Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T11:04:04.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Establishing ‘quality of life’ parameters using behavioural guidelines for humane euthanasia of captive non-human primates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SP Lambeth*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 650 Coolwater Drive, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA
SJ Schapiro
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 650 Coolwater Drive, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA
BJ Bernacky
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 650 Coolwater Drive, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA
GK Wilkerson
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 650 Coolwater Drive, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: slambeth@mdanderson.org

Abstract

Chronic pain and distress are universally accepted conditions that may adversely affect an animal's quality of life (QOL) and lead to the humane euthanasia of an animal. At most research institutions and zoological parks in the USA, a veterinarian, who has physically examined the animal and reviewed the clinical records, ultimately decides when an animal has reached a humane endpoint. To aid in the difficult process of interpreting pain and distress, we have developed specific behavioural guidelines, in addition to standard clinical information, to help define unique characteristics and traits of primates to assess and promote discussion of an individual primate's QOL, and thereby, to assist in the decision-making process regarding euthanasia. These guidelines advocate the creation of a QOL team when the animal is diagnosed with a life-threatening or debilitating chronic condition, or at the time the animal is entered into a terminal study. The team compiles a list of characteristics unique to that individual animal by utilising a questionnaire and a behavioural ethogram. This list enables the team to quantitatively assess any deviations from the established normal behavioural repertoire of that individual. Concurrently, the QOL team determines the number of behavioural deviations that are needed to trigger an immediate discussion of the necessity for humane euthanasia of the animal. The team remains intact once created, and revisits the animal's condition as frequently as deemed necessary. This process improves animal welfare by continuing the quest to optimally define QOL for captive primates, and potentially for all captive animals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia 2013 Available at: https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 41674175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budke, CM, Levine, JM, Kerwin, SC, Levine, GJ, Hettlich, BF and Slater, MR 2008 Evaluation of a questionnaire for obtaining owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments for dogs with spinal cord injuries. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 233(6): 925930. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.6.925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, GE, Clark, D, Winslow, M and Marples, R 2005 US physicians’ attitudes concerning euthanasia and physician-assisted death: a systematic literature review. Mortality 10(1): 4352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576270500030982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, EJ 2002 Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a review of the empirical data from the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine 162: 142152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/arch-inte.162.2.142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engström, J, Bruno, E, Holm, B and Hellzén, O 2006 Palliative sedation at end of life: a systematic literature review. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 11: 2635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2006.02.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Föllmi, J, Steiger, A, Walzer, C, Robert, N, Geissbühler, U, Doherr, MG, and Wenker, C 2007 A scoring system to evaluate physical condition and quality of life in geriatric zoo mammals. Animal Welfare 16: 309318Google Scholar
Freeman, LM, Rush, JE, Oyama, MA, MacDonald, KA, Cunningham, SM, Bulmer, B, MacGregor, JM, Laste, NJ, Malakoff, RL, Hall, DJ and Trafny, DJ 2012 Development and evaluation of a questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life in cats with cardiac disease. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 240(10): 11881193. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.240.10.1188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, Eighth Edition. National Academies Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S 2010 Where do you draw the line on treatment? Veterinary Record 167(17): 636637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.c5444Google Scholar
Lindburg, DG 1999 Zoos and the rights of animals. Zoo Biology 18: 433448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1999)18:5<433::AID-ZOO9>3.0.CO;2-U3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, S, Savary-Bataille, K, Leeuw, B and Argyle, DJ 2011 Development of a questionnaire assessing health-related quality-of-life in dogs and cats with cancer. Veterinary and Comparative Oncology 9(3): 172182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5829.2010.00244.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manette, CS 2004 A reflection on the ways veterinarians cope with the death, euthanasia, and slaughter of animals. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 225(1): 3438. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2004.225.34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, GJ and Veasey, JS 2010 How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively evaluated? Zoo Biology 29: 237255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orfali, R 2011 Death with Dignity: The Case for Legalizing Physician-Assisted Dying and Euthanasia. Mill City Press Inc: Minneapolis, MN, USAGoogle Scholar
Oyama, MA, Rush, JE, O’Sullivan, ML, Williams, RM, Rozanski, EA, Petrie, JP, Sleeper, MM and Brown, DC 2008 Perceptions and priorities of owners of dogs with heart disease regarding quality versus quantity of life for their pets. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 233(1): 104108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.1.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopetz, JJZ and Lehmann, LS 2012 Redefining physicians’ roles in assisted dying. New England Journal of Medicine 367(2): 97–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1205283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rebuelto, M 2008 Ethical dilemmas in euthanasia of small companion animals. The Open Ethic Journal 2: 2125. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874761200802010021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, SG, DiGiacomo, N, Reeve, CL, Spitzmüller, C, Clark, OL, Teeter, L, Walker, AG, Carter, NT and Starling, PG 2007 What shelters can do about euthanasia-related stress: an examination of recommendations from those on the frontline. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10(4): 331347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888700701353865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Heide, A, Deliens, L, Faisst, K, Nilstun, T, Norup, M, Paci, E, van der Wal, G and van der Maas, P 2003 End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study. The Lancet 361: 345350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14019-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villalobos, AE 2004 Quality of life scale helps make final call. Veterinary Practice News September 2004. http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/images/pdfs/Quality_of_Life.pdfGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205217Google Scholar
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, N 2009 Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28: 116Google ScholarPubMed
Yeates, J and Main, DCJ 2009 Assessment of companion animal quality of life in veterinary practice and research. Journal of Small Animal Practice 50(6): 274281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00755.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed