UFAW / BVA Ethics Committee Symposium
‘Quality of Life – the Heart of the Matter’
The Royal Society, September 2006
INTRODUCTION - QUALITY OF LIFE: THE HEART OF THE MATTER
JK Kirkwood
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare & Humane Slaughter Association
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, UK
kirkwood@ufaw.org.uk & kirkwood@hsa.org.uk
It is believed widely, and with good reason, that some other members of the animal kingdom, like us, have feelings (associated with brain states induced by various sensory inputs and cognitive processes) and which can be pleasant or unpleasant. Associated with the strengthening scientific foundations for this belief, there has been growing consensus around the world that we have a moral responsibility, in all of our dealings and interactions with sentient animals, to take account of their feelings. This has led to widespread re-evaluation, in recent years, of the nature of our interactions with other animals.
However, assessment of the feelings of animals – the quality of their lives - remains a great challenge for veterinarians and others involved with their management. The fundamental difficulty is that whilst judgements about management or treatment often have to be made on the basis our inferences of how they feel (ie of the feelings they consciously experience), a subjective step cannot be avoided in making these inferences. We cannot know how other animals’ feel but can only infer this based on our knowledge of the animal and on our own experiences of feelings. This inevitable ‘gap’ in objective deductions about feelings is often wide enough that people can reach radically different conclusions when judging an animal’s quality of life. Opinions thus often differ about the point at which it becomes kinder to euthanase an animal than not to do so, the point at which it becomes kinder not to undertake a potentially painful therapeutic intervention than to do so, and regarding where the balance lies when animal welfare costs are being ‘weighed’ against some benefit of their use for humans (eg as laboratory, farm or companion animals).
The aim of this meeting is to discuss if and how science has helped in developing reasoned approaches to these dilemmas, and to consider the need for further research, education, and policy development.
Back to Quality of Life details
SYMPATHY TOWARDS ANIMALS: ANTHROPOMORPHISM REVISITED
Baroness M Warnock
House of Lords
The acceptance of Darwinism and the increased understanding of our genetic kinship with other animals should make it more justifiable to claim to understand their emotions as well as their physical needs, insofar as these can be separated. We should be able to declare with reasonable conviction whether animals, especially those for whom we have taken responsibility and whom we observe at close quarters, are happy or unhappy, and to enter and share those moods, without the accusation of unwarranted anthropomorphism.
Happiness may be identified in terms of appetite and play, both in our case and that of other animals; and both of these concepts can be understood from within ourselves, not merely through ‘scientific’ observation. Unhappiness involves fear or weariness, with which, again, we can sympathize ‘existentially’, not as mere observers of symptoms. It follows that, in deciding whether a companion animal should continue to live, or be given euthanasia it is reasonable to judge by the same compassion that we might wish to employ in the case of our own close human relatives.
Back to Quality of Life details
QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE BRAIN
KM Kendrick
Cognitive and Behavioural Neuroscience, The Babraham Institute, Babraham, Cambridge, UK
The dual problem of explaining brain evolution and how it has led to wide species differences in behaviour and physiology has often appeared intractable to scientists. The main limiting factor is that we simply don’t understand enough about how brains work in order to appreciate why gross or fine morphological differences can lead to the considerable across as well as within species differences in behaviour. Even at a molecular level, while two-thirds of our genes are involved in regulating brain function there is a high degree of homology within different phyla. In the context of quality of life, arguably the most important consideration is that the brain you have evolved is adapted to the environment you are living in. When that environment is radically altered the issue is whether there is sufficient adaptability to cope and the extent to which mental as well as physical suffering might be experienced as a consequence. At the other end of the spectrum there is the question of how enriched social and physical environments might enhance quality of life through altering brain organisation. What I will try to do in this lecture is to discuss potential functional contributions of differences in brain size and organisation, particularly in the neocortex, from molecular evolution (the same molecule having different functions across species) and from epigenetic modifications produced by experience. I will mainly focus on mental functioning and particularly the capacity for consciousness, emotional experience, social interaction and cognition and behavioural flexibility.
Back to Quality of Life details
QUANTIFYING THE INDEFINABLE – PROGRESS IN MEASURING QUALITY OF LIFE IN PEOPLE
SH Ahmedzai
University of Sheffield, Division of Clinical Sciences, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
For over two millennia, philosophers from Aristotle to Wittgenstein have pontificated about what constitutes human happiness, how it can be defined and whether it can even be measured. However, only in the last half century have psychologists and social and clinical scientists been actively engaged in empirical studies to measure the multiple qualities of life. The forces driving this new field of research have come from, on the one hand, the pharmaceutical industry; and on the other, public health oriented programmes, both local and global, such as the WHO.
There are presently numerous definitions and conceptual models of quality of life (QoL), and hundreds of instruments have been published - many of them having a purposely narrow focus and hence lack of generalisability. This is particularly noticeable in medicine, with QoL tools being available now for diseases as diverse as cancer and acne. Counterbalancing this multiplicity, there are a handful of generic instruments which have been designed - and more importantly - validated for use between different diseases, within normal populations and across different cultures.
