Search

Ethical treatment of wildlife and consideration of animal welfare have become important themes in conservation, but ethical perspectives on how best to protect wild animals and promote their welfare are diverse. There are advantages to the consequentialist harms ethical framework applied in managing wild herbivores for conservation purposes. To minimize harms while achieving conservation goals, we argue that overabundant wild herbivores should in many cases be managed through consumptive in situ killing. Advantages of this policy are that the negative welfare states imposed on animals last only a short time; remaining animals are not deprived of positive welfare states (e.g., linked to rearing offspring); poor welfare states of animals in overabundant populations are avoided (e.g., starvation); negative welfare impacts on heterospecifics through resource depletion (i.e., competition) are prevented; harvesting meat reduces the number of (agricultural) animals raised to supply meat; and minimal costs maximize funding for other wildlife management and conservation priorities. Alternative ethical approaches to our consequentialist framework include deontology (containing animal rights) and virtue ethics, some of which underpin compassionate conservation. These alternative ethical approaches emphasize the importance of avoiding intentional killing of animals but, if no population reduction occurs, are likely to impose considerable unintentional harms on overabundant wildlife and indirectly harm heterospecifics through ineffective population reduction. If nonlethal control is used, it is likely that overabundant animals would be deprived of positive welfare states and economic costs would be prohibitive. We encourage conservation stakeholders to consider animal-welfare consequentialism as an ethical approach to minimize harms to the animals under their care as well as other animals that policies may affect while at the same time pursuing conservation goals.Conservación Compasiva versus Conservación Consecuencialista Resumen El trato ético de la fauna y la consideración por el bienestar animal se han convertido en temas importantes para la conservación, pero las perspectivas éticas sobre cuáles son las mejores maneras para proteger a los animales silvestres y promover su bienestar son diversas. Existen ventajas en el marco de trabajo ético de los daños consecuencialistas aplicados en el manejo de herbívoros silvestres por motivos de conservación. Para minimizar los daños a la vez que se alcanzan los objetivos de conservación argumentamos que los herbívoros silvestres sobreabundantes deberían, en muchos casos, ser manejados por medio de muertes in situ consuntivas. Las ventajas de esta política son que los estados negativos de bienestar impuestos sobre los animales duran muy poco tiempo; a los animales que permanecen no se les priva de un estado positivo de bienestar (p. ej.: conectados a la crianza de descendencia); se evitan los estados pobres de bienestar en las poblaciones sobreabundantes (p. ej.: hambruna); se previenen los impactos negativos de bienestar por medio de la disminución sobre los heteroespecíficos (es decir, competencia); la crianza para carne reduce el número de animales (agrícolas) criados para abastecer de carne; y los costos mínimos maximizan el financiamiento para otras prioridades de manejo y conservación de fauna. Las estrategias éticas alternativas a nuestro marco de trabajo consecuencialista incluyen la deontología (que contiene los derechos de los animales) y la ética de virtudes, algunas de las cuales apoyan la conservación compasiva. Estas estrategias éticas alternativas enfatizan la importancia de evitar la muerte intencional de los animales pero, si no ocurre una reducción de la población, es probable que impongan daños considerables accidentales sobre la fauna sobreabundante y dañen indirectamente a los heteroespecíficos por medio de la reducción infructuosa de la población. Si se utiliza un control no letal, es probable que los animales sobreabundantes quedarían privados de estados positivos de bienestar y los costos económicos serían prohibitivos. Alentamos a los accionistas de la conservación a considerar el consecuencialismo del bienestar animal como una estrategia ética para minimizar los daños que sufren los animales bajo su cuidado así como otros animales que podrían ser afectados por las políticas mientras se busca alcanzar objetivos de conservación.善待野生动物及动物福利问题已成为保护中的一个重要话题, 但人们对于如何最好地保护野生动物并提升其福利有不同的伦理观点。其中, 应用于野生食草动物保护管理中的结果论伤害伦理框架有很多优势。为了在实现保护目标的同时尽量减少伤害, 我们认为许多情况下可以通过消费性的就地捕杀过剩的野生食草动物, 以进行管理。这项政策的好处在于:动物只在很短的时间内处于不良福利状态、剩下的动物仍享有较好的福利 (如养育后代方面) 、避免了过剩种群中较差的动物福利情况 (如饥饿) 、防止了其它物种的福利因资源耗竭而遭受负面影响 (如竞争) 、肉类的获得可以减少饲养的农业食用动物的数量, 且能以最低成本最大程度地为其它野生动物管理和保护优先问题供给资金。这个结果论框架伦理学的替代方法有道义论 (包括动物权利) 和美德伦理学, 其中有一部分是怜悯性保护 (compassionate conservation) 的基础。这些伦理替代方法强调了避免故意杀害动物的重要性, 但是, 如果不减少种群数量, 很可能会在无意间对数量过剩的野生动物造成很大伤害, 并间接地伤害其它物种。如果用非杀伤性的控制方法, 过剩的动物可能会被剥夺良好的福利状态, 所需的经济成本也过于昂贵。我们鼓励保护利益相关者以动物福利结果论为伦理方法, 在追求保护目标的同时, 尽量减少对他们管理的动物和政策可能影响到的其它动物产生的伤害。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.

