1.6 The Quality of Life and Euthanasia - Ray Butcher

1,406 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,406
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
63
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Pictures:
    a. Dogs in a shelter in the Ukraine (Photo: WSPA)
    b. Semi – feral dogs on the beach, Chennai, India (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General Considerations
    This session and session 26 should be considered together. Some of the important issues introduced in session 25 are expanded in session 26.
  • Photo: Dogs in shelter, Ukraine (Photo: WSPA)
    General Points:
    The “Five Freedoms” should be familiar to the students now. They were devised to assess the welfare conditions of farm animals kept in a variety of management situations. It is important, however, to consider the situation of dogs in our rescue shelter in relation to the same criteria.
  • Photos:
    Stray dog on the streets of Calcutta, India (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    Radiograph of a fracture/dislocation of the thoraco-lumbar spine of a dog (Photo Ray Butcher)
    General Considerations:
    Euthanasia is considered in more detail in Session 28. Euthanasia by definition is “mercy killing” and is performed to relieve suffering in the individual animal itself. Thus in the photograph, the dog with the damage to its spine following a road traffic accident is in considerable pain and is paraplegic with no hope of recovery. Euthanasia is therefore performed for the sake of that animal, using acceptable methods that avoid stress and allow the animal to pass rapidly into a state of unconsciousness and death (see session 28).
    The decision to perform euthanasia must therefore be made on an individual basis and one must consider the suffering of the animal, and its quality of life (possibly a subjective assessment which is not always easy).
    In the considerations relating to population control, we are really referring to selective culling rather than euthanasia. The individual may itself be healthy, and culling considered for the sake of the rest of the population as a whole or the human population. The techniques and requirements for selective culling are the same as for euthanasia such that all methods should be humane.
    The main points for debate are therefore:
    Is euthanasia of an individual justifiable if that particular individual is suffering or has a poor quality of life.
    Is an animal kept in an overcrowded shelter that breaks all the “five freedoms” suffering sufficiently to warrant euthanasia in its own right?
    Is it acceptable to selectively cull (by humane means) a healthy animal so the the rest of the population can have a better quality of life (This is an example of Utilitarian ethics).
    If these arguments are considered invalid, what alternatives are humane yet address the practical problems?
  • Photo: Stray dogs in Sofia, Bulgaria (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General points:
    Session 25 indicated the need for a long term coordinated strategy to solve the stray dog problem. This is indeed true, and real effort and resources are needed to change attitudes. The dilemma for the animal protection societies is that they are faced with an immediate welfare problem – what to do with all these dogs? In general, their attitude is to put all their effort and resources into saving as many animals as possible – leaving little time and money to develop long term strategies.
    In some Western Countries, large well organised and relatively rich charities may succeed in performing both functions – ie rescuing animals and involvement in long term education programmes. However, in poorer countries, many of the charities and animal protection groups have limited funds and resources and are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the current challenge, let alone the long term strategy.
    As we will see, this can in turn lead to further welfare problems.
  • Photo: Stray dog scavenging from garbage, Jaipur, India (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General considerations:
    Large charities in the UK or USA may have substantial funds and a large professional organisational structure. In must countries, however, the groups are small and run by a few very well motivated volunteers. There aim is generally to save as many animals as possible. The consideration of selective culling (however logical in practical terms) is difficult for them to accept, and would generally not be well accepted by their volunteer workers.
    All their resources (however limited) are spent on keeping the dogs, and there is generally little available to pay towards professional help. Some local veterinarians may become involved (as volunteers) but there is clearly a limit to the amount of time professional people can give. This may promote a degree of ill feeling between animal protection groups and veterinarians.
    The countries where there is a significant problem are also generally those with a relatively poor economy. This reduces the scope for long term re-homing (though not entirely) and clearly limits the financial support these groups have.
  • Photo: Dogs in a shelter. Ukraine (Photo: WSPA)
    General Points:
    It is perhaps “fashionable” for large, rich charities to promote a “NO KILL” policy, in which no animals entering their shelters are killed. While this may appear to be the “moral ideal” and is certainly the message that animal protection groups want to hear, it may be argued that this is only realistic in a situation of limitless resources of space, manpower and money.