As a reaction to the highly quantitative and normative approach of questionnaires and checklists, an alternative has emerged based on the personalised model of measuring quality of life against the subject's own declared priorities and needs. There is no prior reason to assume that any single model, let alone one instrument, will ever reign supreme for all research or clinical scenarios.
Problems arise in the quantification of QoL for specific populations which are inherently or temporarily unable to participate in the act of measurement. These include dementia or stroke patients with dysphasia; people with extensive paralysis; young children and babies; and increasingly, people with a different native tongue and widely divergent cultural framework.
The move towards behavioural assessments and the use of alternative proxies for these 'silent' human populations can have potentially an important role in defining and measuring QoL in our animal companions.
Back to Quality of Life details
CAN WE REALLY MEASURE ANIMAL QUALITY OF LIFE?
EM Scott1, AM Nolan2 & J Reid2
1Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Department of Pre-clinical Studies, University of Glasgow Veterinary School, Glasgow, UK
The measurement principles for ‘abstract’ attributes, such as human intelligence have been well rehearsed and researched. Two main approaches exist: classical test theory, widely used in the first intelligence and psychological tests and more recently a new ‘theory’, item response theory, which is growing increasingly popular. Quality of Life (QoL) is an abstract attitude which has been formally recognised and widely used in human medicine, where specifically health-related quality of life, has been defined as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease” (WHO, 1948) These ideas are now being increasingly used in animal and veterinary sciences, where the ‘patient’ cannot communicate verbally and evaluation must, therefore, be carried out by an observer.
Lord Kelvin has said “When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers – you have scarcely in your thoughts, advanced to a stage of science, whatever the matter may be”, Lord Kelvin (1891). So are we able to measure animal quality of life?
Recent work in animals using both the classical test approach and item response theory to measure pain and more recent work to assess QoL in dogs (Wiseman, this conference) has suggested that abstract attributes such as pain and QoL can be measured. In this talk, we will consider the methodological approaches to the measurement of such abstract attitudes, from our understanding of a measurement, to development and testing (including validation and reliability), of the instrument. The focus will be on QoL and on the transference of human QoL experience to the animal kingdom to highlight similarities and differences in the practice of assessment.
Back to Quality of Life details
QUALITY OF LIFE, GOOD WELFARE AND THE ANIMAL’S POINT OF VIEW
M Stamp Dawkins
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
While good physical health is essential to good welfare, it is not sufficient: animals may be physically healthy but still lack ‘quality of life’, for example through being deprived of something essential to them, fearful, bored or frustrated. The elusive extra element of ‘quality of life’ can be encapsulated in the question ‘do the animals have what they want?’ This question has the advantage of being understandable by lay people and scientists alike but can also be answered empirically for each species with which we are concerned. I shall illustrate how this can be done with specific examples. By understanding what animals do and do not want out of life, we can, with them, define what they see as a life of high quality.
Back to Quality of Life details
COMMUNICATING QUALITY OF LIFE: THE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
F Wemelsfelder
Animal Behaviour and Welfare team, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK
‘Quality of Life’ is a rich, complex notion that takes us beyond asking whether or how the environment causes animals stress or suffering. It reflects a more positive, dynamic approach, which inquires what animals like or prefer doing, what their interests are, and what opportunities they have to fulfil these interests. Welfare in this context encompasses more than just the absence of suffering, it concerns the quality of an animal’s entire relationship with its environment, of how it lives it life. While we cannot easily verbally discuss such concerns with animals, qualitative interpretations of their behaviour can play a crucial role in addressing them. By summarising perceived details of an animal’s posture and general demeanour, we can describe behaviour in expressive terms, as a ‘body language’, that communicates the animal’s perspective on a particular situation. Animals may for example behave in ways that communicate fear, agitation, or apathy, or, on the other hand, lively interest, contentment, or enthusiasm. Correctly interpreting the body language of different animal species however is not always easy; it is a skill requiring an experienced eye, compassionate care, and informed wariness of anthropomorphic projection. Qualitative assessments of animal behaviour should not, however, be dismissed as anthropomorphic in principle; scientific research increasingly supports the biological validity of such assessments. In this presentation I will review past and present qualitative approaches to understanding animal behaviour, and discuss how these may support our appreciation of animal quality of life.
Back to Quality of Life details
ETHOLOGICALLY-INSPIRED COGNITIVE BIAS TASKS AS NOVEL MEASURES OF MOOD IN ANIMALS
M Bateson
School of Biology and Psychology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle, UK.
