DOCSLIB.ORG

Replacement Or Reduction of Gene-Edited Animals in Biomedical Research: a Comparative Ethics and Policy Analysis Matthias Eggel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Replacement Or Reduction of Gene-Edited Animals in Biomedical Research: a Comparative Ethics and Policy Analysis Matthias Eggel NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 97 Number 5 Legal, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Article 13 New Gene-Editing Technologies 6-1-2019 Replacement or Reduction of Gene-Edited Animals in Biomedical Research: A Comparative Ethics and Policy Analysis Matthias Eggel Rebecca L. Walker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthias Eggel & Rebecca L. Walker, Replacement or Reduction of Gene-Edited Animals in Biomedical Research: A Comparative Ethics and Policy Analysis, 97 N.C. L. Rev. 1241 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss5/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 97 N.C. L. REV. 1241 (2019) REPLACEMENT OR REDUCTION OF GENE- EDITED ANIMALS IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH: A COMPARATIVE ETHICS AND POLICY ANALYSIS* MATTHIAS EGGEL** & REBECCA L. WALKER*** Since William Bateson’s 1906 coinage of the term “genetics,” the rise of mice as a model organism for biomedical research has gone hand in hand with genomic developments. In today’s research environment, mice and rats make up the vast majority of all research subjects. While the advent of gene-editing tools such as CRISPR has made genetic manipulation of mice easier, these tools also signal a new trend toward an increased use of large- animal models such as dogs, pigs, and nonhuman primates. Especially for neurological impairments, CRISPR gene editing offers the potential to generate large-animal models that better mimic human diseases. What are the ethical and regulatory implications of this trend? The professional and ethical framework for responsible conduct of animal research is widely recognized as the “three Rs”: Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. This Article points to the tension between reduction (decreasing the overall numbers of animals used) and relative replacement (the use of mice and rats instead of species with more “complex” capacities) that is implied by such a trade- off. The Article argues, however, that a comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks in the United States and in the European Union shows that neither offers any substantial guidance to moderate a trend toward greater use of large-animal models. * © 2019 Matthias Eggel & Rebecca L. Walker. ** Post-Doctoral fellow in Bioethics, University of Zurich. University of Berne Ph.D. (Molecular Biology and Biochemistry) 2015, University of Zurich Ph.D. (Bioethics) 2018. Dr. Eggel’s work is funded by the Messerli Foundation. *** Professor of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Ph.D. Stanford University (Philosophy). Dr. Walker’s work on this Article was funded in part by the UNC Center for Genomics and Society through the National Human Genome Research Institute (award number 2P50HG004488). The authors would like to thank the editors of the North Carolina Law Review, especially Robby Lucas, for helpful comments and suggestions leading to improvements in this Article, as well as collaborators in the UNC Center for Genomics and Society for background discussions about ethical and policy issues related to genome editing. 97 N.C. L. REV. 1241 (2019) 1242 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 97 Nevertheless, we raise several ethical questions associated with the trend toward using relatively fewer animals but replacing less cognitively developed animals with those with potentially greater morally relevant capacities and moral standing. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1242 I. GENE EDITING AND EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE LARGE- ANIMAL MODELS ....................................................................... 1245 II. THE U.S. AND E.U. REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR ANIMAL RESEARCH .................................................................. 1250 A. E.U. Regulation .................................................................... 1250 B. U.S. Regulation .................................................................... 1251 C. Nongovernmental Regulation ............................................. 1253 III. ANIMAL MORAL STATUS IN U.S. AND E.U. REGULATORY GUIDANCE .................................................................................. 1254 A. Regulatory Language Describing the Value of Animals .. 1254 B. The E.U.’s Harm-Benefit Analysis Requirement .............. 1255 C. The E.U.’s Upper Pain Threshold ...................................... 1256 D. The Three Rs in Practice ..................................................... 1257 E. U.S. Species-Specific Protections ........................................ 1258 IV. IMPLICATIONS OF U.S.-E.U. REGULATORY SYSTEM DIFFERENCES FOR THE INCREASED USE OF GENE- EDITED LARGE-ANIMAL MODELS .......................................... 1259 V. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE U.S. AND E.U. FRAMEWORKS ............................................................................ 