Calls for ethical management of wildlife in the international conservation community are increasing. However, it is not clear what this actually entails. Using a case of lethal (hunting) and nonlethal control (fertility control) of “chronically abundant” large herbivores such as white‐tailed deer in rural and suburban areas of the United States we show what different ethical values and commitments may lead to in terms of management preference. The values looked at are humane treatment of deer, not killing them and allowing them a natural life. In terms of deer welfare, fertility control might be, overall, better than lethal control; in terms of naturalness, lethal control may have the edge. However, this conclusion is tentative. There are insufficient studies on the welfare effects of different control methods, and the specificities will also make a difference. In conclusion, there is no simple or single answer as to what constitutes “ethical management” of deer populations. Different values can be prioritized, and different ethical approaches adopted (e.g., “respecting rights” or “best consequences.”) A better understanding of what is at stake ethically could help both in designing further research and in making transparent and well‐informed decisions.

This study aimed to review currently reported methods of assessing the effects of chemotherapy on the quality of life (QoL) of canine and feline patients and to explore novel ways to assess QoL in such patients in the light of the experience to date in human pediatric oncology. A qualitative comparative analysis of published papers on the effects of chemotherapy on QoL in dogs and cats were conducted. This was supplemented with a comparison of the parameters and domains used in veterinary QoL-assessments with those used in the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) questionnaire designed to assess QoL in toddlers. Each of the identified publications including QoL-assessment in dogs and cats receiving chemotherapy applied a different method of QoL-assessment. In addition, the veterinary QoL-assessments were mainly focused on physical clinical parameters, whereas the emotional (6/11), social (4/11) and role (4/11) domains were less represented. QoL-assessment of cats and dogs receiving chemotherapy is in its infancy. The most commonly reported method to assess QoL was questionnaire based and mostly included physical and clinical parameters. Standardizing and including a complete range of potentially relevant parameters in future QoL assessments may benefit owner decision making.