    Where there are practical constraints (like in most of the World), we will consider if such a policy is unrealistic – indeed might it actually result in more suffering of the animals in the care of the welfare societies?
    This is a very difficult issue, but it is important that the actions and activities of all those involved in animal welfare work are judged by the same set of standards that we use to judge others.
  • Photo: Shelter for dogs in Delhi, India (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General considerations:
    Consider an animal shelter that has adequate facilities and money to look after 30 dogs. At this capacity, there is sufficient funds to provide a balanced diet and routine medications (such as vaccination, de-worming, parasite control). The low stocking density allows adequate cleaning and sanitation.
    Now consider if the income is halved or the number of dogs is doubled to 60 – or trebled to 90 – or beyond!!
    In many cases, the initial limited funds wound mean that the facility may not be well constructed anyway making good cleaning and sanitation difficult. In the picture, stacks of cages make good use of space but also favours the spread of enteric disease as faeces and diarrhoea will easily pass to the cages below. The rusted wire construction makes thorough cleaning impossible.
    As funds become limited, it is likely that prophylactic medication will first suffer, and then food. Many groups rely on the donation of waste food from bakeries etc which may not be a balanced diet.
    The point is not to criticise the people running the shelter – they are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have. The point is that because they have less than optimum facilities, there is a realistic upper limit to the number of animals they should try to look after.
    We will develop this idea in the next slide.
  • Photo: “Cleaning” in an overcrowded kennel in Rio, Brazil (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General Considerations
    We shall now consider the implications of infectious disease to the animals in our shelter. Infectious disease can be caused by a range of agents including bacteria, viruses parasites etc. They can also be spread via a variety of routes (coughing, orally, bites etc.). For the sake of this argument we will consider enteric disease caused by a virus. This will cause vomiting and diarrhoea and will be spread when the shed virus is taken in orally by susceptible animals.
    The outbreak of an infectious disease not only requires the presence of the infective organism, but is made more likely by a number of other factors:
    Overcrowding – increases the density of susceptible animals and hence the likelihood of spread.
    Poor hygiene and sanitation – this is a reflection of (1). In the photo, the shelter houses 6,000 dogs and cleaning is achieved by hosing the floor with the dogs in place. This serves to spray the faeces over the coats of the dogs and hence increase the risk of ingestion. Most enteric viruses can also survive for long periods outside the body and withstand desiccation. They can can survive in cracks in concrete and crevices in fencing. Thus poorly constructed facilities are impossible to clean in an adequate way. The build up of the infectious agent will increase the risk of an epidemic.
    The number of susceptible animals – this can be reduced in some specific cases by prior vaccination. However, costs may make this impractical.
    Poor nutrition and inter-current disease – animals weakened by poor nutrition or inter-current disease (worms, parasites etc) have a depressed immune system that will make them more susceptible to infection.
    Thus the very conditions that are likely to result from trying to “save” too many dogs in a shelter will be the very same conditions that predispose to the outbreak of infectious disease.
  • Photo: Shelter for dogs in Delhi, India (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General considerations:
    Consider an animal shelter that has adequate facilities and money to look after 30 dogs. At this capacity, there is sufficient funds to provide a balanced diet and routine medications (such as vaccination, de-worming, parasite control). The low stocking density allows adequate cleaning and sanitation.
    Now consider if the income is halved or the number of dogs is doubled to 60 – or trebled to 90 – or beyond!!
    In many cases, the initial limited funds wound mean that the facility may not be well constructed anyway making good cleaning and sanitation difficult. In the picture, stacks of cages make good use of space but also favours the spread of enteric disease as faeces and diarrhoea will easily pass to the cages below. The rusted wire construction makes thorough cleaning impossible.
    As funds become limited, it is likely that prophylactic medication will first suffer, and then food. Many groups rely on the donation of waste food from bakeries etc which may not be a balanced diet.
    The point is not to criticise the people running the shelter – they are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have. The point is that because they have less than optimum facilities, there is a realistic upper limit to the number of animals they should try to look after.
    We will develop this idea in the next slide.
  • Photo: Dogs in shelter, Ukraine (Photo: WSPA)
    General Points:
    The “Five Freedoms” should be familiar to the students now. They were devised to assess the welfare conditions of farm animals kept in a variety of management situations. It is important, however, to consider the situation of dogs in our rescue shelter in relation to the same criteria.