1267 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 1270 INTRODUCTION In today’s biomedical research environment, mice and rats account for the vast majority of animals used.1 While the advent of new gene-editing tools such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short 1. See EUROPEAN COMM’N, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SEVENTH REPORT ON THE STATISTICS ON THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES IN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 3 (2013), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ resource.html?uri=cellar:e99d2a56-32fc-4f60-ad69-61ead7e377e8.0001.03/DOC_1&format= PDF [https://perma.cc/72B2-JF85]. Because only some countries collect statistics on the numbers of animals used generally, and rodents in particular, estimates of actual percentages of mice and rats vary as compared to other mammals. Katy Taylor et al., Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005, 36 HUMANE SOC’Y INST. FOR SCI. & POL’Y ANIMAL STUD. REPOSITORY 327, 327–28 (2008). 97 N.C. L. REV. 1241 (2019) 2019] REPLACING GENE-EDITED ANIMALS 1243 Palindromic Repeats (“CRISPR”) paired with specific nucleases (e.g., Cas) has made genetic manipulation of mice easier, they also portend a new trend toward an increased use of large-animal models such as dogs, pigs, and nonhuman primates (“NHPs”), among others.2 These gene-editing tools offer the potential to generate large-animal models that better mimic human diseases and are thus potentially more translatable to human medicine.3 The responsible conduct of animal research has largely been based on the idea of the “three Rs” of reduction, replacement, and refinement of animal research.4 Reduction aims to minimize the number of animals used to those needed for the scientific endeavor. Replacement works to substitute the use of live animals with alternative models, such as computer-based simulation or in vitro studies. Refinement involves lessening harms to animals used in research through changes to research procedures, improved management of pain and distress, and improved housing and caretaking. Within the broader replacement framework, partial or relative replacement envisions substituting cognitively higher- developed animals with cognitively less-developed animals.5 This is based on the idea that more cognitively developed species have an increased sentience and a greater ability to suffer.6 A core professional ethics problem regarding the greater use of gene-edited large-animal models is the tension between reduction and relative replacement. According to relative replacement, there would typically be an incentive to replace larger animals with smaller species if they are also less cognitively developed.7 However, since far fewer 2. See Aaron C. Ericsson, Marcus J. Crim & Craig L. Franklin, A Brief History of Animal Modeling, 110 MO. MED. 201, 203–04 (2013). The advances of gene editing are especially remarkable given that the study of genetics is itself a relatively new academic specialty, as William Bateson coined the term “genetics” only in 1906. KAREN RADER, MAKING MICE: STANDARDIZING ANIMALS FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, 1900–1955, at 27–28 (2004). 3. Alexandra Wendler & Martin Wehling, The Translatability of Animal Models for Clinical Development: Biomarkers and Disease Models, 10 CURRENT OPINION PHARMACOLOGY 601, 605 (2010). 4. See generally W. M. S. RUSSELL & R. L. BURCH, THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMANE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE 64 (1959) (discussing “the ways in which inhumanity can be . diminished or removed . under the three broad headings of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement” (emphasis omitted)). 5. Nicole Fenwick, Gilly Griffin & Clément Gauthier, The Welfare of Animals Used in Science: How the “Three Rs” Ethic Guides Improvements, 50 CANADIAN VETERINARY J. 523, 523 (2009). 6. See id. 7. Id. 97 N.C. L. REV. 1241 (2019) 1244 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 97 large animals would be used in gene-edited disease-model studies than, for example, the number of mice that would be used in these studies, reduction argues in favor of using gene-edited large-animal models.8 How should this tension between reduction and relative replacement be resolved? To put the point in sharp relief: If possible, should we trade a study using one thousand rodents for a potentially more translatable study using ten NHPs, dogs, or pigs? The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enacted and Vetoed State Laws Affecting Animals for the Year 2003
    ENACTED AND VETOED STATE LAWS AFFECTING ANIMALS FOR THE YEAR 2003 The following list is a compilation of laws and resolutions that were passed by state legislatures in 2003 and then signed into law or vetoed. The list includes legislation that had a positive, negative, or neutral impact on animals. Please e-mail Julie Janovsky at [email protected] , to obtain a copy of these bills, or if you have any questions, additions or corrections to the list. ALABAMA H.B. 37 (Buskey) - Greyhound Euthanasia Requires that the only method allowed for euthanasia of greyhounds is by lethal injection and makes it a crime to remove greyhounds from the state for the purpose of euthanizing. Signed into law on 6/20/03. ALASKA H.B. 208 (Fate) & S.B. 155 (Seekins) - Airborne Shooting Allows the Department of Game and Fish to authorize a predator control program involving airborne or same day airborne shooting of wolves. Signed into law on 6/18/03 S.B. 147 (Green) - NWCO BILL Provides for licensing and regulating of nuisance wildlife control operators. Signed into law on 6/28/03. ARIZONA H.B. 2121 (Carruthers) - Dogs Changes the minimum age for a dog to be considered a stray from four months to three months, and adds an additional $10 to the $2 late payment fee for a dog license if more than a year late, or an additional $20 if more than 2 years late. Signed into law on 5/6/03. S.B. 1351 (Weiers) - Pet Trusts Creates trusts for pets. Signed into law on 5/12/03.