In humans, mood-induced cognitive biases are well-known. For example, a depressed person will classify a glass as half empty, whereas a happy person will classify the same glass as half full. We have developed novel techniques based on cognitive bias for measuring affective state in non-human animals. We hypothesise that manipulations of welfare that result in subjects being more likely to classify a stimulus as good might suggest a more positive affective state. Our main innovation over previous work in this field has been to develop tasks based on stimuli and outcomes that tap into natural behaviour of animals. Our tasks are faster to train than the techniques previously used, and thus establish a basis for tasks that would be simple and fast enough to use in applied settings. So far we have developed three tasks: an operant task in which the stimuli are short and long durations of a light, and the outcomes are immediate food and delayed food; a foraging task in which the stimuli are different coloured food dishes, and the outcomes are palatable and quinine-tainted mealworms; and a predator identification task in the which the stimuli are a silhouette of a bird of prey and a benign shape. We use captive starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) as our model system, and present data showing cognitive biases in birds subjected to environmental manipulations of cage size and environmental enrichment. Birds housed in large enriched cages show more ‘optimistic’ biases than birds housed in small barren cages.
Back to Quality of Life details
ASSESSMENT OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS IN ANIMALS TO IMPROVE THEIR WELFARE
A Boissy1, G Manteuffel2, MB Jensen3, RO Moe4, B Spruijt5, L Keeling6, C Winckler7,
B Forkman8, I Dimitrov9, J Langbein2, M Bakken10, I Veissier1 and A Aubert11
1 Research Unit on Herbivores INRA, 63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France
2 Research Institute for the Biology of Farm Animals, Dummerstorf, Germany
3 Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark
4 School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway
5 Veterinary Faculty, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
6 University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;
7 University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
8 Department of Large Animal Science, KVL, Denmark
9 Research Institute of Agricultural Science, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
10 University of Life Sciences, As, Norway
11 University of Sciences, Tours, France
Scientific investigations of animal welfare do not generally address positive emotions even though it is now widely accepted that good welfare is not the simple consequence of the absence of negative experiences, but predominantly the presence of positive experiences such as “pleasure”. However, a growing set of evidence support now the presence of positive emotions in animals, the investigation of which has long been neglected. The purpose of this review is to inventory methods for assessing positive emotions in animals, and to propose valid cues of good welfare under laboratory and farm animal management conditions. First, recent advances in cognitive sciences and neurobiology are reviewed to provide a pragmatic cross-disciplinary framework for investigating emotions in animals and to understand which positive emotions animals are capable of experiencing. Individual differences in animals regarding the capacity to respond to positive events and to express positive emotions are then explored. Thereafter, practical approaches are outlined for assessing the impact of real-life husbandry conditions not only on positive emotions as such, but also on more lasting positive affective states such as “happiness”. Finally, practical applications for promoting positive emotions are emphasized in order to provide a better animal quality of life. From this scientific review, we expect to address and to set up a research agenda in the area of positive emotions that underpin animals’ feelings, and to contribute to improve the quality of life in laboratory and farm animals by providing a suitable strategy for assessing their positive long lasting affective states.
Back to Quality of Life details
CONCEPTS, ASSESSMENT AND USE IN DECISION MAKING: QUALITY OF LIFE IN RELATION TO WELFARE, HEALTH AND FEELINGS
DM Broom
Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK
Quality of life in humans is generally taken to include physical condition, impairment in it due to injury or disease, capacity to function, perception of functioning and satisfaction with functioning in relation to what is believed possible. If the welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment then welfare is essentially the same as quality of life. Both include the state of all coping systems, including those responding to pathology, various behavioural and physiological responses and processes in the brain, some associated with suffering or pleasure. Hence welfare and quality of life include health and the extent of positive and negative feelings. Welfare is more often the term used when quantification occurs.
Assessment of welfare must take account of the wide variety of coping systems and coping strategies used. A range of measures of behaviour, physiology, brain function, immune system function, damage, etc. are needed. The ease or difficulty of coping should be interpreted within the framework of the abilities of the animal. More complex animals may have the best abilities to cope with problems. A scheme presented for assessing welfare over time allows decisions about acceptability and is separate from ethical decisions about whether the killing of an animal is justifiable. Examples are given from companion animal management. Comparisons of the problems of living conditions and the impacts of life experience variables and disease are considered in this paper and in others from this Centre.
Back to Quality of Life details
QUALITY OF LIFE IN COMPANION ANIMALS – USEFUL CONCEPT OR REINVENTED WHEEL?
