Hi All,
Welcome to topic 7 for 624EHS - Contemporary Issues in Equine Science.
This topic is all about euthanasia and responsible ownership. Make sure you watch the launch video (recording of the hangout) which has been posted in the Classroom. You all have from now until 2pm on Wednesday 13th May to contribute to this blog, to debate the issues surrounding euthanasia. Ensure you can also evidence your opinions and remember that you are also required to submit a reference list (word document emailed to module leader) by 2pm on Wednesday 13th May. You will be graded on the quality and quantity of both your blog contributions and your reference list. Remember, the point of this is to debate the issues, so you should be replying to each other's posts. I will be keeping an eye on the blog, but if you have any issues, you should email me.
Rosa
Euthanasia is a complex and often sensitive subject which horse owners can be faced with, using multiple factors to shape their decision-making process (Marchitelli, 2019). It is a term used to describe the ending of an animal’s life in a painless and minimally distressful way.
ReplyDeleteEuthanasia by lethal injection is carried out by placing an intravenous catheter in the jugular vein, administering sedation to relieve anxiety, and rapid administration of the barbiturate pentobarbital sodium (77 to 109 mg/kg, or approximately 100 mL for horses weighing more than 400 kg, or 900 lbs). It is an effective, fast, and humane method of euthanasia, with brain death occurring within 73–261 seconds of the infusion. Although absence of ECG activity takes longer to occur, brain death has already occurred (Aleman et al., 2015).
Research carried out by Aleman et al., (2015) determined that the average time to inject the pentobarbital sodium was 46.8 seconds, during which visible and audible breaths were not detectable by the end of the injection, electrical activity of the cerebral cortex was lost first, either during administration of the drug or within 52 seconds of when the injection was administered. Brain stem reflexes were lost second to electrical activity of the cerebral cortex. Within one minute, heart sounds were not audible and an arterial pulse was undetectable. Electrical activity of the heart was the last to cease; this is believed to be due to the heart using its last reserves of energy, resulting in ineffective contractions, considering there were no detectable heart sounds or arterial pulses. The findings of this study confirm that an overdose of pentobarbital sodium administered by rapid intravenous injection is an effective, fast, and humane method of euthanasia, with brain death occurring within 73 to 261 seconds of injection, allowing horse owners to take comfort in knowing that the procedure is rapid, painless, and minimally distressful for their equine companion.
Euthanasia is considered by the Federal Council of Veterinary Medicine (FCVM) as a humanitarian method to take an animal’s life, recommended when there is a threat to the animal welfare or to public health (Machado et al,. 2013).
DeleteFollowing on from Amber, most horses are standing when the barbiturate is administered. As the horse loses consciousness, it can be difficult to determine exactly where the horse will fall and how graceful the landing will be. Once the horse is down it is not uncommon to observe residual unconscious musculoskeletal activity that can range from minor muscle twitching to very active paddling of the legs (Hoopes and Mason, 2016). Death should be confirmed after a few minutes by looking for the absence of breathing, a heartbeat, and a corneal reflex. The presence of any eye movement or blinking at this time is evidence of sustained or recovering brain activity and the individual should repeat the same or an alternative euthanasia procedure. A stethoscope must be used to determine the absence of a heart beat (Hoopes and Mason, 2016).
Alternative methods of euthanasia include gunshot and penetrating captive bolt euthanasia. When properly applied, both cause trauma to the cerebral hemisphere and the brainstem resulting in immediate unconsciousness and a painless, humane death. The Gunshot method is usually applied when other methods are unavailable or impracticable, especially in some field situations, or when the animal suffering justifies the immediate death. In the unwanted horse population, this method is often used more frequently because it is less costly to perform than through a lethal injection. However, this technique must be performed by a trained qualified person, under supervision of a veterinarian and avoiding the presence of spectators (Machado et al,. 2013). If correctly used, the method guarantees immediate death of the animal with absence of suffering. The projectile must be thrown towards the animals head in order to produce irreversible brain lesions and death since thoracic or abdominal lesions may not produce immediate death and, as a consequence, further suffering and pain may arise. Its use must be avoided in situations where the animals are not adequately restrained, due to the higher risk of accidents, or the necessity of more than one projectile (Lenz, 2009).
Similarly the Penetrating captive bolt instruments are powered by gunpowder or compressed air that provides sufficient energy to penetrate the horse's skull. Its mode of action is trauma to the cerebral hemisphere and brainstem, resulting in instantaneous brain death. Like gunshot euthanasia, adequate restraint is important to ensure proper placement of the captive bolt, which must be held firmly against the horse's forehead (Machado et al,. 2013). The advantages of both gunshot and penetrating captive bolt are that they render the animal instantly unconscious, resulting in immediate brain death. In addition, the carcass is not hazardous to wildlife or domestic animals. Disadvantages include the fact they require skill and experience, and may be aesthetically displeasing for observers (Lenz, 2009).