    [Show full text]
  • AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition*
    AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition* Members of the Panel on Euthanasia Steven Leary, DVM, DACLAM (Chair); Fidelis Pharmaceuticals, High Ridge, Missouri Wendy Underwood, DVM (Vice Chair); Indianapolis, Indiana Raymond Anthony, PhD (Ethicist); University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska Samuel Cartner, DVM, MPH, PhD, DACLAM (Lead, Laboratory Animals Working Group); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama Temple Grandin, PhD (Lead, Physical Methods Working Group); Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Cheryl Greenacre, DVM, DABVP (Lead, Avian Working Group); University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee Sharon Gwaltney-Brant, DVM, PhD, DABVT, DABT (Lead, Noninhaled Agents Working Group); Veterinary Information Network, Mahomet, Illinois Mary Ann McCrackin, DVM, PhD, DACVS, DACLAM (Lead, Companion Animals Working Group); University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Robert Meyer, DVM, DACVAA (Lead, Inhaled Agents Working Group); Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi David Miller, DVM, PhD, DACZM, DACAW (Lead, Reptiles, Zoo and Wildlife Working Group); Loveland, Colorado Jan Shearer, DVM, MS, DACAW (Lead, Animals Farmed for Food and Fiber Working Group); Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Tracy Turner, DVM, MS, DACVS, DACVSMR (Lead, Equine Working Group); Turner Equine Sports Medicine and Surgery, Stillwater, Minnesota Roy Yanong, VMD (Lead, Aquatics Working Group); University of Florida, Ruskin, Florida AVMA Staff Consultants Cia L. Johnson, DVM, MS, MSc; Director,
    [Show full text]
  • Advice on Euthanasia Techniques for Small and Large Cetaceans
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2014/111 National Capital Region Advice on Euthanasia Techniques for Small and Large Cetaceans Pierre-Yves Daoust1 and Arthur Ortenburger2 1 Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative Department of Pathology & Microbiology Atlantic Veterinary College University of Prince Edward Island 550 University Avenue Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3 2 Department of Health Management Atlantic Veterinary College University of Prince Edward Island 550 University Avenue Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3 January 2015 Foreword This series documents the scientific basis for the evaluation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of the day in the time frames required and the documents it contains are not intended as definitive statements on the subjects addressed but rather as progress reports on ongoing investigations. Research documents are produced in the official language in which they are provided to the Secretariat. Published by: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 200 Kent Street Ottawa ON K1A 0E6 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/ [email protected] © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2015 ISSN 1919-5044 Correct citation for this publication: Daoust, P.-Y., Ortenburger, A. 2015. Advice on Euthanasia Techniques for Small and Large Cetaceans. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2014/111. v + 36 p. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1999 Enacted and Vetoed Animal Legislation
    1999 Enacted And Vetoed Animal Legislation The following list is a compilation of laws and resolutions that were passed by state legislatures in 1999 and then signed into law or vetoed. The list includes legislation that had a positive, negative, or neutral impact on animals. For a copy of any of these laws and resolutions, or if you have questions, additions, or corrections, please e-mail Julie Janovsky at [email protected]. ALASKA AK S.B. 74 Game Management Authorizes an employee of the Department of Fish and Game, as part of the game management program, to shoot or assist in shooting wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that the employee is airborne. Vetoed: July 9, 1999 ARIZONA AZ S.B. 1174 Animal Cruelty Penalties Establishes that intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly failing to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under a person's custody or control is a Class 1 misdemeanor; and establishes that subjecting an animal under a person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment—which results in serious physical injury to the animal—is a Class 6 felony. Signed into law: May 4, 1999 AZ H.B. 2578 Specialty License Plates Allows an organization with less than 200 members to request approval for a special license plate, provided the organization agrees to pay the production and program costs of the special plate. Signed into law: May 4, 1999 ARKANSAS AR H.B. 1442 Animal Shelter Procedures Requires mandatory sterilization of dogs and cats released by pounds, shelters, and humane organizations; and applies to counties with a population of 300,000 or more.