  • Photo: Dogs in an overcrowded shelter in Rio, Brazil (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General Consideration:
    Consider this is a picture of our shelter in a country with a poor economy. Remember, we have sufficient resources to adequately look after 30 dogs, and we have only been able to re-home 5%. Because we cannot accept a policy of selective culling, the number of dogs has risen to 300 (ie x10 the optimum level). Because of the arguments made above, the incidence of disease is high, and many dogs die of starvation and disease on a daily basis.
    If we then consider the “five freedoms” it is clear that shelter situation takes account of none of these. The animals are poorly fed, suffer injury and stress from bite wounds as a result of the overcrowding; suffer disease; suffer discomfort as a result of overcrowding, and cannot exhibit their normal behaviour.
    If this was a management system for farm animals, the same animal protection societies would complain – they must be judged by the same criteria.
    How can the situation be improved?:
    Improve the financial support and facilities so that 300 dogs can be kept – but what if this then becomes 600 dogs (or the 6,000 as in the photo!).
    Accept that the practical reality is that not all the dogs can be saved in the optimum conditions. To avoid inflicting suffering should we consider selective culling as part of the programme?
    The point is not that “No Kill” is wrong – if you have sufficient resources it is great – but if you do not it is likely to cause suffering. As such suffering could be avoided by selective culling, one might argue that this is “unnecessary suffering” – The very wording that is considered to be an offence according to the provisions of UK (and some other) National animal protection laws.
  • General considerations:
    We return to our hypothetical shelter of 30 dogs, and have accepted that euthanasia is important for dogs that are actually suffering, and have also grudgingly accepted that there is a limit to the number of new animals we can take in. We are almost at the limit of animals we can keep and have been asked to provide guidelines to the shelter staff on what to do with new animals being presented.
    To do this we need to perform a RISK ANALYSIS.
    A RISK is something that has the potential to cause harm
    A HAZARD is something that is likely to cause harm.
    A risk analysis means identifying all the potential risks and devising protocols that make these risks a low hazard.
    The slide shows one way of classifying these animals – with the most hazardous at the top and the least hazardous at the bottom.The degree of hazard is also a function of the resources of the shelter.
    If one considers the different categories:
    Those dangerous to human health – (eg: suffering from Rabies, or extremely aggressive to man). In my opinion such a dog should be culled from the start.
    Dangerous to the health of the other dogs in the shelter. If there is adequate quarantine facilities and appropriate medication available, perhaps these dogs can be cared for. In reality, however, quarantine is probably not available and is a big drain on limited resources – so perhaps this category should also be culled.
    Severe injury or disease that cannot be treated – it is questionable that such animals should be considered for euthanasia in their own right. If not, it may be unlikely that they will be rehomed, so may remain within the shelter for life. This will be an on-going cost and may use resources that otherwise could be better used to rehome a healthy dog.
    Severe injury that can be treated at high cost. Multiple fractures and injuries can be treated and it is easy to become emotionally attached to injured animals. If resources are limited, is it better to treat such injuries in one dog or vaccinate the rest of the animals in the shelter?
    Minor injuries and disease. Treatment is still a drain on resources, though most shelters would try to cope with this.
    Behaviour problems. This is a more difficult problem, as many of the “problems” are the result of poor socialisation in the past. While “dog psychologists” and behaviourists may give useful advice on adapting and improving behaviour traits, such advisors are not readily available to many shelters in poor areas. If the aim of the shelter is to successfully rehome animals, this would be less likely if the animal has a known behaviour problem.
    Healthy with no apparent problems – even this category is not without risk as some diseases have an incubation period (ie the dog may appear normal but develop symptoms latter). This is even true of rabies, since a dog may be excreting rabies virus in its saliva up to 2 weeks before the symptoms of the disease show. Some diseases may only be diagnosed using laboratory tests that may be impractical in many shelter situations. Similarly some behaviour problems may not be apparent initially.
    The point is not to dictate which animals should be killed and which ones saved. That decision should be made by the management team of the shelter. If they accept a level of selective culling is necessary (however limited), and considering their particular resources, which categories of animal would they think most appropriate to select? Not an easy choice. But to ignore the issue may result in unnecessary suffering.