To follow on from Rebekah, a licensed professional may put a horse down using a suitable firearm. The licensed professional carrying out the killing of a horse not intended for human consumption must have a WATOK (welfare of animals at the time of killing) licence or a CoC (certificate of competence) (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2015). A licenced professional can include a vet, a knackerman, a hunt kennel or a slaughterman (The Blue Cross, 2020).
DeleteWhen the time is right, a single shot will be administered in the centre of the forehead. Death is instantaneous, and the horse will immediately fall to the ground. Many sources reiterate the importance of horse owners not holding their horse during the time in which the shot is fired, for safety reasons due to the immediate collapse of the horse (Hoopes and Mason, 2016). However, it would be reasonable to question if this happens, as the owner may be required to restrain the horse if no one else is available. From personal experience when a horse is being put down using a free bullet, the horse is given a bucket of feed to encourage it to lower its head and helps to keep them still. The firing of the gun produces a loud bang, which can startle nearby horses. There may be profuse bleeding from the gunshot wound and the nose and/or mouth, due to the physical damage caused by the projectile (Humane Killing of Livestock using Firearms, 2020). After death the horse’s reflex actions in its muscles will twitch or spasm and their legs may kick (Hoopes and Mason, 2016). Your horse’s heart may continue to beat for a short time, however this is normal and the horse is not suffering during these reflex actions.
To also pick up on Rebekah’s comment regarding the need for a veterinarian to supervise this procedure remains a grey area. In many cases shooting of horses is carried out without a vet present. The introduction of clear guidelines referring to if a veterian is or isn’t required would be beneficial to horse owners, easing their confusion in an already difficult decision.
DeleteI Agree with Amber that this still remains a grey area. The decision of euthanasia is usually but not always based on the consultation of a veterinarian along with consideration for the current and future assessment of the horse's quality of life (Carolyn and Stull, 2013). Using a firearm to perform euthansia can also be carried out by trained professionals such as knackermen and does not require the assistance of a Veterinarian (Wessex Equine, 2019). However, as stated below veterinarians may help to reduce the stress associated with the procedure (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). Therefore, the decision is left up to the owner. When the lethal injection method is used, it must be administered by a veterinarian. After the procedure, both veterinarians and horse owners are responsible for proper disposal of the carcass with barbiturate drugs according to state and local ordinances, as these carcasses can impact the environment if buried or composted or be detrimental to scavenging animals. However, in most U.S. states, the veterinarian is responsible for ensuring proper carcass disposal when barbiturates have been used (Carolyn and Stull, 2013).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo provide a further point on the protocols surrounding equine euthanasia, in Italy euthanasia can only be performed by a registered veterinarian, under anaesthesia and with lethal injection (Ministero della Salute, 2020). This would indicate that perhaps an international standard of protocols should be produced to remove this grey area as mentioned by Amber and Rebekah, and ensure that the process is less traumatic for all stakeholders, considering that the use of a firearm only requires sedation and not anaesthesia.
DeleteThe use of only sedation would indicate that the horse could be aware of the process and cause increased stress, as studies have shown in humans under sedation compared with anaesthesia (Radek et al., 2018).
In situations in which it is required to euthanaise a horse which is needle shy, the use of a firearm may be more advantageous than using a lethal injection. As it avoids the use of catheters and injections (BW Equine Vets, 2020) and as a result reduces the level of stress experienced by the horse. The level of stress experienced by a horse which is euthanised by a firearm would significantly out way the stress of having a needle inserted to be euthanised by lethal injection and as a result could mean the use of firearms in this situation would be more ethical for the horse.
DeleteRegarding the method of euthanasia itself, there are a variety of methods available, with various studies assessing the pros and cons of each (Hoopes and Mason, 2016; Turner, 2018). For example, while lethal injection may be preferable for some as the procedure is “cleaner”, it may be kinder to use a firearm in the case of an emergency in order to save time. Additionally, an IV injection of barbiturates may have an impact on the disposal of the carcass, as horses subjected to the procedure are not permitted to enter the food chain for either horses or animals (Hoopes and Mason, 2016).
DeleteI agree with both Amber's and Robyn's points with regard to the practicalities of the use of firearms and if linked to the future destination of the horse, this is certainly an important point to take into consideration (Machado et al., 2013).
DeleteLinked to possible contaminants in the food chain from horse meat, a recent five-year study (2013-2017) showed that levels of phenylbutazone or its metabolite were not found at detectable levels (Annunziata et al., 2018). Furthermore, the use of lidocaine hydrochloride instead of barbital based drugs would remove this residual problems (Aleman et al., 2016).