    [Show full text]
  • Full List of Lead Terms and Cross References
    BIOETHICS THESAURUS 2011 ABORTED FETUSES ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES ABORTIFACIENTS ALTERNATIVES ABORTION ALTRUISM ABORTION ON DEMAND ALZHEIMER DISEASE Abortion, Induced Use ABORTION AMBULATORY CARE Abortion, Spontaneous Use MISCARRIAGE AMERICAN INDIANS ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS AMNIOCENTESIS Access to Health Care Use HEALTH CARE AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS DELIVERY ANALOGY ACCESS TO INFORMATION ANCIENT HISTORY ACCOUNTABILITY ANENCEPHALY Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Use AIDS ANESTHESIA ACTIVE EUTHANASIA Aneuploidy Use CHROMOSOME ADDICTION ABNORMALITIES ADMINISTRATORS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR ADOLESCENTS ANIMAL CARE COMMITTEES ADOPTION ANIMAL CLONING ADULT CHILDREN ANIMAL EUTHANASIA ADULT STEM CELLS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION ADULTERY ANIMAL GROUPS ADULTS ANIMAL ORGANS Adult-Onset Genetic Disorders Use LATE-ONSET ANIMAL PRODUCTION DISORDERS ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVANCE CARE PLANNING ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES Advance Directive Adherence Use ADVANCE Animal Use Alternatives Use ANIMAL TESTING DIRECTIVES and DIRECTIVE ALTERNATIVES ADHERENCE ANIMAL WELFARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES Animals, Genetically Modified Use ADVERSE EFFECTS GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANIMALS ADVERTISING Animals, Transgenic Use GENETICALLY ADVISORY COMMITTEES MODIFIED ANIMALS AFRICAN AMERICANS ANONYMOUS TESTING AGE FACTORS Antenatal Diagnosis Use PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AGED Antenatal Injuries Use PRENATAL INJURIES AGGRESSION ANTHROPOLOGY AGING APO-E GENES AGRICULTURE APTITUDE Ahliyah Use COMPETENCE ARAB WORLD AIDS ARABS AIDS SERODIAGNOSIS ARTIFICIAL FEEDING ALCOHOL ABUSE ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION ALLIED
    [Show full text]
  • Euthanasia Chart
    State Animal Euthanasia Laws Last updated September 2019 State Code Regulations Who may Who may possess Method Emergency Euthanasia perform AL Ala. Code 1975 § 34- Ala. Admin. Licensed Veterinary Clinics Injectable agents such In the case of an injured, 29-130 Code r. 930-X-1- veterinarian as sodium pentobarbital, diseased or dangerous Permit to purchase, .35 Animal shelters sodium pentobarbital animal, a law enforcement possess, and use Certified Licensed approved by the with lidocaine, or other officer, a veterinarian, or certain agents for Euthanasia veterinary Board that operate similar agents an agent or designee of a euthanizing animals Technicians technician who for the collection and local animal control unit (CET) For the is the employee care of stray, Oral Euthanasia may humanely destroy the Ala. Code 1975 § 34- Humane or agent of a neglected, Solution animal after making a 29-131 Euthanasia of licensed abandoned, or reasonable attempt to Exemptions Animals veterinarian or unwanted dogs and Carbon Monoxide, CO, locate the owner. The animal shelter cats and inhalant anesthetics animal may be shot or Ala. Code 1975 § 34- Ala. Admin. injected with a barbiturate 29-132 Code r. 930-X-1- Certified Federally licensed Carbon monoxide drug. Euthanasia in .36 euthanasia wildlife rehabilitation chamber that meets the emergency situations Registered Animal technician centers standards of the AVMA If the officer locates the Euthanasia employed by an panel on euthanasia owner or the owner’s Facility (RAEF) for animal shelter agent, then he or she the Humane approved by the *After January 1, 2012, must notify the owner of Euthanasia of Board any animal shelters the animal’s location and Animals which operated a gas condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Form 990-PF Or Section 4947 ( A)(1) Trust Treated As Private Foundation \2 ^O^ Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public
    / ^V AMENDED RETURN YC7^^V VU 8 Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990-PF or Section 4947 ( a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation \2 ^O^ Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury ► and its separate instructions /form990pf. • Internal Revenue Service ► Information about Form 990-PF is at For calendar y ear 2016 or tax y ear beg inning , 2016 , and ending , 20 Name of foundation A Employer Identification number AT&T FOUNDATION 43-1353948 Number and street (or P 0 box number if mall is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) 208 S. AKARD, SUITE 100 (800) 591-9663 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code q C If exemption application is ► pending, check here . DALLAS, TX 75202-4206 G Check all that apply: Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1 Foreign organizations , check here. ► El Final return X Amended return 2 Foreign organizations meeting the q 85% test , check here and attach . ► Address change Name change computation H Check type of organization' X Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section chantable trust Other taxable p rivate foundation El 4947 ( a )( 1 ) nonexem pt under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here . ► Fair market value of all assets at J Accounting method. L_J Cash X Accrual F 11 the foundation is in a 60-month termination end of year (from Part ll, col.