KD Taylor and DS Mills
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln, UK
Although the term ‘quality of life’ (QOL) is not a new one for veterinary surgeons, only recently has the scientific community attempted to measure it in farm and companion animals. Typically such studies have applied the methodology from the human health-related quality of life field (HRQOL), without due consideration of the applicability of the term. However, it is necessary to clarify the philosophical basis of the term if it is to be defended as a rigorous and reliable aid to decision making in animal welfare science. This papers reviews common concepts in human health-related QOL and evaluates the value of, and difficulties to be appreciated, in the transfer of concept of QOL to companion animals. Human definitions tend to focus on the individual and their assessment of the state of their life in terms of physical, social and psychological functioning. The use of the term for animals may therefore broaden the term of welfare and improve on current practice which tends to focus on relatively few outcome measures that are largely indicative of poor welfare. However, failure in the human literature to properly define QOL and defend the choice of measures accordingly, together with the common use of objective indicators and proxies has lead to confusion over the relative role of objective and subjective measures in the determination and constitution of QOL. A suggestion for an appropriate definition of animal QOL that clarifies these relationships is offered, together with a list of social/environmental and physical/psychological health-related domains that may be suitable for a generic companion animal QOL tool. In the absence of knowledge on both basic needs and individual preferences, particularly for institutionalised animals, QOL tools may be more appropriately designed as outcome-based tools, based on observable signs of health and behaviour. The extent to which recent tools for companion animals have covered these domains and assessed the psychometric properties of their tool is also briefly discussed.
Back to Quality of Life details
TOOLS TO MEASURE AND IMPROVE ANIMAL WELFARE:
REWARD-RELATED BEHAVIOUR
JE van der Harst and BM Spruijt
Department of Animals, Science & Society, Ethology & Welfare Group, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
In our research a concept of welfare is applied that states that ‘welfare is determined by the balance between positive and negative experiences’. This concept implies that an interaction exists between stress- and reward systems and, as a consequence:
I. negative experiences induce an increased sensitivity (need) for positive experiences.
II. negative experiences (i.e. stress) can be compensated by positive experiences (i.e. reward).
Based on this, our research aims to investigate whether:
I. reward-sensitivity may be a tool to assess the state of an animal in terms of welfare, since it can be indicative of previous (stressful) experiences.
II. regular presentations of rewards may serve as a tool to counteract stress and, thus, to improve welfare.
For this, the rat is used as a model and reward-sensitivity is determined by the spontaneous behavioural response an animal shows in anticipation of a reward (i.e. anticipatory behaviour), which is evoked by a classical conditioning paradigm.
It has become apparent that previous experiences, such as standard or enriched housing, or social or chronic stress, influence anticipatory behaviour to rewards in rats. This indicates that this spontaneous behavioural response may serve as a welfare indicator. Furthermore, our research showed that regular reward-announcements can counteract the consequences of stress.
The biological background of the applied concept of welfare can be generalised to all (vertebrate) species and anticipatory behaviour can be evoked in a wide range of other species. Therefore, this tool to measure and improve welfare of captive animals has high potential and will be further developed.
Back to Quality of Life details
A SYSTEM FOR THE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF ANIMAL WELLBEING
DB Morton
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Any evaluation of the quality of life of an animal is likely to involve a clinical examination by a vet and other important evidence of wellbeing by the owner or stock-keeper. Unless the signs that are scored are easy to recognise, mistakes in their reporting and assessment are likely to occur. Moreover, the subjective interpretation of those signs has to be considered in the light of what is normal for that species, breed or strain or, best of all, for that individual animal. Consequently, the signs of wellbeing become more accurate the more information about that animal is available. It is important that indicators are defined and assessed for both negative and positive aspects. Poor health will have a varying impact on the QoL of animals according to the exact nature of the illness or disease, and the ability of an animal to adapt in its environment. That adaptation in turn may well depend on the animal’s lifetime experience, as well as its personality, although the two are likely to be inter-related. Signs of positive wellbeing are well recognised for some species, but not for others, and some experiments have been carried out to examine what animals will work hard to access or obtain, as well as to avoid. Unlike for some farmed and zoo species, this sort of research in companion animals seems hardly to have begun. However, we can extrapolate from the same species used for other purposes e.g. rabbits used for farming, research and as companions, as the animals’ genetic make-up will be very similar even though their biographies, uses, care and attention, and environments will not.
I intend to present score sheets of relevant signs illustrating ways in which the quality of life can be assessed for both positive and negative wellbeing.
Back to Quality of Life details
HEALTH OR WELFARE: WHICH IS THE VETERINARY SURGEON'S RESPONSIBILITY?
F Scott-Park
British Veterinary Association, London, UK
There is no doubt that the veterinary surgeon has all the skills and training necessary to look after not just the health of animals by treating their ailments and diseases but on a daily basis the vet takes responsibility for guiding owners to make the correct decisions for the benefit of their animal’s welfare.
In many cases the vet contributes to the wellbeing of the client as well and the bond between the animal, the veterinary surgeon and the owner is usually a strong one based on trust, which makes the care of the animal’s welfare much easier when it comes to the dilemma on treatment options. Should the animal be treated, what is the likely cost of the treatment, will the benefit of treatment outweigh the trauma of the procedure or would euthanasia be the best option? The veterinary surgeon is called upon daily to guide the pet owner make these decisions and must do so, ensuring at all times that the welfare of the animal is the prime concern.