  • Photo: Common shelter design, Slovenia (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General considerations:
    The next two slides summarise this first section. The management of any shelter should decide on their policy before they start to take in animals. What are their aims and objectives ?
    In considering these policy decisions, the following questions should be asked:
    What is the realistic capacity of the shelter? This relates to the physical size; physical construction and protection from the environment; the resources for food, water and medications; availability of staff; provisions for sanitation and hygiene.
    If the capacity is 30 dogs, what happens when number 31 comes along? Is it turned away for someone else to deal with? Is it killed? Is another dog killed to make room? Is it taken into the shelter anyway? (If the latter, what about when number 32, 33,34……60 comes along?)
    Criteria for selective culling – very difficult but must be agreed by all staff. There is no point in having criteria that are ignored as this will solve nothing. It is a very difficult issue but must be addressed.
    Perhaps the most basic question is: What is the role of the shelter? The answer to this will influence the answer to all the other questions and so will be dealt with in the next slide
  • Photo: Shelter in Slovenia (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General Considerations:
    I have suggested 3 functions of a shelter. These are:
    Keeping lost pets to be collected by their owners. It is common that strays are kept for a period of 7 days to allow time for an owner to come forward. We discussed in Session 25 the benefit of identification and registration in this regard. More rapid identification of the owner will speed up the process and free up kennel space to allow more dogs to be processed through the facility. Charging the owner a realistic fee also provides an income.
    Re-homing: This is a major function of many shelters, and clearly the long term aim is to place a well behaved and socialised dog into a caring and responsible family. Failure to do this will probably lead to future abandonment. If this is the primary aim of the shelter, and yet the practical performance is a relatively low re-homing rate, it might be better to consider keeping fewer dogs in a location and situation more likely to generate interest than large out-of-town compounds.
    Neuter and release programmes: The kennel facility is often the limiting factor of the number of animals that can be processed.
    I have purposely not included possible roles such as:
    Saving all the dogs in a particular city
    Keeping dogs in a “protected environment” for the rest of their life
    While I know of many shelters each with their own “long term inhabitants” and realise they may be good for staff morale and for some of the individual dogs, I believe these should be the exception rather than the rule. If your prime declared function is to successfully re home dogs, your main efforts should be to this end.
  • Photo: Dogs in an overcrowded shelter in Rio, Brazil (Photo: Ray Butcher)
    General Consideration:
    Consider this is a picture of our shelter in a country with a poor economy. Remember, we have sufficient resources to adequately look after 30 dogs, and we have only been able to re-home 5%. Because we cannot accept a policy of selective culling, the number of dogs has risen to 300 (ie x10 the optimum level). Because of the arguments made above, the incidence of disease is high, and many dogs die of starvation and disease on a daily basis.
    If we then consider the “five freedoms” it is clear that shelter situation takes account of none of these. The animals are poorly fed, suffer injury and stress from bite wounds as a result of the overcrowding; suffer disease; suffer discomfort as a result of overcrowding, and cannot exhibit their normal behaviour.
    If this was a management system for farm animals, the same animal protection societies would complain – they must be judged by the same criteria.
    How can the situation be improved?:
    Improve the financial support and facilities so that 300 dogs can be kept – but what if this then becomes 600 dogs (or the 6,000 as in the photo!).
    Accept that the practical reality is that not all the dogs can be saved in the optimum conditions. To avoid inflicting suffering should we consider selective culling as part of the programme?
    The point is not that “No Kill” is wrong – if you have sufficient resources it is great – but if you do not it is likely to cause suffering. As such suffering could be avoided by selective culling, one might argue that this is “unnecessary suffering” – The very wording that is considered to be an offence according to the provisions of UK (and some other) National animal protection laws.
  • Photo: Dogs in a shelter. Ukraine (Photo: WSPA)
    General Points:
    It is perhaps “fashionable” for large, rich charities to promote a “NO KILL” policy, in which no animals entering their shelters are killed. While this may appear to be the “moral ideal” and is certainly the message that animal protection groups want to hear, it may be argued that this is only realistic in a situation of limitless resources of space, manpower and money.
    Where there are practical constraints (like in most of the World), we will consider if such a policy is unrealistic – indeed might it actually result in more suffering of the animals in the care of the welfare societies?