    [Show full text]
  • AUSVETPLAN Destruction of Animals.Pdf
    AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY EMERGENCY PLAN AUSVETPLAN Operational Manual Destruction of animals A manual of techniques of humane destruction Version 3.2, 2015 AUSVETPLAN is a series of technical response plans that describe the proposed Australian approach to an emergency animal disease incident. The documents provide guidance based on sound analysis, linking policy, strategies, implementation, coordination and emergency- management plans. Agriculture Ministers’ Forum This operational manual forms part of: AUSVETPLAN Edition 3 This manual will be reviewed regularly. Suggestions and recommendations for amendments should be forwarded to: AUSVETPLAN — Animal Health Australia Executive Manager, Emergency Preparedness and Response Suite 15, 26–28 Napier Close Deakin ACT 2600 Tel: 02 6232 5522; Fax: 02 6232 5511 email: [email protected] Approved citation: Animal Health Australia (2015). Operational manual: Destruction of animals (Version 3.2). Australian Veterinary Emergency Plan (AUSVETPLAN), Edition 3, Agriculture Ministers’ Forum, Canberra, ACT. Publication record: Edition 1: 1991 Edition 2: Version 2.0, 1996 (major update) Edition 3: Version 3.0, 2006 (major update and inclusion of new cost-sharing arrangements) Version 3.1, 2010 (minor update to Sections 3.5 and 4.7; inclusion of foam technology — not currently available in Australia — for depopulation of poultry) Version 3.2, 2015 (minor update to Sections 3.5 and 4.7; inclusion of foam technology — now available in Australia — for destruction of chickens; and incorporation
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare Act. § 19A-20
    Article 3. Animal Welfare Act. § 19A-20. Title of Article. This Article may be cited as the Animal Welfare Act. (1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1217, s. 1.) § 19A-21. Purposes. The purposes of this Article are (i) to protect the owners of dogs and cats from the theft of such pets; (ii) to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets; (iii) to insure that animals, as items of commerce, are provided humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling and treatment of such animals by persons or organizations engaged in transporting, buying, or selling them for such use; (iv) to insure that animals confined in pet shops, kennels, animal shelters and auction markets are provided humane care and treatment; (v) to prohibit the sale, trade or adoption of those animals which show physical signs of infection, communicable disease, or congenital abnormalities, unless veterinary care is assured subsequent to sale, trade or adoption. (1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1217, s. 2.) § 19A-22. Animal Welfare Section in Animal Health Division of Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services created; Director. There is hereby created within the Animal Health Division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, a new section thereof, to be known as the Animal Welfare Section of said division. The Commissioner of Agriculture is hereby authorized to appoint a Director of said section whose duties and authority shall be determined by the Commissioner subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and subject to the provisions of this Article. (1977, 2nd Sess., c.