Back to Quality of Life details
ENHANCING QUALITY OF LIFE FOR DOGS AND CATS IN CONFINED SITUATIONS
R Timmins1, K Cliff2, C Day3, B Hart2, L Hart4, R Hubrecht5, K Hurley6, C Phillips7, J Rand8, I Rochlitz9, J Serpell10, S Zawistowski11
1Center for Animals in Society, University of California, Davis, USA
2Companion Animal Behaviour Program, University of California, Davis, USA
3University of Queensland Small Animal Clinic, Brisbane, Australia
4UC Centre for Animal Alternatives, University of California, Davis, USA
5Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Wheathampstead, UK
6Shelter Medicine Program, University of California, Davis, USA
7Center for Animal Welfare and Ethics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
8Center for Companion Animal Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
9Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
10Center for the Interaction of Animals & Society, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
11American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New York City, USA
Although dogs and cats enjoy a special status in human households, many serve in roles that are not family-oriented. These animals live in research colonies, breeding kennels and catteries, humane shelters and other confined situations. An international panel of experts in the fields of canine and feline health, welfare and behaviour was asked to address two questions: (1) what defines quality of life for dogs and cats living in confined situations/conditions; (2) what additional research is needed in order to determine/establish how optimal quality of life can be achieved for these dogs and cats? This paper is a summary of the panel’s discussion. The panel began by exploring the current state of knowledge, focusing on the concepts of stress, pain, physical health and adoptability. The panel then reviewed factors that affect quality of life, including early experience, environmental enrichment, nutrition, exercise, social enrichment, and housing (light, ventilation, humidity, sound, temperature, etc.). Finally, the group considered what new questions needed to be answered in order to enhance quality of life for dogs and cats in confined living conditions. The panel agreed that the methodology for assessing quality of life required further refinement and standardization. It will be important to establish ‘baseline’ values for behavioural and physiological indices for cats and dogs in defined ‘ideal’ situations, and to standardize modifications of these indices in order to accommodate individual differences. The paper concludes with a number of specific research questions relevant to quality of life for dogs and cats in confinement.
Back to Quality of Life details
ASSESSING QUALITY OF LIFE IN COMPANION AND KENNELLED DOGS: A CRITICAL REVIEW
EF Hiby1,3, JWS Bradshaw1 and CJ Hewson2
1Anthrozoology Institute, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Sir James Dunn Animal Welfare Centre, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada
3World Society for the Protection of Animals, London, UK
This presentation critically reviews published methods of quality of life (QoL) assessment in companion dogs and considers QoL assessment in kennelled dogs. Most of the published methods have not included a definition of QoL and some have confined their assessment to “health-related QoL”, a controversial usage in human QoL research. All used proxy assessment by owners, with questionnaires comprising global QoL questions and/or empirical questions about dogs’ feelings and factors believed to affect these feelings. The underlying assumption – that owners can report their dogs’ feelings accurately – has not been tested. Furthermore, proxy assessment cannot be used when a suitable proxy is unavailable, as when a stray dog has recently arrived at an animal shelter. For these reasons, some physiological and behavioural measures might be useful in a QoL index. Urinary cortisol levels appear to mirror different levels of long-term stress in kennelled dogs and to change following the imposition of acute stressors. However, urinary cortisol does not generally correlate with behavioural indicators, such as performance of stereotypies, or with caregivers' proxy assessments of aspects of QoL. Such inconsistencies may reflect a particular difficulty in canine QoL assessment, namely the individual character of physical or behavioural needs, arising from breed and temperament, and social needs that are profoundly modified by each dog’s early experiences of humans, conspecifics, and components of the environment. Basic research is still needed to ascertain the breadth of potential canine needs and the most objective yet practical methods of assessing whether an individual’s needs are being met.
Back to Quality of Life details
ASSESSMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN DOMESTIC CATS ON ENTERING A RESCUE SHELTER
RA Casey, KR Hawkins and JWS Bradshaw
Anthrozoology Institute, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Historically the requirements of cats entering the rescue environment were based on those used for the domestic dog. Cats, however, have a very different evolutionary and domestication history, and hence are likely to have very different behavioural needs. This paper presents the results of a programme of research that we have conducted into the measurement of both objective behavioural and physiological indicators, and subjective measures, of welfare in cats entering rescue shelters. In addition we summarise studies whereby such measures have been utilised in the evaluation of environmental enhancement.
Behavioural measures of welfare, such as the composite “Cat-Stress-Score” scale, the latency to approach a person, and willingness to play appear to vary with the period of time spent within the shelter, but do not co-vary with each other. Equally some measures were predictive of time taken to re-homing of individual cats, whereas others appeared to be unrelated. Urinary cortisol: creatinine initially decreased as cats entered a shelter, but the rate of decline did not correlate with behavioural measures, suggesting individual differences in coping responses. Subjective assessments of cats made by staff appeared to correlate with some objective behavioural measures but not others.
Among environmental enhancements, providing hiding enrichment reduced behavioural and physiological indicators of compromised welfare, and blocking visual contact with conspecifics reduced behavioural measures of stress in cats entering a rescue shelter. Providing additional social contact with people, however, showed no overall change, although a consistent positive or negative effect was found for particular cats, again emphasising individual needs.