For horses, there are several euthanasia methods which have already been mentioned above. There are methods which are considered unacceptable for use and should not be used under any circumstances. These unacceptable methods include; manually applied blunt trauma to the head, injection of potassium chloride into a conscious animal, formation of an air embolism by injecting large amounts of air into the bloodstream and electrocution. These methods are deemed unacceptable because the horses’ welfare is not taken into consideration and can cause additional and unnecessary suffering at the end of life (Stull, 2013). Considerations regarding the selection of the most appropriate euthanasia method can include; human safety caused by the falling or thrashing of the horse upon euthanasia, horse welfare in ensuring a quick and painless death, and the amount of restraints required including which types of restraint will be used (Stull, 2013).
DeleteMost methods will result in exaggerated muscle activity after the procedure has been carried out, so the location of the procedure should be considered to ensure comfort of the horse and safety of the handlers, but should also be in an appropriate area for the removal of the carcass to be carried out with ease. The removal and disposal of the carcass should be arranged before euthanasia takes place (Hullinger and Stull, 2013).
While it's agreeable that removal and disposal should be arranged before the euthanasia process, this may not be possible in the event of an emergency. In which case, it is advised that there is access to alternative accommodation for horses in neighbouring stables or other members of the herd if in the field. Additionally, liaison with those with access to carcass movement machinery (ie farmers and local fire services) should be considered.
DeleteIn Agreement with Amber and Rebekah, a requirement of horse ownership involves making choices to support the welfare of your horse through their life and the end of the horse’s life. Euthanasia is an important choice which can prevent suffering of the horse even further, however the technique used to euthanasia the horse also needs to be considered and ensure the welfare of the horse remains to be a priority (Payne et al, 2014). Euthanasia could be required after a traumatic incidence, or just as a horse becomes older, ongoing lameness injuries or even when the owner can no longer look after the horse financially or no longer wants the horse. Currently a vet in the UK can put a horse down for any reason (Mcllwraith and Rollin, 2011). The American Association of Equine Practitioners provided guidelines to vets as guide for when euthanasia is necessary. The horse’s quality of life should be considered, is the horse suffering and in unnecessary pain? Does the horse have a poor prognosis of recovery? Will the horse require constant medication for the remainder of its life? All of the factors need to be considered, if the answer is yes to any of the points it is likely euthanasia is the correct choice (AEEP, 1995).
DeleteTechniques available include an intravenous injection of barbiturate (sodium phenobarbital). The injection is administered when the horse is standing and causes depression of the central nervous system, sending the horse into anaesthesia leading to respiratory and cardiac arrest. As the horse loses consciousness it will fall to the ground which can impose health and safety risks, whilst also creating emotional distress for the owner. Often a horse can be sedated before the barbiturate is injected to help predict how the horse will fall. Musculoskeletal twitching can also occur which might look like the horse is still alive causing further distress (Hoops and Mason, 2016). Certain medical conditions can prevent a vet form wanting to euthanise a horse with barbiturate. Heart defects or respiratory issues could prevent the drugs from entering the correct organs to ensure euthanasia occurs. The horse could suffer a painful death if they were not sedated or anaesthetised properly and then suffered a cardiac arrest whilst still conscious. Another form of euthanasia is a gunshot to the brain. The firearm must be used by a certified person and aimed down the neck, through the front of the skull. A gunshot will kill the horse instantly and painlessly if done correctly. A gunshot is also a much cheaper way to euthanize a horse. However, a gunshot is less commonly used as form of euthanasia in the leisure horse industry due to the emotional repercussions which seem less when a horse is euthanized via injection (Hoops and Mason, 2016).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn owner’s opinion and personality could potentially either delay the decision to have a horse euthanised, thus prolonging suffering, or could lead the owner to make a hasty decision and euthanise a horse when it was not necessarily required (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). The potential distress caused during the procedure of euthanasia and the impact of euthanasia upon owners of aged horses has not been well documented. (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). McGowan et al,. in 2012 conducted a study looking at the relationship between owners personality and their opinion on the experience euthanasia; none of the respondents answered that the decision to euthanise their horse “was a decision that could be made easily.” 58% (60/104) felt the decision “was a major decision,” and 38% (40/104) felt the decision “was an important decision but not major,” (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). As well as the loss of the animal, the actual procedure of euthanasia can have a large impact on the owner, especially in the case of horses where the procedure is often more stressful than in small animal practice.The results of this study suggested that euthanasia is a difficult and distressing decision for most owners of aged horse and is influenced by the acceptability of the procedure and, in females, their personality. (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). However, owners generally found the loss of their horse more distressing than the actual procedure of euthanasia itself. Factors such as a good explanation of the procedure, a well-performed euthanasia, and support by the veterinarian can reduce the stress associated with the procedure (Mcgowan et al,. 2012). Future research could attempt to separately identify how distressing the event is and how much of a sense of relief the event creates. Veterinarians have characteristically underestimated the importance of their clients’ attachment to their animals or failed to understand the importance of the human–animal bond.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebekah in relation to the need for more research into separately identifying how distressing the event of euthanisa is and how much of a sense of relief the event creates. From personal experience of having to have one of my own horse’s put down and assisting other owners with the procedure, the sense of relief afterwards was something I was originally not expecting and although it took me by surprise, it was slightly comforting, knowing that it was over and the horse was no longer in pain and suffering. I feel that more awareness of what owners can feel and experience following the passing of their horse is necessary in order to prepare them for the wave of emotions that they may experience and for that to happen more research is needed in this area as Rebekah suggested.
