Vetnuus | May 2026 31 Article >>>32 Regardless of the species of animal and setting, moral conflict for veterinarians around the topic of humane endings arises when the practical realities of a situation interfere with the potential live outcome for an animal. The psychological impacts of this conflict are compounded by external pressures to “save” every animal and differing views on consumption of animals7 and their use for biomedical research and advancement of scientific knowledge.8 These pressures may come from society, members of the local community, clients, and colleagues.9 Likewise, moral conflict can occur among veterinarians for a variety of reasons, such as euthanasia of animals for experimental outcomes, depopulation of an entire flock or herd due to highly pathogenic avian influenza zoonotic risks, or euthanasia of otherwise healthy animals due to a lack of capacity to care for unowned companion animals. Additional strain can occur when personnel form strong attachments to the animals throughout their time working with them in these various environments. Whether humane ending activities are related to euthanasia of individual animals, slaughter of animals for human consumption, or rare emergency situations warranting depopulation of a group, it is often the veterinarian’s responsibility to oversee and conduct these humane endings. In addition, the veterinarians may be relied on to provide support to other personnel and communicate with external stakeholders throughout these processes. Therefore, this Viewpoint article aims to review the history of the AVMA Humane Endings guidelines; explore factors that can influence the psychological impacts of engaging in activities related to euthanasia, slaughter, or depopulation; and discuss actionable steps individual veterinarians and the profession as a whole can take to improve mental health outcomes for our colleagues. History of AVMA guidance documents During discussions on the 2013 revision to the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals,1 it became clear that currently recommended euthanasia methods might not always translate to animals killed for food and fibre or to emergency situations where hundreds to thousands of animals may need to be killed in a short timeframe. In the context of euthanasia, the veterinarian’s prima facie duty in carrying out euthanasia includes (1) their humane disposition to induce death in a manner that is in accord with an animal’s interest and/or because it is a matter of welfare and (2) the use of humane techniques to induce the most rapid, painless, and distress-free death possible. These conditions, while separate, are not mutually exclusive and are co- dependent. However, there are certain situations in which meeting criteria for euthanasia is not appropriate or feasible.1 This realisation led to the challenging task of developing the Humane Slaughter (2016)2 and Depopulation Guidelines (2019)3 that provide expert guidance on these unique situations. To develop the Guidelines for the Depopulation of Animals, the AVMA convened an exhaustive panel of subject matter experts, including an ethicist. To ensure comprehensive feedback from the veterinary profession was considered, AVMA members were invited to review and comment on the draft documents during a 90-day comment period. This resulted in hundreds of comments reviewed and reconciled by the Panels for their guidance documents prior to their official public release. New data and literature are collected and continuously reviewed by the Panels, and updates are made to the Guidelines as needed. Depopulation Depopulation is a process marked by quick and efficient destruction of a complete population of animals in response to urgent circumstances, with as much consideration given to the welfare of the animals as practicable.3 These situations can affect all species, including production animals, wildlife and equids, research animals, and companion animals. It is important to note that the AVMA Guidelines for the Depopulation of Animals: 2019 Edition preferentially recommend using euthanasia or slaughter methods if circumstances permit, but in an emergency circumstance, those methods may not be practical or possible. Since depopulation involves the mass termination of an entire population of animals within a short time period, the use of euthanasia methods is not always possible.1,3 Likewise, these emergency methods may not be congruent with humane slaughter, as the purpose of depopulation is not necessarily for consumption or use, and depending on the emergency circumstances, resources may not allow for the use of slaughter methods.2,3 The directive to depopulate can originate from a predetermined regulatory action, governmental body, or facility overseeing the care and use of animals. In these situations, veterinarians can be left with limited time and outside assistance to meet any regulatory requirements, which further compounds the burden of responsibility during these depopulation events. To make these situations even more challenging, the emotional burden does not solely exist with the veterinarian and their immediate staff, but likely includes the animals’ owners, caretakers, and others who potentially might assist with the handling of animals during the depopulation situation. Altogether, these various pressures (number, time, healthy animals, emotional status of the owners, public support, media coverage, and the disaster itself) lead to a tremendous burden on the physical, mental, and emotional status of the veterinarians in charge, which, if not addressed, can lead to damaging psychological impacts. Current Status of Humane Endings and Veterinary Mental Health What we know Veterinary and other animal-related professionals often have strong feelings and opinions about humane endings. Many consider euthanasia a gift; the ability to end an animal’s suffering by providing a “good death.” Yet the act of ending animal life can often be imbued with both the moral complexity of the killingcaring paradox and significant emotional labour. Veterinarians and other animal-related professionals face the killing-caring paradox when they must euthanise an animal for which they have provided health care and/or animal husbandry.10 Emotional labour can be defined as the challenges associated with managing one’s emotions to meet the requirements of a job11—a frequent challenge faced by veterinary professionals. While both elements are commonly witnessed when euthanasia is conducted, they offer unique challenges to those engaged in humane slaughter and depopulation efforts. Although the human-animal bond is typically used in reference to companion animals, there is no doubt that this bond can develop with any animal, and production animals intended for slaughter and animals in a research setting are no exception.12
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTc5MDU=