![]()
III
Ethical Analyses of Animal Use
PETER JINMAN
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
The final word âuseâ in the title is the key to the session. Perhaps the summation of the dilemma and the essence of man is encapsulated in that one word.
In most mainstream religions and societies man is deemed to have dominion over animals, and though there may be species that are revered or respected, man remains, by self-election, the dominant species. Perhaps in a speceist sense, to the victor the spoils!
Setting the boundaries of acceptability for the use of animals by mankind has been, and continues to be, the philosophical and practical legal debate. This debate is informed and led by the advancement of scientific knowledge against a backdrop of an increasingly aware and concerned society acknowledging the Âsentience of other species and questioning the extent and manner to which man exerts that dominance.
The speakers presenting in this section of the conference reflect on the many ways that man has interpreted the word âuseâ; whether as food, companion, for sport or as found in nature, man or his actions have provoked change. The specific breeding of animals to accommodate the needs of man whether it be so as to race faster, pull or carry greater weight or increase the output of manâs desired foodstuff, for Âexample milk or meat, has been directed by man. Perhaps in that regard, the ultimate âuseâ of an animal remains that carried out by man experimenting with the mental or physical state of a particular sample of a species in the pursuit of knowledge or trialling or testing techniques of intervention or substances that will, if deemed sufficiently successful, prove to be beneficial for man, other animals or the environment.
In this last context and in the context of this conference about veterinary and animal ethics, the apparent contradiction between the declaration made by all Âveterinary surgeons when being admitted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the United Kingdom and thereby being granted the right to practice becomes all the more perverse:
âI promise above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with Âuprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals committed to my care.â
![]()
10
Wildlife Medicine, Conservation and Welfare
JAMES K. KIRKWOOD
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
10.1 Introduction
Veterinary medicine developed in response to ownersâ desire and demands for the injuries and diseases that affected their domesticated animals to be treated. Sometimes the motivation to have animals cured will have been partly (or mainly) financial â better to pay a small sum to cure a plough horse of its lameness than a large sum to buy a new one. But, no doubt, humans being very fond of animals, the motivation was often primarily, or at least partly, a reflection of emotional bonds with the animal and a desire to alleviate suffering. In the early days of veterinary practice, the main focus of attention was on farm and transport animals, creatures kept for primarily commercial reasons. Now, however, in many countries, more veterinarians are employed in companion animal medicine than in any other branch of veterinary endeavour.
In short, veterinary medicine has its roots in the treatment and control of Âdiseases of individual, owned, domesticated animals. Many of its traditional goals and Âethical conventions reflect these particular circumstances. Owners generally, for emotional and/or financial reasons, wish to prevent their animals from dying Âprematurely (from the ownerâs point of view). Farmers want the pigs, sheep, cattle and poultry that they raise for meat, to survive until these animals reach slaughter weight; and pet owners generally want their pets to keep them company for as long as possible. Whilst typically in nature, only a small minority of animals survive long enough to approach their maximum possible lifespans, the expectation with pet animals has become that most should. The veterinary care of domesticated, kept animals has been considerably geared towards maximising survival (even if only for the short period until slaughter weight is reached) and, more recently, increasingly towards promoting quality of life.
Modern veterinary medicine readily can be, and increasingly is, applied to wild animals. In addition, for example, to the application of veterinary technology and skills in the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of disease and other threats to Âwildlife welfare and conservation (e.g. Kennedy 2001; Jepsonet al. 2005; Miller 2008), and in the use of sedative and anaesthetic drugs to enable handling wild Âanimals for conservation management or research or for other reasons (e.g. Paras 2008), modern veterinary methods are increasingly being used for therapeutic Âreasons in wild animals. There are safe and effective drugs and surgical techniques that can be applied for treating or alleviating a very wide range of infectious or non-infectious diseases in a wide range of vertebrates (and invertebrates) (e.g. see Mullineauxet al. 2003; Fowler & Miller 2007). We have the technology to prevent many deaths through disease and injury and so, should we wish it, to increase average longevities. But, how should veterinary medicine be used in wild animals? For which species? Under what circumstances? And for what, or whose, ends? Who will decide?
The aim of this paper is to review the scale and range of anthropogenic threats to wild animal conservation and welfare and to discuss that, whilst Âveterinary interventions to tackle or alleviate anthropogenic conservation or Âwelfare Âproblems are likely often to be essential or the case for them to be very compelling, care should be taken to avoid uncritical application of the approaches and tenets of the veterinary care of domesticated animals.
10.2 Anthropogenic Threats to Wild Animal Conservation
The human population is approaching 7 billion and continuing to grow rapidly (US Census Bureau 2011). It seems likely that it will pass 9 billion by the middle of this century, at which point it will have more than trebled in the preceding 100 years. Not only are there very many of us but we utilise resources and produce wastes at biologically unprecedented rates. We maintain huge populations of kept animals: over 23 billion farm animals (FAO 2006) and hundreds of millions of companion animals. Sandersonet al. (2002) concluded that 83% of the global Âterrestrial biosphere was under direct human influence, and Hannahet al. (1994) estimated that 36% of the surface was entirely dominated by man. Humans Âappropriate (utilise or prevent other animals from utilising) about one quarter of the net production (the total plant growth upon which all animals depend) of the earthâs lands (Haberlet al. 2007).