DeleteVeterinarians understand that for most owners this procedure can be very stressful, therefore, it is the owners decision whether to stay with their horse whilst the euthanasia is carried out (Wessex Equine, 2019). Wessex Equine Veterinary Practise devised a letter to guide their customers and help them understand the different euthanasia procedures. I think this is a good way to help owners who are already in a lot of distress make an easier decision.
DeleteOwners are not the only ones that can be affected. Horses usually accept the loss of their companions well. However, a particularly close companion may become distressed at the loss of their friend. Some think letting the companion see the horse for a few minutes after euthanasia, or even leaving them in the same paddock for a short while. What does everyone think about this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo add onto Rebekah's comments, In places such as animal shelters where there is shared responsibility of the animal, the impact on the individual can be lessened (Rohlf and Bennett, 2005; Rogelberg et al, 2007). Owner involvement can vary from just being present, to holding and comforting the animal at the time of death. However, euthanasia of horses can be traumatic to watch compared to other animals, especially if the horse is in distress or pain, because of the way the horse falls to the ground (Brackenridge, 1996).
DeleteCarrying on from Niamh’s comment about horses that are located in animal shelters/rescue centers. Euthanasia of unwanted or abandoned is usually decided with the help of a veterinarian due to the lack of ownership. In Ireland (2005), 159 out of 174 horses (91.3%) were euthanised by veterinary practitioners, the remaining 15 horses (8.7%) were euthanised at the request of Owners or Local Authorities. In 2010, veterinary practitioners euthanised 209 horses out of 237 horses (88.2%) on medical grounds and a total of 28 (11.8%) were at the request of owners or Local Authorities (Leadon et al,. 2012).
DeleteIn relation to Rebekah's comment regarding allowing companions to see the euthanised horse afterwards, I believe this should be considered on a case by case bases. Some horses particularly horse's which are close companions and who may have lived together for many years, may benefit from seeing their companion once euthanised to allow them to 'understand' that their friend has passed away, to prevent unnecessary distress. However, it is important for owners to take into consideration that their horse may become withdrawn and depressed for a while following the passing of their horse's companion. Another factor that should be taken into consideration, is the method that was used to euthanise the horse. A horse which has been euthanised via lethal injection would outwardly display very little signs of trauma and distress compared to a horse which has been euthanised by a free bullet, which can display profuse bleeding from the gunshot wound and the nose and/or mouth, due to the physical damage caused by the projectile (Humane Killing of Livestock using Firearms, 2020). This may be unsightly and more distressing for another horse to see.
DeleteEuthanasia of horses is a challenging responsibility in the veterinary profession and has received increasing attention in recent years, with a growing number of scientific investigations on euthanasia being published in recent years, however these are mainly small animal based (Batchelor and McKeegan, 2011; Yeates and Main, 2011; Fernandez-Mehler et al., 2013; Hartnack, Springer, Pittavino and Grimm, 2016; Kipperman, Morris and Rollin, 2018). Although a few studies concentrating on the horse owner’s perspective on euthanasia do exist (Buelke, 1990; Brackenridge and Shoemaker, 2020; Endenburg, Kirpensteijn and Sanders, 1999; McGowan et al., 2012; Brackenridge and Shoemaker, 2020). To pick up on Rebekah’s original point on the stress of euthanisa on the owner of the horse, it is also important to consider the stress which is experienced by the vet. A study by Springer et al., (2019) investigated the attitudes of Austrian veterinarians’ towards euthanaisa. The study found that well-performed euthanasia reduces stress, not only for the horse but also for the owner and veterinarian involved (Endenburg, Kirpensteijn and Sanders, 1999; Brackenridge and Shoemaker, 2020). It was also found that veterinarians rely on published guidelines, as these provide up to date detailed information regarding technical matters and requirements (Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, 2020), as well as effective training during their intinal education imparting the necessary knowledge and skills for euthanasia and as a result reduces the level of stress experienced by the vet.