    [Show full text]
  • Austrian Veterinarians' Attitudes to Euthanasia in Equine Practice
    animals Article Austrian Veterinarians’ Attitudes to Euthanasia in Equine Practice Svenja Springer 1,* , Florien Jenner 2 , Alexander Tichy 3 and Herwig Grimm 1 1 Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal-Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 2 University Equine Hospital, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +43-125-077-2687 Received: 3 January 2019; Accepted: 29 January 2019; Published: 30 January 2019 Simple Summary: Euthanasia of companion animals is a challenging responsibility in the veterinary profession. Convenience euthanasia, over-treatment of animals, and financial limitations often present challenging situations in veterinary practice. Only a few empirical investigations have been published which concentrate on the horse owner’s perspective on euthanasia in equine practice. Data findings on veterinarians’ attitudes toward euthanasia in equine medicine are even scarcer. To this end, an anonymous questionnaire-based survey of Austrian equine veterinarians’ examines attitudes to the euthanasia of equine patients in a range of scenarios; to identify factors which may influence decisions on the ending of a horse’s life. The study showed that veterinarians consider contextual and relational factors in their decision-making. They are aware of owners’ emotional bonds with their horses and financial background, however, requests for convenience euthanasia are typically rejected. Although some significant differences between the tested variables, e.g., gender and working experience emerged, the attitudes of the veterinarians were shown to be largely shared.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Hospice and Palliative Care Guidelines
    Animal Hospice and Palliative Care Guidelines Published by the International Association of Animal Hospice and Palliative Care (IAAHPC), Founded 2009 Authors Amir Shanan, DVM. Task Force Chair. Illinois, USA Kris August, DVM. Iowa, USA Kathy Cooney, DVM, MS. Colorado, USA Lynn Hendrix, DVM. California, USA Bonnie Mader, MS. California, USA Jessica Pierce, PhD, MTS. Colorado, USA Acknowledgements We the authors would like to thank the following individuals for sharing their time and expertise in review of this document: Betty Carmack, RN, EdD, Jennifer Coates, DVM, Radford Davis, DVM, MPH, Diplomate ACVPM, Tina Ellenbogen, DVM, Barbara Fougere, BSc, BVMS (hons), BHSc (Comp Med), MHSc (Herb Med), CVA, Sandra Frellsen, MD, Chris Hendrix­Chupa, and Rebecca Rose, CVT. 1 Animal Hospice and Palliative Care Guidelines Table of Contents: I. Introduction II. Purpose and goals of the Guidelines III. Pain, suffering, well­being, and quality of life in the animal hospice and palliative care patient 1. Physical and emotional suffering 2. Animals’ individual preferences 3. Quality of Life assessments 4. Recognition of animal pain and pleasure 5. Collaboration and consensus IV. Ethical and legal aspects of providing hospice and palliative care to animals and their caregivers 1. General considerations 2. Euthanasia 3. Pain and suffering 4. Ethical business practices 5. Legal aspects V. Mental Health Considerations in Caring for Animal Hospice and Palliative Caregivers 1. The mental health aspect of caregiving 2. Caregiving experience 3. Experiencing grief 4. Training in mental health and communication 5. When to contact a mental health professional 6. Grief and Bereavement Support for Caregivers 7. Animal Hospice providers’ needs 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Concerns of Testing Toxins in Animals
    Heaven Le A. Roberts ANS 420, 5 March 2015 Ethical Concerns of Testing Toxins in Animals Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock…. this is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. - Ezekiel 34: 2-10 Along with the advice Ezekiel gave to ancient followers of Judaism, our modern society has a wealth of guidelines and regulations regarding the treatment of animals, both domesticated and wild. In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) serves as the primary legislation regarding minimums of animal care, in research and otherwise. This act calls for training research personnel in humane animal maintenance and experimentation, testing methods that minimize or eliminate the use of animals (or limit an animal’s pain or distress), and protocol to report deficiencies in animal care and treatment (Animal Welfare Act, 2013). The AWA also recommends replacing animals in research whenever possible, reducing the number of animals, and implementing policies which reduce or eliminate repeated experimentation (Animal Welfare Act, 2013). These principles are known in research as the “3 Rs” (replace, reduce, refine), methodology first publically proposed to the scientific community by Russell and Birch (1959), and one that has been used to modify our methods of animal testing since that time (Usunoff, 2006; The National Academies, 2007; Hoberman, 2012;). These same practices, however, oversee the administration of large doses of known or suspected toxins to animals in order to observe obvious symptoms of disease (The National Academies, 2007; Animal Welfare Act, 2013).
    [Show full text]