The aim of this study was to investigate the Danish public’s support for publicly funded obesity treatment and prevention. It was also examined whether levels of support could be explained by dislike of obese people and / or the belief that those who are obese are personally responsible for their condition. A representative survey of members of the Danish public (N=1,141) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. The survey was designed to assess attitudes to public funding for obesityrelated health care, and to investigate the impact, on those attitudes, of dislike of obese people, the perceived controllability of obesity, self-reported BMI, and additional attitudinal and sociodemographic characteristics. Public funding of some obesity treatments, such as weight-loss surgery, attracted only limited public support. A majority of the Danish public did support ‘softer’ treatment interventions and preventive initiatives. Attitudes to the treatment of obesity were clearly best predicted by the belief that individuals are personally responsible for their own obesity. Dislike of obese persons had no direct effect on the preference for collective treatment initiatives and only a small effect on support for publicly funded obesity prevention. The high level of disapproval for publicly funded obesity treatment should be cause for concern for decision makers aiming to ensure equal access to health care. Since it is the belief that obese people are personally responsible which explains this disapproval, strategies for challenging public opinion on this issue are discussed. The aim of this study was to investigate the Danish public’s support for publicly funded obesity treatment and prevention. It was also examined whether levels of support could be explained by dislike of obese people and / or the belief that those who are obese are personally responsible for their condition. A representative survey of members of the Danish public (N=1,141) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. The survey was designed to assess attitudes to public funding for obesityrelated health care, and to investigate the impact, on those attitudes, of dislike of obese people, the perceived controllability of obesity, self-reported BMI, and additional attitudinal and sociodemographic characteristics. Public funding of some obesity treatments, such as weight-loss surgery, attracted only limited public support. A majority of the Danish public did support ‘softer’ treatment interventions and preventive initiatives. Attitudes to the treatment of obesity were clearly best predicted by the belief that individuals are personally responsible for their own obesity. Dislike of obese persons had no direct effect on the preference for collective treatment initiatives and only a small effect on support for publicly funded obesity prevention. The high level of disapproval for publicly funded obesity treatment should be cause for concern for decision makers aiming to ensure equal access to health care. Since it is the belief that obese people are personally responsible which explains this disapproval, strategies for challenging public opinion on this issue are discussed.

How can stakeholders within the fisheries community engage in constructive ethical discussions? Drawing on experiences from previous debates surrounding the human use of animals, this paper presents a proactive approach whereby stakeholders can create a framework for ethical discussion of capture fisheries.

The controversy in Europe over genetically manipulated (GM) foods has been conceived largely as a conflict between a reluctant public and a more enthusiastic agri-food sector. As a result, the political focus has been on the public to the neglect of other actors, such as the farmers, whose willingness to adopt GM technology is taken for granted. This article explores the case of herbicide-resistant GM plants with claimed environmental benefits. It is assumed that these claims satisfy public concerns and that farmers are not only willing to grow them but do so in a way that ensures that the environmental benefits are redeemed. Using interviews with Danish farmers, we argue, firstly, that it cannot be taken for granted that farmers will adopt GM plants, and, secondly, that if they do, they are unlikely to manage them in such a way as to secure the expected environmental benefits. This is, on the one hand, the result of a conflict between the idea behind herbicide-resistant plants and what we conceptualise as harmony on the farm, and, on the other hand, the way farmers perceive nature in relation to the farm. In a wider perspective the problems illustrate a clash between an agricultural and GM policy based on post-productivist values and an agricultural sector still dominated by productivist values.

The welfare of fish is a topic of increasing debate touching on a number of complex scientific and ethical issues and constructive dialogue between groups with differing approaches to the topic requires mutual understanding from both perspectives. In a recent review aimed at stimulating debate on this topic, Arlinghaus et al. (2007) explore the question of fish welfare in the particular context of recreational angling, by means of a critique of a review of fish welfare in general written by ourselves (Huntingford et al. 2006). We entirely agree with the desirability of debate on this topic and recognise a number of valuable qualities in the commentary by Arlinghaus et al. However, we argue that the critique has some serious flaws. In the first place, by rejecting a feelings-based approaches to welfare, it fails to address the aspect of welfare that is at the heart of much legitimate public concern. Secondly, while advocating an objective, scientific approach to fish welfare, Arlinghaus and co-authors fail to present their own agenda (that recreational angling is morally acceptable) in a transparent way. Thirdly, they seriously misrepresent the position taken in Huntingford et al. (2006) on a number of important issues. In this reply, we address these points and then discuss briefly the areas of agreement and constructive disagreement between the two reviews.

Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to we igh the concern for welfare of fish against the hum an interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist th at suggest how this might be approached. Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animal's condition, on its subjective experience o f that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natu ral life. These provide different, legitimate, pers pectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering. An unresolved and controversial issue in discussion s about animal welfare is whether non-human animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in huma ns is an important part of the neural mechanism tha t generates the subjective experience of suffering, i s lacking in fish and non-mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. However, a strong alternative view is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffer ing, though this may be different in degree and kind fro m the human experience of this state. Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly avers ive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of othe r harmful conditions is a cause for concern in term s of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing e vidence that fish can experience fear-like states a nd that they avoid situations in which they have experience d adverse conditions.