DeleteFor vets having to consider the interests of the animal as well as the owners views and wishes (Yeates, 2013; Sandoe, Corr and Palmer, 2016), can cause added stress, particularly when the owner has conflicting thoughts, which can lead to challenging complexities in veterinary care. It is also important to consider that veterinarians have to consider not only medical but also social and economic factors in the decision to euthanise. The emotional bond between the owner and the horse has an especially marked impact on decision-making processes. However, it has been found that characteristics of the horse such as advanced age, a fulfilled life, and short life expectancy also help veterinarians to deal with euthanasia more easily and calmly (Springer et al., 2019).
To expand on the ideas regarding the impact on equine companions, a recent study by Mendonça et al. (2020), on the effect of death on conpecifics in feral horses, show that horses suffer similar reactions to those of humans and other animals. This was particularly noticeable in the mother-foal bond, but significantly less so in other herd members, who generally avoided the dead foal. This would indicate that allowing the companion horse to see its euthanised companion is not necessary, in comparison to that of a mother.
DeleteIn response to Simon's comment regarding allowing the companion horse to see its euthanised companion is not necessary. At some UK horse sanctuary's often where horses can live in fixed groups for many years, forming strong social bonds. The practice of euthanising a horse and leaving the deceased body within the paddock for a day is opted for. This is largely to allow the group to see that the horse is no longer with them. In practice it has been shown that the horses display less distressed behaviours such as continuous calling for their friend and pacing of the fence line when allowed to see the euthanised horse afterwards. Allowing companions to see the euthanised horse may be more important when considering horses which have developed strong social bonds with one another.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile the notion of allowing companions to “say goodbye” has a degree of purpose in certain circumstances, one must be careful about anthropomorphising. It is more likely that horses experience a form of separation anxiety, as opposed to grief as we know it as humans (Murray, 2018), although Bittel, DVM (2014) does outline a number of holistic and therapeutic methods of helping horses seemingly affected by grief, including exposing the horse to the body of the companion. However, consider the dynamics of the herd of wild horses. Those closer to the end of life due to either age or disease are often shunned from the herd before the time, however (while the source of this case is not considered scientifically reliable), during cases of accident and therefore sudden death, members of the herd have been known to almost ritualistically “say goodbye” (Simpson, 2018). Having said that, suggesting that horses would be more distressed seeing a recently euthanized horse that had been shot as opposed to one that had been injected requires support.
DeleteAdditionally, the practicalities of the situation should be considered. For example, how will the carcass be removed if the horse is euthanised in a stable, or a field without vehicle access? Furthermore, the presence of the owner during the procedure could be thought as comforting for the horse. However, it was recently found that neither the location of euthanasia nor the presence of the owner has any influence on the stress parameters of the horse (Gehlen et al., 2020). However it should be noted that this study did not take into account a distressed owner in particular. Therefore while the owner's presence may offer some form of comfort for themselves, it should be considered whether or not the presence of a distressed owner is detrimental to the horse’s state of stress.
In agreement with Amber, actions after the passing of a horse should be considered on a case by case basis, as opposed to a blanket rule for all.
To add on to the point's made about owner personality, there is a complex relationship between owners’ personality, the human-animal bond, and owners’ previous experiences with the loss of an animal (if there is any experience at all). With companion animals, there is the potential for a greater degree of attachment to a pet, therefore, more grief may be experienced (Lavergne et al, 2003). However, I think this statement is outdated, and even owners of animals used for work, such as competition horses, will experience a great deal of grief when an animal is euthanised, as they have the same human-animal bond as they would do with a companion pet. A sudden death can also mean there is a heightened sense of grief, compared to those who have been able to prepare for the end-of-life decision, and allow for the horse to be as calm as possible (McGowan et al, 2015).
DeleteAn implication of euthanasia could be that owners’ personality and life experiences could affect their behaviour and actions when euthanasia needs to be considered. Previous experiences of euthanasia may affect the owner’s future decision, particularly if the procedure was unnecessarily stressful for both the horse and the people involved. This traumatic experience may then lead to the owners’ reluctance to euthanise the animal and cause unnecessary and prolonged suffering (McGowan et al, 2015).
Inexperienced or neglectful horse owners may try to prolong the life of the horse without considering the horse’s quality of life. Euthanasia could be prolonged because of the emotional attachment to the horse or due to financial hardship. There are multiple reasons why someone may choose not to euthanasia a horse, which in turn causes the horse to suffer. It is the role of the veterinarian to decide the horse needs to be euthanised under the Protection of Animals Act (1911). Further legal action can be taken against the individuals inflicting the neglect by the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Local Authorities also have prosecution powers (Green and Tong, 2010).