    This is a very difficult issue, but it is important that the actions and activities of all those involved in animal welfare work are judged by the same set of standards that we use to judge others.
  • Photo: WSPA Pet Respect Logo
    General Considerations:
    Having taken account of the basic considerations outlined in slide 16, and being mindful that mass slaughter was not effective in the long term, the WHO and WSPA developed an outline programme. This is very much a framework protocol that includes a number of items as outlined on the slide.
    The situation in any particular country or place will be different, and the details will need to be adapted. However it is important that all the different items are incorporated. Each of these items will be considered in more detail, but it is important to stress at this time that all are important.
    It is also apparent from the range of points, that the responsibilities for these will fall to different agencies. It is essential that all these groups agree to work to a co-ordinated plan from the start.
    WSPA produces a lot of educational material (booklets, videos) and promotes conferences on these topics – generally marketed under the “Pet Respect” Logo
  • 1.6 The Quality of Life and Euthanasia - Ray Butcher

    1. 1. The Quality of Life and EuthanasiaThe Quality of Life and Euthanasia • Ray ButcherRay Butcher • ICAWC, Prague Nov 2010ICAWC, Prague Nov 2010
    2. 2. Killing – an emotive subjectKilling – an emotive subject
    3. 3. Definition of ethics?Definition of ethics? • “……………“……………..principles, or codes of..principles, or codes of conduct, which specify what counts asconduct, which specify what counts as acceptable and unacceptable treatmentacceptable and unacceptable treatment of others (and oneself)”of others (and oneself)” • Kate Rawles in Veterinary Ethics (2000), Ed LegoodKate Rawles in Veterinary Ethics (2000), Ed Legood
    4. 4. Definition of ethics?Definition of ethics? • Matter of opinionMatter of opinion • Cultural and religious differencesCultural and religious differences • Changes over timeChanges over time
    5. 5. Medical EthicsMedical Ethics • Campbell, Gillet andCampbell, Gillet and Jones (2001)Jones (2001)
    6. 6. Medical ethics – 4 foundations (1)Medical ethics – 4 foundations (1) • (Medical practice) .. “should be governed(Medical practice) .. “should be governed by an ethic that is committed toby an ethic that is committed to restoringrestoring and repairingand repairing, as far as possible, the form, as far as possible, the form and function of the human being”and function of the human being” • Compare to veterinary ethic: “Compare to veterinary ethic: “relief ofrelief of sufferingsuffering””
    7. 7. Medical Ethics:Medical Ethics: Foundation 2Foundation 2 • ““..treat patients as..treat patients as people, involvingpeople, involving them in thosethem in those significant decisionssignificant decisions about their care thatabout their care that will affect their liveswill affect their lives and well being”and well being” • ? Euthanasia? Euthanasia
    8. 8. Actions (or lack of them) haveActions (or lack of them) have consequencesconsequences
    9. 9. AimsAims • NOT to tell you whatNOT to tell you what is right or wrongis right or wrong • Simply to presentSimply to present options and consideroptions and consider the consequencesthe consequences • Ultimately theUltimately the decision is yoursdecision is yours
    10. 10. Veterinary DeclarationVeterinary Declaration • “…“….. I.. I promise abovepromise above allall that I will pursue thethat I will pursue the work of my professionwork of my profession with uprightness ofwith uprightness of conduct and that myconduct and that my constant endeavour willconstant endeavour will be tobe to ensure the welfareensure the welfare of the animals committedof the animals committed to my careto my care”.”.
    11. 11. The Five FreedomsThe Five Freedoms • Freedom from hunger andFreedom from hunger and thirstthirst • Freedom from discomfortFreedom from discomfort • Freedom from pain, injuryFreedom from pain, injury and diseaseand disease • Freedom from fear andFreedom from fear and distressdistress • Freedom to expressFreedom to express natural behaviournatural behaviour
    12. 12. Dilemma of theDilemma of the “animal advocate”“animal advocate” • Should we considerShould we consider killing to be ankilling to be an integral part of aintegral part of a population controlpopulation control programme?programme?