Back to Quality of Life details
DEVELOPMENT OF A SHORT FORM OF THE GLASGOW COMPOSITE MEASURE PAIN SCALE (CMPS) AS A MEASURE OF ACUTE PAIN IN THE DOG
AM Nolan1, J Reid1 and EM Scott2
1Institute of Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Pain and its impact on quality of life are measured routinely in human medicine, and in recent years, the approach has been developed and applied in veterinary medicine. We have used general psychometric based methodology to construct an acute pain scale for dogs based on the observation of distinct observable components of behaviour and demeanour. In its original form, the CMPS was based on 7 behavioural categories, namely posture, comfort, vocalisation, attention to wound, demeanour, mobility and response to touch, each containing several expressions describing the dog’s behaviour. and the observer selected a single item in each category. The items were then scaled to create a single composite score, the scaling model having been derived from experimental observations. The validity of the resulting pain tool was then demonstrated within a clinically applicable setting. For routine clinical use, a short form (CMPS-SF) has been developed which can be applied quickly and reliably. The CMPS-SF includes 30 items within 6 behavioural categories. Within each category, the items are ranked numerically according to their associated pain severity. The observer chooses the descriptor within each category which best fits the dog’s condition but now the pain score is the sum of the rank scores.
We report on the sensitivity and specificity of this clinical tool and demonstrate its usefulness as an indicator of analgesic requirement.
Back to Quality of Life details
CATS ARE DIFFERENT FROM DOGS! DEVELOPING BEHAVIOURAL INDICATORS OF PAIN IN CATS
VM Williams and N Waran
School of Natural Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
The aim of this study was to identify key behavioural indicators of mild to moderate pain in cats. The behaviour of cats before and after ovariohysterectomy was videoed and was analysed using a detailed behavioural ethogram. A comparison of behaviours between groups given pre-operative analgesia only, and both pre- and post-operative analgesia indicated that both groups demonstrated changed behaviour following surgery as compared to a control group of cats which were anaesthetised but not operated on. However, some specific behaviours were identified that occurred, or occurred with greater frequency, in the cats receiving pre-operative analgesia only as compared to those receiving additional post-operative analgesia, indicating that there do appear to be some key behaviours that may be useful in determining mild to moderate pain in cats.
Back to Quality of Life details
THE VALUE OF ANIMAL LIFE — HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY?
P Sandøe and SB Christiansen
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark
In many situations choices must be made that will have an impact on the welfare of companion animals. Often one of the options will be to euthanize the animal in question. How one views this option will not only depend on one’s assessment of the quality of the animal’s life (or of the lives of other affected parties). It will also depend on how one values an animal life.
Clearly, a companion animal may be valued by a human being or by another animal. So a cat’s death may affect its owner's quality of life or the quality of life of other animals in the household. But does the life of an animal have any further value than that? Is anything lost, for example, when we euthanize a cat belonging to a dead person? Or, conversely, would anything be gained if we were to find a new home for the cat (apart from the potentially positive contribution to the new owners’ quality of life)? More generally, in prolonging, or abstaining from ending, the life of an animal, do we thereby ensure that something of value persists?
There seem to be three main views on this question. One is that animal life has no value in itself. The second is that animal life has value to the extent that the life in question is worth living for the animal. The third view is that the life of an animal has a value that exceeds what is ‘in it’ for the animal in question.
The view one accepts here will have a dramatic effect on one’s attitude to many of the choices to be made about the treatment of companion animals — choices in which we must balance quality of life against, as it were, quantity of life. So the heart of the matter is not only quality of life. It is also value of life. Unfortunately it may prove much more difficult to agree about the value of animal life than it is to agree about the significance of animal welfare.
Back to Quality of Life details
LAB ANIMAL, PET ANIMAL, FARM ANIMAL, WILD ANIMAL:
WHO GETS THE BEST DEAL?
S Wolfensohn
Veterinary Services, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, UK
A veterinary surgeon’s constant endeavour is to ensure the welfare of animals committed to their care. Yet a constant dilemma is that the veterinary surgeon is expected to deal with the animal’s welfare differently, depending on the category into which a particular animal fits at a particular time; although its ability to suffer is the same in whichever circumstance. A laboratory animal is considered by many to have the worst luck of all, yet its welfare is protected by a plethora of regulation, ethical review, best practice guidelines and vociferous public opinion. While any decision on its treatment will take into account the scientific outcome, the judgement will already have been pontificated on by many and the verdict already decided. The companion animal may be much loved by its owner but its treatment will be affected by the psychological state of that owner, their ability to pay and treatment becomes a ‘family management’ programme. As the veterinary surgeon moves on to treat a farm animal, the benchmark for ‘acceptable’ suffering can be quite different. When a wild animal is presented for treatment, the welfare of the individual may not be best served by anything other than euthanasia, yet treatment is often enthusiastically attempted. This presentation will explore this variation with examples, and suggest ways to provide a better harmonisation of approach across the sectors, or at least to rationalise the differences and raise awareness of its existence.