DeleteIn the United States it has been found that there is a lack of education at college level and above surrounding the subject of euthanasia, which could be contributing to the current poor welfare standards of euthanasia. It has been suggested a comprehensive educational curriculum should be devised which outlines the suitable methods of euthanasia, how to decide when euthanasia is required, carcass disposal options and how humans deal with the emotional side of euthanasia. An end of life plan should be contemplated and enforced, whether that be for an emergency or an expected death. Bearing in mind the importance of the said points, end of life welfare should improve (Stull, 2013). The UK could also implement and follow a similar structure in part of the curriculum to help students become confident and make correct choices that ensure the horses welfare is always at the forefront of the euthanasia process. Having a plan in place will reduce the emotional stress associated with euthanasia because you are already prepared for the event.
To add the point regarding the lack of education around horse euthanasia in the unites States, the horse slaughterhouse industry is declining in response to pressure from animal activists to end slaughtering. The decline of cheap disposal of horses will lead to less horses being euthanized and likely kept in poor conditions to keep costs down, which will increase further welfare concerns. Eradicating this form of euthanasia should be replaced with an alternative, improved welfare type of euthanasia to avoid excess horses living in poor conditions (Durfee, 2009). Correct education regarding the reasoning why types of euthanasia are used could help students to develop an alternative, more humane and very cost-effective procedure for euthanasia.
Horses have a natural life span ranging from 20-40 years, meaning the human-equine bond will be strengthened with long years of ownership. As horses show signs of coming to the end of life, it is up to the owner to consider the end of life available. Factors owners should take into consideration can be prevalence of disease, and natural causes (McGowan et al, 2010; Ireland et al, 2011). Personality of the owner can potentially influence the opinions towards equine euthanasia, as well as their experience of euthanasia (McGowan et al, 2015).
ReplyDeleteIt has been reported that the health of the horse is a more important influencing factor than human factors when owners made the decision of euthanasia. However, veterinary advice was considered the most important human factor when making this decision (Butler and Lagoni, 2006). As the veterinary is the person of authority in these situations, it also falls upon them to offer support to the owner, give them understanding of the decision and ensure the procedure is as stress-free as possible to both the horse and owner.
A survey conducted by McGowan et al (2010) supported the information that owners of aged horses are interested in both the health and welfare of the horse. In a survey of 536 owners of horses aged 15 and over, more than 90% considered health issues and preventative care as important issues in aged horses. Owners stated they were most concerned about weight loss, arthritis/lameness and teeth/dental care (McGowan, 2010).
Though the comments regarding welfare by horse owners is true. A study by McGowan & Ireland (2016) indicated that owners of horses, particularly geriatric equines, want to maximise welfare but under recognise clinical signs of disease or contribute these to senescence rather than disease. Indicating that a Quality of Life protocol and assessment criteria would be a very useful tool for stakeholders to use to identify the most auspicious moment to euthanise their equine companion, thus ensuring best welfare practice.
DeleteTo follow on from Simon’s comment regarding horse owners misunderstanding clinical signs of disease in an attempt to maximise welfare, leads to another problem of over-treatment. The issue of over-treatment which has also been described in the field of small animal medicine, leads to challenging situations and ethical dilemmas for practicing veterinarians (Rebuelto, 2008; Yeates, 2010; Batchelor and McKeegan, 2011) When equine patients are suffering from incurable diseases and owners decide against medically indicated euthanasia, conflicting responsibilities create an ethical dilemma and role conflict for the treating veterinarian (Rebuelto, 2008; Yeates, 2010; Batchelor and McKeegan, 2011). As a possible solution, veterinarians can strengthen their advisory position and inform the owner in greater detail about the animal’s suffering, explaining the reasons why euthanasia is the best possible solution (Sandøe, Corr and Palmer, 2016).
DeleteThe idea of a quality of life protocol may be met with adversity amongst equine owners, but the benefits to the care of the horse and relief of the responsibilities of the veterinarian could be argued as more important. Not only could generalisation across the industry result in fewer cases of unnecessary suffering for the sake of sentimentality, but it would act as some form of guideline for legal matters. For example, there are yards known to have a medical treatment authority policy in place for in the case of an owner being unreachable during an emergency, in order to prevent legal action being taken against either the establishment or the vet, such as in the 2019 case reported by Murray (2020).
DeleteRegarding the owner-horse emotional relationship, it has been argued that the final act of kindness an owner can offer to their animal is that of a dignified passing free from pain and suffering. Stull (2013) highlights the issue of owner grief in detail, with the process described as similar to that of a long-term companion animal, especially in the case of those who spend a significant amount of time with their horse. In addition to the owner, the grief of the rider of the horse, the care providers, grooms, trainers, and horse's veterinarian are considerable (Stull, 2013).
To take Robyn's point on legality, The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (England & Wales) and its equivalents in Scotland and N. Ireland, contains provisions for euthanasia without owner consent which states it can be done for welfare purposes under the powers of an Inspector or police constable, usually supported by a veterinary certificate. Though the presence of a vet is not always required, should the situation indicate the wait for a vet is not practical. In extreme situations or as an inpatient, this can be done by the veterinarian alone (documenting every particular in case of a challenge) (RCVS, 2020).