    13. 13. Old ageOld age
    14. 14. Quality of LifeQuality of Life • Is there a situation where the quality of anIs there a situation where the quality of an animal’s life is below an acceptable level suchanimal’s life is below an acceptable level such that euthanasia is the preferred course ofthat euthanasia is the preferred course of action in the interest ofaction in the interest of that particularthat particular animalanimal itself?itself?
    15. 15. Quality of LifeQuality of Life • Is a poor quality of life equivalent toIs a poor quality of life equivalent to actual suffering?actual suffering?
    16. 16. ““actual suffering”:actual suffering”: Legal implications of wordingLegal implications of wording • Criminal offence to doCriminal offence to do something (or fail to dosomething (or fail to do something) that causessomething) that causes actual sufferingactual suffering • Veterinary Declaration:Veterinary Declaration: “…..constant endeavour“…..constant endeavour will be towill be to ensure theensure the welfare of the animalswelfare of the animals committed to my care.”committed to my care.” i.e:i.e: relief of sufferingrelief of suffering
    17. 17. Reasons for euthanasiaReasons for euthanasia • Excessive and uncontrolled painExcessive and uncontrolled pain • No longer enjoying lifeNo longer enjoying life • No longer living with dignityNo longer living with dignity • No longer in control of bodily functionsNo longer in control of bodily functions • Liability rather than companion to theLiability rather than companion to the owner and re-homing is not feasibleowner and re-homing is not feasible
    18. 18. ““Quality of life”Quality of life” • Living with DignityLiving with Dignity • Enjoying lifeEnjoying life
    19. 19. EuthanasiaEuthanasia • The method chosen should avoid as farThe method chosen should avoid as far as possible any actions which mightas possible any actions which might increase anxiety and awareness of theincrease anxiety and awareness of the unusual. The animal must pass rapidlyunusual. The animal must pass rapidly into a state of unconsciousnessinto a state of unconsciousness
    20. 20. Requirements of EuthanasiaRequirements of Euthanasia • Competent personCompetent person • Minimum of physical or mentalMinimum of physical or mental sufferingsuffering • Immediate loss of consciousness orImmediate loss of consciousness or deathdeath
    21. 21. ElectrocutionElectrocution
    22. 22. Humane methods – the “Link”Humane methods – the “Link”
    23. 23. Euthanasia and humaneEuthanasia and humane selective cullingselective culling • Euthanasia – “MercyEuthanasia – “Mercy Killing”; performed forKilling”; performed for the sake of thethe sake of the individual animal itselfindividual animal itself • Selective culling –Selective culling – Killing in a humane wayKilling in a humane way for the sake of the wholefor the sake of the whole population or humanpopulation or human societysociety
    24. 24. Stray dogs and cats:Stray dogs and cats: Dealing with the current problemDealing with the current problem • Animal ProtectionAnimal Protection Societies are facedSocieties are faced with the problem ofwith the problem of coping with thecoping with the current crisis withcurrent crisis with limited resourceslimited resources
    25. 25. Animal protection Societies:Animal protection Societies: CharacteristicsCharacteristics • Vary from largeVary from large “professional charities” to“professional charities” to small independent groupssmall independent groups • Often volunteersOften volunteers motivated by a genuinemotivated by a genuine desire to save animalsdesire to save animals • May be little veterinaryMay be little veterinary inputinput • Local economy mayLocal economy may restrict the feasibility of re-restrict the feasibility of re- hominghoming • Limited resourcesLimited resources
    26. 26. ““No Kill” PolicyNo Kill” Policy • The “moral ideal” givenThe “moral ideal” given limitless resources oflimitless resources of space manpower andspace manpower and moneymoney • Unrealistic in manyUnrealistic in many practical situationspractical situations • May lead to furtherMay lead to further suffering as a directsuffering as a direct resultresult • Shelter policy must beShelter policy must be realisticrealistic
    27. 27. Realities of “No Kill” andRealities of “No Kill” and limited financelimited finance • Relative overcrowding inRelative overcrowding in poorly constructed andpoorly constructed and maintained facilitiesmaintained facilities • Poor hygiene and sanitationPoor hygiene and sanitation • Reduced and unbalancedReduced and unbalanced nutritionnutrition • Lack of prophylacticLack of prophylactic medicationsmedications • Inability to quarantine orInability to quarantine or isolateisolate • Lack therapeuticLack therapeutic medicationsmedications
