Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — October 2018

Some animal rights advocates argue that humane meat is an oxymoron. They believe killing an animal simply for human benefit is never humane. Other animal rights groups believe that advocating for humane meat improves the lives of more animals more rapidly than promoting a vegan lifestyle. Those involved in conventional animal agriculture believe that humanely raised livestock as well as veganism are passing fads and that modern livestock production has a smaller environmental footprint than humane meat. As a food animal veterinarian with both conventional and humanely raised livestock clients as well as friends and relatives who inquire about animal rights and veganism, you are looked to as a reliable source of information on these matters. It is a struggle, however, for you to stay current in veterinary practice without getting involved in animal welfare controversies. How should you respond to those who seek your council in these matters?

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Tim Blackwell, 6486 E. Garafraxa, Townline, Belwood, Ontario N0B 1J0; telephone: (519) 846-3413; fax: (519) 846-8178; e-mail: tim.e.blackwell@gmail.com

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Ethical question of the month — July 2018

Fur farming has unique welfare challenges. Among these is timely and effective euthanasia of individual animals suffering from injuries or disease from which recovery is unlikely. A captive bolt gun is a safe and effective method of euthanasia for traditional domestic species. However, farmed mink and foxes are difficult to restrain adequately (particularly mature individuals) to ensure proper placement of the gun. Efforts to humanely restrain farmed fur animals for euthanasia often result in additional stress and injuries to the animal and the caretaker. If a safe, practical, and humane means of euthanasia does not exist, is it acceptable to allow farmed fur animals to die naturally? Is there an alternative for today’s fur farmer?

Ethical euthanasia — A Comment

These are a pair of very odd questions to be asking when in fact safe, practical, and humane methods of euthanasia of ranched or fur-farmed animals have been practiced for ages.

As a single example, harking back a quarter-century to the Canadian Council on Animal Care’s Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, appropriate methods would include “the use of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen … or electrical stunning followed by cervical dislocation” (1).

Moreover, the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farmed Mink specifically mandates the recommendation of the American Veterinary Medical Association which “recognizes carbon monoxide (CO) as an approved method of euthanasia for mink” and specifies that “CO from a compressed cylinder must be used on all Canadian farms.” This requirement has been in effect since December 31, 2013 (2).

Bottom line: Asking questions which already have satisfactory solutions has little rationale, either practically or philosophically.

Dr. John B. Delack, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

An ethicist’s commentary on ethical euthanasia

The facts presented in this month’s case are not complete and therefore much of the question is unclear. Upon conferring with expert veterinarians associated with the fur industry, we determined that the scenario as described would be rare. One expert veterinarian wrote to us that “to offer the concept of allowing an animal that has been determined to be in need of euthanasia to ‘die naturally’ is completely wrong from a scientific and most importantly from an ethical point of view.” There is certainly a great deal to debate regarding acceptability of diverse euthanasia methods. But one point that is eminently clear is that a natural death is not necessarily a good death. To take a ridiculously simplistic example, a person swimming in high tides may well drown, certainly a natural death, but not a good one. To take some paradigmatic animal-centered examples, being torn apart by a predator is certainly natural but far from desirable. Similarly, many animal diseases are certainly “natural,” but occasion exquisite suffering. In fact, it is quite cogent to argue that there is (or rather, ought to be) one certain benefit for animals raised for human use, namely a genuinely non-horrendous death. As every veterinarian knows, the word “euthanasia” etymologically means “good death.” Unfortunately, historically, as a result of ignorance, lack of concern, or simple stupidity, many modalities for performing “euthanasia” are woefully distant from a good death. I knew for example of one animal shelter that drowned animals it could not place into homes. Being bludgeoned to death is indeed also very far from genuine euthanasia. Similarly, utilizing automobile exhaust to kill animals, as again occurred historically with “animal shelters” disposing of unwanted animals, is greatly flawed.

There are some common methods of killing animals that fall far short of being genuine euthanasia. One paradigmatic example has been the use of carbon dioxide to kill animals in research, primarily small rodents. As anyone in veterinary medicine knows, carbon dioxide kills by suffocation. I have many scientist friends who have assured me that CO₂ is perfectly acceptable, since in some cases it is an anaesthetic. My response to such claims is to ask these people to put a chunk of dry ice (frozen CO₂) into a bag, and then take a deep breath from the air in the bag. The feeling that the air is literally being ripped away from you is most unpleasant and terrifying. (There is a reason that treating asthmatics, who cannot expel their CO₂ as a result of bronchial constriction, is a major priority in emergency rooms.) Furthermore, when CO₂ reaches mucous membranes, carbonic acid is formed, which burns.

My research indicates that the fur industry uses carbon monoxide (CO) for euthanasia when recovering pelts. Furthermore, the CO utilized is not derived from automobile exhaust, and is therefore pure. One cannot detect carbon monoxide, as it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. (That is in fact why one should keep a carbon monoxide detector in one’s home.) From the point of view of animal welfare, CO is an optimal euthanasia agent. What is problematic about it, is that it is extremely dangerous to operators who are involved in administering it, and its toxic effects are cumulative over time. It ends up binding with hemoglobin, in effect preventing the body from receiving the requisite amount of oxygen.

Euthanasia of fur animals such as mink generally occurs in large groups of animals. I have been unable to find out what method is used when an individual animal is sick, injured, or suffering, and thus requires euthanasia. I doubt that the industry would use a method aimed at large groups of animals for individuals, if only for reasons of cost. I would assume that an injection of pentobarbital would work if the animal can be handled, but mink are not tame. It is extremely distressing that we have been unable to find a required protocol for such cases, either by networking or searching the Web, leading to the possibility that the scenario described in this case could conceivably occur, under conditions in which euthanasia is required for individual animals.

Probably as important as what is used for euthanasia is the way the animals are handled prior to euthanasia. In recent years, largely thanks to the work of Temple Grandin, the cattle industry has taken major steps towards minimizing the stress resulting from pre-slaughter handling. The industry generally deploys stunners, or captive bolt pistols, which are placed appropriately against the animals’ foreheads and ablate consciousness, virtually instantaneously. Unfortunately, the slaughter of other food animals is nowhere near as optimal. Pigs are frequently stunned by being placed into CO₂ tunnels or carousels. Poultry are hung by their feet from conveyor belts and then stunned by electric paddles that robotically are fitted to their heads. Immediately thereafter, they are mechanically eviscerated and dumped into scalding water. The stunning fails more than half the time, and poultry is not covered by the US Humane Slaughter Act. The industry is currently seeking better alternatives and my colleagues and I have worked on high-altitude hypoxia, which induces oxygen deprivation in the brain without suffocation, so the animals simply go to sleep.

Any euthanasia method can fail if it is administered by uncaring or untrained workers. Since the animals are giving us their lives, we owe it to them morally to provide a peaceful and non-traumatic death. This in turn entails methods not causing pain and distress, gentle handling, and doing as much as possible to minimize the animals’ pain and fear. Pursuant to these goals, workers should be well-trained and equipment should always be in flawless condition.