DeleteObviously, all attempts need to be made to contact the owner, and discuss the options, if any, prior to euthanasia being performed. Groups are available to provide support specifically for equestrians, covering the whole duration and not only for after the event (Hoopes & Mason, 2016)
Ireland is a major producer of horses of all types for the domestic market and for export abroad, with an estimated 27.5 sport horses per thousand people it is the most densely sport horse populated country in Europe (Hennessy and Quinn, 2008). The level of production of horses in Ireland exceeds the domestic need, and as a result there are a large number of unwanted horses within the country. There are a number of ways in which unwanted horses are removed in Ireland, these include: sales privately via sales companies, dealers and to slaughter plants, surrender to animal welfare charities, abandonment, burial or disposal via knackeries and export mainly via ferry ports to the UK and France. The documentation of horses including movements, sales and disposal is not regulated in Ireland, making it impossible to trace horses throughout their lives and ultimately where they end up.
ReplyDeleteThe Tripartite Agreement permits free movement of horses between Ireland, the UK and France, without health certification, for only non-slaughter purposes. However, horse-dealers have been tracked taking advantage of the lack of oversight and operate exporting thousands of horses out of the country for slaughter but not openly declaring this intention. This is further amplified by the fact ferry port officials currently do not examine horses or check that microchip numbers and horse markings corroborate with passport details. A study by Collins et al., (2011) found that at most Irish ports, the number of horses in the shipment was noted and referenced to the number of identification documents offered by the shipper. However, it was also found that ferry ports have begun to record the detail of proffered information, by means of listing document and/or microchip numbers or photocopying documents. This improved practise led to the discovery that a known shipper-for-slaughter was repeatedly reusing horse identification documents for successive shipments, highlighting the need for improvements in the way in which horses are recorded and tracked.
I concur with the comments and points of view put forward by my colleagues to date. The need to include the human-horse emotional bond is an important one, which these days in generally accepted by the veterinarian profession (Springer et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is becoming evident that convenience euthanasia is not accepted by veterinarians on the one side (Springer et al., 2019) or by regulative bodies, such as the Italian government which prohibits this motive for euthanasia (Ministero della Salute, 2020). However, this may not be the case for certain sectors of the equine industry, the racing industry being one of these. Here the economic value and use of the horse post injury (if possible) comes in to play much more than the emotive bonds of the owners, or the purely welfare aspect (Rosanowski et al., 2018).
ReplyDeleteTo take the equine welfare aspect further, a study by Gehlen et al (2020) looked at the equine stress response during euthanasia protocols through heart rate variability (HRV), this showed noted sympathovagal activity in the preparation phase (sedation and anaesthesia ) and during the injection of pentobarbital. No differences where noted based on location, owner presence or type of primary disease. However, horses euthanised due to colic, often showed reoccurrence of breathing. This would indicate that the protocols for euthanasia in colic cases could do with being reviewed.
Meanwhile, the use of horses for meat, though not socially acceptable in the UK and other countries, while in France, Italy and other Mediterranean countries it is more common. An important aspect for health reasons is the presence of residues of drugs after IV anaesthesia and intrathecal Lidocaine Hydrochloride euthanasia in horses, when these will move on to the food chains of animals or humans. An investigation by Aleman et al (2016), showed that residues were in extremely low concentrations, therefore not posing any potential health risk to consumers of horse meat - animal or human.
Another point to expand on are the motives for euthanasia which from studies in the UK include principally laminitis, colic and non-laminitis lameness, some of which could have been preventable, though more research is required in this area of qualitative equine euthanasia (Pollock et al., 2020).
Regarding the consumption of horse meat, following on from Simon’s comments about the dangers of consuming the meat of horses which have received medicines such as Lidocaine Hydrochloride, the question of administration of Phenylbutazone to those who entered the food chain arose during the 2013 horse meat scandal. It was argued that in order to be considered a risk to health, an individual would have to consume vast quantities of horse meat containing bute to be at risk (Meikle, 2013). This point was originally England’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies (Wise, 2013), who explained that “bute” rapidly passes through the human’s digestive system, therefore it is unlikely to build up within the body. As a result, with the highest level of bute found within horse meat was 1.9mg per kg, an individual would have to consume 500-600 100% horse meat burgers in a single day in order to reach a human’s daily recommended dose of bute.
DeleteAdditionally, changes in attitude towards horse meat consumption with the UK could improve general welfare, as well as having an economic influence. At present, while illegal, it is not unheard of for horses to travel great distances in order to be slaughtered in a particular country for the meat to then be labelled as native to the country of slaughter, despite the country of origin (World Horse Welfare, n.d). Celebrities such as The Princess Royal and Gordon Ramsay famously supported the idea of horse meat consumption returning to UK thanks to the health benefits to the human, as well as improvements to the welfare of horses both in the case of those travelling to slaughter and in controlling the growing population of unwanted horses by means of ethical and responsible disposal (Harrison, 2007; Duffin, 2013).