    28. 28. The implications of infectiousThe implications of infectious diseasedisease • Dogs in colonyDogs in colony susceptible to newsusceptible to new infectious agent >infectious agent > epidemicepidemic • New dogNew dog susceptible tosusceptible to endemic disease inendemic disease in colonycolony • Risk of zoonosesRisk of zoonoses
    29. 29. Factors predisposing to theFactors predisposing to the outbreak of infectious entericoutbreak of infectious enteric diseasedisease • OvercrowdingOvercrowding • Poor hygiene andPoor hygiene and sanitationsanitation • Continued contactContinued contact exposure to infectedexposure to infected animalsanimals • Poor nutritionPoor nutrition • Inter-current diseaseInter-current disease • Lack of immunityLack of immunity
    30. 30. Realities of “No Kill” andRealities of “No Kill” and limited financelimited finance • Relative overcrowding inRelative overcrowding in poorly constructed andpoorly constructed and maintained facilitiesmaintained facilities • Poor hygiene and sanitationPoor hygiene and sanitation • Reduced and unbalancedReduced and unbalanced nutritionnutrition • Lack of prophylacticLack of prophylactic medicationsmedications • Inability to quarantine orInability to quarantine or isolateisolate • Lack therapeuticLack therapeutic medicationsmedications
    31. 31. The Five FreedomsThe Five Freedoms • Freedom from hunger andFreedom from hunger and thirstthirst • Freedom from discomfortFreedom from discomfort • Freedom from pain, injuryFreedom from pain, injury and diseaseand disease • Freedom from fear andFreedom from fear and distressdistress • Freedom to expressFreedom to express natural behaviournatural behaviour
    32. 32. ““No Kill” – Is it a practical with aNo Kill” – Is it a practical with a poor economy?poor economy?
    33. 33. The new arrival – what shouldThe new arrival – what should be done?be done?
    34. 34. The AssessmentThe Assessment • Clinical examinationClinical examination • Laboratory testsLaboratory tests • Incubation periodsIncubation periods • Practical difficultiesPractical difficulties
    35. 35. Classification of dog potentiallyClassification of dog potentially entering a shelterentering a shelter • Dangerous to human healthDangerous to human health • Dangerous to the health of other dogs inDangerous to the health of other dogs in sheltershelter • Severe injury, disease that cannot be treatedSevere injury, disease that cannot be treated • Severe injury or disease that can be treated butSevere injury or disease that can be treated but at high costat high cost • Minor injury or diseaseMinor injury or disease • Behaviour problemsBehaviour problems • Healthy with no apparent problemsHealthy with no apparent problems
    36. 36. Management policy decisionsManagement policy decisions • What is the realisticWhat is the realistic capacity of the shelter?capacity of the shelter? • What happens if thisWhat happens if this capacity is exceeded?capacity is exceeded? • If selective culling isIf selective culling is performed – what are theperformed – what are the criteria for choice?criteria for choice? • What is the role of theWhat is the role of the Shelter?Shelter?
    37. 37. The role of animal shelters –The role of animal shelters – The Practical realityThe Practical reality • To keep lost pets for aTo keep lost pets for a sufficient time to allowsufficient time to allow collection by ownerscollection by owners • To keep strays to enableTo keep strays to enable them to be re-homedthem to be re-homed • To keep strays for aTo keep strays for a temporary period as parttemporary period as part of neuter and releaseof neuter and release programmesprogrammes
    38. 38. Selection – one too many!Selection – one too many!
    39. 39. ……. Can soon become 3 too. Can soon become 3 too many!many!
    40. 40. …………..and then 100 too many!..and then 100 too many!
    41. 41. ““No Kill” PolicyNo Kill” Policy • The “moral ideal”The “moral ideal” • Must work in the realMust work in the real world – not suitableworld – not suitable in all situationsin all situations • However if we haveHowever if we have an effective agreedan effective agreed strategy, we can workstrategy, we can work towards this goaltowards this goal
    42. 42. Humane Dog Control:Humane Dog Control: InterventionsInterventions • LegislationLegislation • Registration andRegistration and identificationidentification • Garbage controlGarbage control • NeuteringNeutering • Control of breeders / salesControl of breeders / sales outletsoutlets • EducationEducation

    ×