There is inevitably competition with many other species for space, food and other resources. As is now well understood around the world, because of habitat loss or degradation, pollution, introduced predators or competitors, introduced or facilitated infectious diseases, killing or disturbance and other anthropogenic effects, the viability of many species is under threat (Hilton-Tayloret al. 2009). In many species, significant mortality is due to anthropogenic effects (vide infra) and Collins and Kays (2011) have pointed out that this may represent a strong selective force for behavioural or morphological changes (i.e. away from the natural Âgenotype).
The percentage of bird species classified as threatened increased from 11.1% in 1998 to 12.2% in 2008 (Viéet al. 2009). Of the 5488 mammal species evaluated in the most recent IUCN Red List review, 21% were classified as threatened (IUCN 2008). For reptiles, the corresponding figures were 31% threatened of 1385 species evaluated; for amphibians, 30% threatened of 6260 species evaluated; and for fish, 37% threatened of 3481 species evaluated (Hilton-Tayloret al. 2009).
Although there have been some successes, for example, it is thought that 16 Âspecies of birds would have become extinct between 1994 and 2004 if not for Âparticular conservation efforts (Butchart et al. 2006), overall the outlook for Âpreventing loss of biodiversity is very challenging. Increasingly so, as recent efforts to assess the impact of global warming led to the conclusion that: âthere is growing evidence that climate change will become one of the major drivers of extinction in the twenty-first centuryâ (Fodenet al. 2009).
It is clear that without specific efforts to tackle the threats and, in some cases, to actively intervene and to manage species (and their habitats) for their conservation, very many species will be lost. This was perceived only dimly, if at all, 50 years ago. Now it is widely understood. It is to be hoped that widespread loss of species can be averted.
Veterinary contributions towards wild animal conservation have been many and diverse; for example, through research into the causes and impacts of disease and other threats to free-living populations (e.g. Tompkinset al. 2002; Kuikenet al. 2006; Cunninghamet al. 2007; Robinsonet al. 2010) and through development and application of management and disease control methods in free-living and Âcaptive populations (e.g. Ensley 1999; Kollias 1999; Sainsbury 2008).
10.3 To Which Wild Animals Do Welfare Concerns Apply?
Concerns about conservation apply to all species: animals, plants, fungi and those in all the many other diverse kingdoms. With perhaps very few exceptions, such as the viruses of smallpox and rinderpest, both of which are thought to be extinct in the wild and which the world was happy to see the back of, there is a general Âsupposition that we should strive to avoid loss of biodiversity.
Concern for welfare, in contrast, applies only to sentient organisms, that is those that have the capacity to be subjectively aware of pleasant and/or unpleasant Âfeelings. For these organisms, there is the possibility that the ways in which we interact with them may make the quality of their lives better or worse from their own points of view. For these animals, the viability of populations is not the only issue, we must consider their feelings also.
The capacity to consciously, subjectively be aware of something is called Âsentience. We might describe our, human, form of sentience as âsymphonicâ because we can be aware of feelings associated with the activity of a wide range external and internal sensors (e.g. sight, sound, warmth, touch, taste, malaise and pain) and also of feelings associated with higher-level, cognitive (thinking) processes (e.g. joy, sorrow, embarrassment and guilt). Some of these kinds of feelings may be unique to humans (e.g. embarrassment perhaps) but many of them may be experienced by other species, some of which may have feelings that humans do not (e.g. those of the echolocation system of bats).
It may be that when sentience first evolved it applied only to one sense (say, taste or vision) and, if so, that there may be some animals for which this remains the case now. Sentience cannot be measured, it can only be inferred, so we do not know where the boundary lies between sentient and insentient organisms. Likewise, we can only infer (not measure) the range of feelings of which organisms are Âsentient of, beyond drawing facile conclusions, such as that there can be no feelings of colour without some kind of eyes (although, for all we know, bats may have some sound-based imaging with some kind of equivalents to colour, say based on surface texture of objects in their environments).
The great difficulty here, and it is much greater than is generally supposed, is that we do not know where the boundaries of sentient life lie (Kirkwood 2006). The line is, these days, often drawn at or near the border between vertebrates and invertebrates and many modern animal welfare laws reflect this. But, the scientific basis for this is not secure (e.g. see Sherwin 2001). Some authors believe there to be a good case that some invertebrates are sentient, whilst others argue that sentience may be limited to particular (and, according to some, small) parts of the vertebrate tree (Kirkwood & Hubrecht 2001).
10.4 Anthropogenic Threats to Wild Animal Welfare
Until relatively recently, with some notable exceptions, concern for animal Âwelfare has been focused largely on kept animals. Animal welfare science has many of its roots in determining the needs of laboratory and farmed animals and how these needs can be met. The application of the scientific approach to determining how best to keep animals was promoted by, amongst others, Russell and Burch (1959) in their book onThe Principles of Humane Experimental Technique and by the âBrambell Committeeâ (Brambell 1965)Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Hu...
