for a ‘good life’ could be used to structure resource tiers that lead to positive welfare and are compatible with higher welfare farm assurance schemes. Published evidence and expert opinion was used to define three tiers of resource provision (Welfare +, Welfare ++ and Welfare +++) above those stipulated in UK legislation and codes of practice, which should lead to positive welfare outcomes. In this paper we describe the principles underpinning the framework and the process of developing the resource tiers for laying hens. In doing so, we summarise expert opinion on resources required to achieve a ‘good life’ in laying hens and discuss the philosophical and practical challenges of developing the framework. We present the results of a pilot study to establish the validity, reliability and feasibility of the draft laying hen tiers on laying hen production systems. Finally, we propose a generic welfare assessment framework for farm animals and suggest directions for implementation, alongside outcome parameters, that can help define and promote a future ‘good life’ for farm animals.

Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges

This paper presents an account of a Welfare Quality® assessment of 92 dairy farms carried out by seven experienced assessors. The aim was to evaluate the potential of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol with respect to its uptake by UK farm assurance schemes. Data collection, and measure aggregation were performed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cows. This study examined the data itself, by the testing of how hypothetical interventions might be reflected in changes in the aggregated scores, and also investigated human-related aspects, through inter-assessor standardisation sessions to evaluate reliability, and an assessor focus group to collect feedback. Overall, three main ‘challenges’ were identified. The first challenge related to the large amount of missing data. Unexpectedly, this was such that it was only possible to calculate an overall classification for 7% of farms. The second challenge concerned the way in which aggregated scores did not always reflect hypothetical interventions. The final challenge was inter-assessor reliability, where not all assessors were found to achieve acceptable levels of agreement on a number of outcome measures by the third training session. Suggestions for managing these challenges included, follow-up to assessor training, the use of multiple imputation methods to fill in missing data, and, where applicable, not aggregating the scores. The conclusion of the study was that the protocol provided useful information from which to make an informed selection of measures, but that the challenges, combined with the lengthy assessment time, were too great for its use as a certification tool.

Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes

Most farm assurance schemes in the UK at least, in part, aim to provide assurances to consumers and retailers of compliance with welfare standards. Inclusion of welfare outcome assessments into the relevant inspection procedures provides a mechanism to improve animal welfare within assurance schemes. In this study, taking laying hens as an example, we describe a process for dealing with the practical difficulties in achieving this in two UK schemes; Freedom Food and Soil Association. The key challenges arise from selecting the most appropriate measures, defining sampling strategies that are feasible and robust, ensuring assessors can deliver a consistent evaluation and establishing a mechanism to achieve positive change. After a consultation exercise and pilot study, five measures (feather cover, cleanliness, aggressive behaviour, management of sick or injured birds, and beak trimming) were included within the inspection procedures of the schemes. The chosen sampling strategy of assessing 50 birds without handling provided reasonable certainty at a scheme level but less certainty at an individual farm level. Despite the inherent limitations within a time and cost sensitive certification assessment, the approach adopted does provide a foundation for welfare improvement by being able to highlight areas of concern requiring attention, enabling schemes to promote the use of outcome scoring as a management tool, promoting the dissemination of relevant technical information in a timely manner and increasing the scrutiny of standards important for the welfare of the birds.

Economic, education, encouragement and enforcement influences within farm assurance schemes

Farm assurance schemes are voluntary certification schemes that aim to provide consumers and retailers with assurances on animal welfare, environment and food safety standards. Whilst current schemes have often been focused on resource-based standards there has been interest in schemes including more outcome-based assessments. In order to maximise the likely impact of including these outcome assessments it is important to consider the economic, education, encouragement and enforcement drivers that may improve welfare. Using dairy cattle lameness as an example, the potential mechanisms to use these drivers within farm assurance schemes is reviewed. Future development of schemes should focus on encouraging the active participation of farmers in monitoring and managing outcome measures. Economic and educational approaches have a role in supporting change. Where possible, economic drivers need to be working in the same direction as welfare (ie provide win-win situations). Educational initiatives, such as providing generic technical information and farm-specific advisory support, need to be available when requested. Finally, enforcement tools, based on existing noncompliance procedures, may be needed to stimulate activity if other initiatives prove ineffective on individual farms.

Assessment of unnecessary suffering in animals by veterinary experts

Veterinary surgeons are often asked to provide reports to courts describing factual observations and their expert opinion on the presence or absence of unnecessary suffering in animals. This study reviewed 42 expert witness reports in order to describe the approach taken to the assessment of unnecessary suffering. While most reports suitably described factual observations, there was significant variation in the opinions on suffering and the actions of the owner. Severity and duration of potential suffering was commented upon in 26 and 29 reports, respectively. Experts used terms associated with negative mental states and physical states in 28 and 27 reports, respectively. The necessity of suffering was commented upon in 27 reports, with minimal commentary on the actions of the owner. External references supporting the opinion of the expert were only provided in 13 reports. There was evidence of disputes between experts concerning the definition of suffering, the significance of clinical findings and the relevance of different assessment methods. It is suggested that expert witness reports should include a systematic consideration of the animals mental and physical states, severity of harm, duration of harm and a commentary on the necessity of suffering as defined by legislation.

The welfare of long-line tethered and free-ranging horses kept on public grazing land in South Wales

A welfare assessment was conducted during 475 observations of 75 long-line tethered horses and 587 observations of 112 freerange horses kept on public grazing land in South Wales over a six-month period from March to August 2010. The observations included quantitative and qualitative behavioural assessments, assessments of physical welfare and assessments of the environment of the horse. Multi-level modelling was used to identify the significant factors affecting each measure. Tethered horses had similar behavioural repertoires to free-range horses but there were differences related to tethering, such as fewer observations of walking, trotting and cantering, increased vocalisations occurring during the observation and poorer qualitative ‘mood’ scores. There were few observations of severe physical welfare problems in either tethered or free-range horses, however tethered horses were observed more often to have eye abnormalities, hoof cracks, lameness and signs of limb pain but less often with mane and tail tangles, as thin or as dirty. Shelter from wind, rain or sun was available to almost all free-range horses (99.8% of observations) but was only found during 16.5% or fewer observations of tethered horses, giving them a greater risk of poor welfare during inclement weather. Similarly, tethered horses were infrequently observed to have access to clean water, and their willingness to drink when offered water, suggests the provision of water was inadequate and tethered horses may have been thirsty. There were significant confounding effects of the observer or climatic factors for some behavioural and physical measures that should be considered when conducting future studies.

Ethical decision-making in veterinary practice: using the head and the heart

Ethical decision-making is at the heart of veterinary practice. A recent study by Batchelor and McKeegan (2012) showed that nearly all vets surveyed faced ethical dilemmas at least once a week, with a third of vets saying they encountered three to five dilemmas a week. Exactly how veterinary surgeons resolve these dilemmas will have a bearing on whether good decisions are made and how clients and the wider public view individual vets and the profession as a whole. A paper by Quinn and others (2012), summarised on p 446 of this weeks Veterinary Record, describes how first-, third- and final-year veterinary students approached hypothetical ethical dilemmas. They found that, overall, veterinary students use a balance between justice reasoning, characterised by trying to achieve a fair outcome for all, and a care-centred approach, being empathetic to people and/or animals. The authors point out that others have considered this type of care-justice balance to be a sign of moral maturity (Gilligan and Attanucci 1988), although there is no evidence that these veterinary students developed that maturity during their course. Other studies have shown that, in the past at least, veterinary (and medical) students did not make any progress in their moral reasoning ability during their course, and even appeared to have …