The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops has caused a fierce public debate in Europe. Much of the controversy centres on possible risks to the environment. A specific problem here is that risk perception of the scientific experts differs from that of the public. In this paper, risks associated with herbicide-resistant crops are presented from the point of view of experts and lay people. In the public perception, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops are troublesome because of their association with two technologies: genetic engineering of crops and the use of herbicides. These technologies are perceived as risky because they seem to share certain features: in particular, their long-term effects are unknown and they are dreaded. Other value questions also come into play. The public seems to be concerned that risks are not outweighed by usefulness, that using HR crops is the wrong path to sustainable agriculture, that the individual's right to choose GM-free products may be violated, and that these crops are unnatural. In contrast, on the issue of the uncertainty inherent in risk assessment, experts and the public seem to share a good deal of ground.

This study examined the extent to which Danish veterinary practices encounter financially limited clients and how different factors relating to the animal, the client and the veterinarian affect decisions to provide treatment for these clients. 300 small animal practices were invited to participate in an online survey. 195 participated, giving a response rate of 65 per cent. The results show that Danish small animal veterinary practices encounter clients with limited finances regularly: 33.8 per cent of them 3-4 times, 24.6 per cent 5-10 times and 19.5 per cent 1-2 times a month. Only around 9 per cent reported having a written practice policy on handling financially limited clients. Factors affecting decisions to treat include the severity and type of the animal's condition, the medical care needed and the client's expressed emotions. The propensity to treat is significantly higher in female veterinarians and in situations involving unborn animals. The overall conclusion is that small animal veterinary practices often provide treatment to clients who are not able to pay-far beyond what is legally required. This can be considered a major economic and psychological challenge for the practising veterinarians. This study examined the extent to which Danish veterinary practices encounter financially limited clients and how different factors relating to the animal, the client and the veterinarian affect decisions to provide treatment for these clients. 300 small animal practices were invited to participate in an online survey. 195 participated, giving a response rate of 65 per cent. The results show that Danish small animal veterinary practices encounter clients with limited finances regularly: 33.8 per cent of them 3-4 times, 24.6 per cent 5-10 times and 19.5 per cent 1-2 times a month. Only around 9 per cent reported having a written practice policy on handling financially limited clients. Factors affecting decisions to treat include the severity and type of the animal's condition, the medical care needed and the client's expressed emotions. The propensity to treat is significantly higher in female veterinarians and in situations involving unborn animals. The overall conclusion is that small animal veterinary practices often provide treatment to clients who are not able to pay-far beyond what is legally required. This can be considered a major economic and psychological challenge for the practising veterinarians.

Recently it has been argued that some instances of germ-line gene therapy will change the identity of the person who receives the benefit of therapy, and that in these instances there is no good moral reason to conduct germ-line gene therapy. Against this we argue that even if gene therapy should have an effect on the identity of the resulting person, this would not diminish the urgency of the therapy. Not only would impersonal moral reasons speak in favour of such radical gene therapy, there would also be person-affecting reasons to perform it.

For a distribution of health care resources to be fair, it should consider the consequences for the whole lives of the affected persons and not just how badly off they are at the present moment. Since, other things being equal, a person is worse off if he dies young than if he dies old, it is fair to give scarce vital health care resources to young rather than to old persons. In the paper this ageist view is restated and defended against a number of objections raised by John Harris. According to Harris' so-called anti-ageist argument the only relevant consideration in the distribution of vital health care resources is people's desire to go on living. On reflection, this is highly counterintuitive. Instead, it is argued that both present desires to go on living and possible future happiness should weigh together with considerations of fairness. Both fairness and possible future happiness will in most cases speak in favour of saving the young before the old. A number of other problems for the ageist view are discussed, and solutions are suggested.