To continue Robyn’s points on horse meat consumption, a study by Belaunzaran et al. (2015) showed that social, cultural and/or religious reasons were behind the interruption of horse meat consumption throughout history. It is noted that the more an animal is attributed with positive emotions like affection and closeness or is considered a pet, then this leads to the reduction or stopping of its consumption.
DeleteThis notwithstanding, horse meat should be considered as a significantly valid alternative or substitute for ‘red meat’ ( bovine in particular). There are several beneficial aspects for this idea - horse meat is very nutritious, being healthier than bovine, due to the high levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (Lorenzo et al., 2017). Considering the current environmental crisis, horses have a lower carbon footprint, also due to its digestive physiology, as well as advantages to grassland management of less favourable grazing land (Belaunzaran et al., 2015).
Another possible benefit, which links with Amber’s discussion on removal of horses, either for slaughter or of the carcass, is the fact that making horse meat a commodity (be this in UK, USA or elsewhere) would improve the overall welfare aspect and keep it under the legislative control of the country of origin (Butler, 2014; Anderson, 2015; Saastamoinen, 2015). This would also reduce or prevent the need to transport horses long distances for slaughter and again placing emphasis on their welfare (Roy et al., 2019). This may be a valid point for euthanasia, contrarily to the first impact, if the welfare issue is pushed.
It is the horse owner’s responsibility to arrange for collection, cremation or disposal after euthanasia, and to pay directly the company concerned. The cost of disposal varies depending on how the horse is euthanised, if cremation is required and if any ashes are requested.
ReplyDeleteAs well as collection and disposal costs, there is a fee charged for the actual euthanasia and visit (where required). Currently Bell Equine a vet practice in the UK charges £97.92 for using a gun, plus sedation. Euthanasia by lethal injection costs £251.26, for Thoroughbred sized horses possibly more for a heavier horse plus sedation (The costs, 2020). Knackeries often charge around £100 for the use of a free bullet and the disposal of the horse. This shows the clear divide between the two practices with the use of firearms often being the cheaper option. Euthanising a horse via the use of a firearm, often makes the disposal of the carcass easier, as the body does not contain barbiturates and anaesthetics and as a result hunt kennels and knackeries will more than likely dispose of the body.
There are two main options for cremation: group cremation where the body is cremated with others. This option does not offer any ashes back; or individual cremation where the body is cremated individually and the ashes are returned to the owner. As a guide, a group cremation can cost approximately £300 and an individual cremation will be around £800. This option of disposal can be costly and as a result the method of disposal should be carefully considered by the owner.
Due to the high costs of euthanasia, owners that no longer want their horses or don't have the funds, struggle with disposing or euthanising horses. There are various euthanasia funds that are set up to overcome these costs. These funds were created to alleviate the financial burden of euthanising a horse for owners that cannot afford it (usually in the Unwanted horse sector). However, they are usually only for horses that are in need of euthanasia because of sickness or injury, not for healthy unwanted horses. Additionally, most of these programs are only offered in the Midwest, with very little funding available in the East (McGowan, 2011).
DeleteGeneral and humane endpoints that can be considered by their owners can include the development of conditions that result in untreatable and excruciating pain, a 20% decrease in their normal body weight, or the inability to reach food and water easily. These endpoints should be recognised by the owner and dealt with as deemed appropriate by both a professional and the owner. Establishing these endpoints will help when evaluating the progression of the disease/ injury and will also be able to assist in the decision-making process, whether that will be other treatment options, or if these have all been exhausted with no improvement- euthanasia (Stull, 2013). Daily monitoring of a diseased/injured or geriatric horse can allow for the MEDW criteria to be used. MEDW stands for; Movement, Eating, Drinking and Weight (Ferraro et al, 2013). Assessing the horse’s quality of life should be a technique used alongside these criteria to assist both owners and vets with decision making.
ReplyDeleteOwners generally find the loss of their horse more distressing than the actual procedure of euthanasia, particularly when the procedure runs smoothly and calmly. The majority of owners in a study conducted by McGowan et al (2015) indicated that the procedure was more acceptable than distressing. The act of euthanasia is frequently viewed and assisted by owners. Whilst this may cause further distress to some owners who have not experienced the procedure before, it can actually bring relief to owners’ as they are allowed to see their horse at peace, as well as see that the procedure is normally very dignified and relaxed (McGowan et al, 2015). However, future research could be done in aid to indicate whether owners may find additional grief counselling and support beneficial, particularly if they have witnessed a traumatic and sudden death, although, some owners’ may find that veterinary support is enough to help them cope.
Delete