Back to Quality of Life details
PD McGreevy
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Many breeds of companion animals have inherited disorders that may impair quality of life to the extent that it is unkind to keep them alive. If we struggle to discern when this point is reached, why do we breed compromised, short-lived animals in the first place? If we struggle to judge when environmental conditions cause an unacceptable quality of life, why not breed appropriately for modern environments?
It is argued that pedigree dog breeding faces five major problems:
1 Some breed standards and selection practices run counter to good welfare in dogs.
2 Insufficient selection pressure seems to be exerted on some traits that would improve animal well-being and produce dogs better suited to modern environments.
3 The incidence of certain inherited defects in some breeds is unacceptably high.
4 The dearth of registered animals of certain breeds within particular countries makes it extremely difficult for breeders to avoid the mating of close relatives.
5 There may be financial disincentives for veterinarians to reduce the incidence of inherited disease.
Closed studbooks mean that, before we can judge when behavioural or morphological changes caused by selective breeding result in an unacceptable quality of life, we have to know which are prevalent. This paper reviews progress in two Australian schemes to monitor trends in the prevalence of inherited disorders in dogs and promote behavioural genotypes likely to cope with contemporary domestic environments.
Back to Quality of Life details
ANIMAL WELFARE AND CULTURAL VARIATION
B Rollin
Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
The issue of the effects of varied cultural traditions on concepts of animal welfare appears to be a novel problem, growing out of recent societal concerns with globalization, multi-culturalism, and diversity. In more imperialistic times, western culture cared little about such issues. Upon reflection, however, it is apparent that this is not a new issue, as even within our culture the concept of welfare was variously defined, based on differences in values in general and ethics in particular, varying dramatically with different views of the moral status of animals. A most dramatic example of this can be found in production agriculture’s view of welfare as “the animal is experiencing good welfare when it fulfills the human (production) purpose for which it is kept,” as expressed in the CAST report of 1982. Clearly, an animal welfare advocate opposed to confinement agriculture would have expressed a very different view.
If the concept of animal welfare is both intra- and cross-culturally varied, how then does one resolve differences? The answer may be found in what I have termed the “new social ethic for animals”, that is pretty much uniform across western societies, as we explain in this talk. In essence, the new ethic focuses on satisfying animal needs dictated by their telos or biological nature. Insofar as these cultures realistically dictate to the rest of the world economically dependent upon them, we will see this animal ethic emerge as exercising global hegemony, even as the notion of human rights has become globally ubiquitous as an ideal.
Back to Quality of Life details
AUTONOMY AND PATERNALISM IN QUALITY OF LIFE DETERMINATIONS IN VETERINARY PRACTICE
C Morgan
Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Assessments and predictions of patient quality of life (QoL) permeate many veterinary decisions, including 1) whether to perform a procedure due to concurrent QoL issues, 2) whether a procedure will negatively affect QoL in the near or distant future, and 3) whether QoL is poor enough to warrant euthanasia. In order to understand how veterinarians manage these decisions, interviews with 41 veterinarians and over 100 hours of observations of 10 veterinarians were conducted. Participants held diverse views regarding the type of parameters that should be included when defining quality of life. Interestingly, they also held differing views about who should be assessing patient QoL with some participants believing that animal owners were better able to assess patient QoL than the veterinarian. For these veterinarians, respecting the client’s autonomy in deciding what was best for the patient weighed heavily in their decisions. Others felt that the veterinarian is the best assessor of quality of life and felt justified in being more paternalistic and ‘convincing’ clients to follow a certain course of action. These findings raise some interesting questions for the profession. What role should veterinarians play when assessing patient QoL? When is paternalism acceptable or even mandatory in veterinary medicine? Does respecting client autonomy also require an evaluation of the client’s abilities to make appropriate decisions for the patient? The lack of uniformity in defining and assessing patient QoL highlights the need for increased dialogue with respect to veterinarians’ responsibilities to both animals and clients.
Back to Quality of Life details
ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND ANTHROPOCENTRISM AS INFLUENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN COMPANION ANIMALS
JWS Bradshaw and RA Casey
Anthrozoology Institute, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Arguably, McMillan’s (2000) concept, “how an individual animal feels about the quality of its life” should be the goal of any assessment of mental well-being in companion animals. However, because animals’ feelings are not yet accessible to direct measurement, two types of indirect methods are used, one stemming from proxy evaluations of human QoL, and the other from animal welfare science, based on physiology and ethology. Anthropocentrism, “interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human experience” can create bias in both; for example, the importance to dogs and cats of their olfactory environment is often overlooked. Anthropomorphism is particularly difficult to guard against when human proxies (owners, caregivers) are used, since there is no guarantee that the mental schema within which owners interpret such behaviour resembles that of the animal; for example, many owners ascribe complex emotions, such as “guilt” and “spite” to their pets. Indeed, Serpell (2002) has argued that the keeping of companion animals is a direct expression of anthropomorphism; owners almost exclusively interpret their behaviour as if it were human, and objective interpretations of the pet’s possible motivations, necessary for the assessment of QoL, would directly undermine this basis for the relationship. The emotional bond between pet and owner is complex; for example, we have found that reported emotional support from pet cats increased with the number of unwanted behaviours they exhibited, suggesting an interaction between anthropomorphism and behaviour that impacts upon welfare. Proxy evaluations therefore need to be informed by concepts derived from more objective methods.
Back to Quality of Life details
QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT AND ITS USE IN DECISION-MAKING IN VETERINARY PRACTICE IN THE USA
FD McMillan
VCA Miller-Robertson Animal Hospital, Los Angeles, California, USA
Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine, Pomona, California, USA
The subjective nature of quality of life (QOL) makes its conceptualization, and hence its assessment, extremely problematic. The current method of QOL assessment in veterinary practice is, virtually without exception, a gut-level or intuitive assessment. The criteria utilized in this kind of assessment are very loose—such assessments are, in essence, largely a reflection of human standards and values in the form of “I would/wouldn’t want that for myself.” The contributing factors of QOL in animals are determined by combining finding from human QOL studies with knowledge of animal neurophysiology and behavior, especially newer investigative methods such as aversive learning and demand curve analysis. Central to this issue is the question: What feature(s) distinguish those factors that contribute to QOL from those that do not? It is argued here that the sole distinguishing feature is whether or not the factor elicits affect (feelings). In this model, QOL is comprised of a balance between the pleasant and unpleasant affect in the animal’s life, and assessment of QOL involves a weighing of these feelings. Health care decisions utilizing the affect-balance model of QOL are made in favor of that option that tilts the scales toward the pleasant side to the greatest degree and for the longest period of time. Decisions regarding euthanasia are based on the QOL affect balance. The indication for euthanasia is when disease, injury, or disability tips the scales predominantly toward the side of unpleasant affect and no medical intervention can tip it back toward the pleasant.
Back to Quality of Life details
ANIMAL ETHICS DILEMMA – AN INTERACTIVE LEARNING TOOL FOR UNIVERSITY AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
AJ Hanlon1, A Algers2, T Dich3, T Hansen3, H Loor4, and P Sandøe3
1School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
2The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
3The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark
4Imcode Partners AB, Sweden
‘Animal Ethics Dilemma’ is a computer-supported learning tool, developed primarily for veterinary undergraduates, but widely applicable to other courses of study such as animal science. The learning objectives are to promote student understanding of animal ethics, illustrate ethical dilemmas that arise in animal use; challenge the students’ ethical perspectives, increase moral imagination, and enable the students to differentiate between types of ethical arguments.
The programme comprises five case studies:
-
The blind hens
-
ANDi the genetically modified monkey
-
Euthanasia of a healthy dog
-
Animal slaughter
-
Rehabilitation of seals
Special consideration has been given to enhance the pedagogic value of the programme. It is tailored to the students’ perspective. On first use, the students are asked to answer a series of questions, in order to create a personal profile of their ethical perspectives. As the students explore the programme, they can reflect on changes to their profile. Role-play is used to engage the student in each case.
Students can control their learning by selecting a variety of ways to explore the programme. For example, they can navigate the programme using the ‘assist me’ option, which explains the basis of the ethical arguments. Reality text and a glossary of terminology are available for the student to explore.
Selected access to a programme template is also available, enabling students or lecturers to create their own case studies.
Evaluation of the programme has been ongoing during its development and has continued since its launch in February 2006. This presentation will provide a brief demonstration of the programme and discuss its role in teaching animal ethics.
Back to Quality of Life details
GUIDANCE ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE VETERINARY PROFESSION AND THE PET-OWNING PUBLIC.
D Main
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Quality of Life assessment can be seen as a means to an end. Crucially differences in the “ends” may affect the format of the “means”. So for an evaluation of laboratory housing systems a complex system that assessed the different components of welfare and integrates into a single score may be the desired goal. For animals with chronic medical conditions a formal system may be useful for veterinary surgeons and owners establish the point at which quality of life is sufficiently poor to justify euthanasia. Whereas in other companion animal settings an assessment system may help owners identify opportunities for improvement. As with farm animals a “one size fits all” approach to welfare assessment may, therefore, not be appropriate. There appears to be a consensus, however, that the broad based Five Freedoms are a good starting point for such a system although they do concentrate on the negative rather than positive experiences of animals. This focuses the debate on avoiding harm (non-maleficence) rather than doing good (beneficence). For such assessment tools to be used by the veterinary profession and their clients, a key test of validity should be that they actually promote change in an animal’s management leading to a decrease in negative and an increase in positive experiences of the animal. The new Animal Welfare Act and its associated obligation to provide a duty of care, will be a perfect opportunity to promote this holistic positive assessment in veterinary practices.
