Vetnews | Mei 2026 32 « BACK TO CONTENTS Article The magnitude of an individual’s bond with an animal may vary based on species, life span, housing system, or production system.13 Despite raising these animals to eventually be killed, caretakers are committed to ensuring animal welfare for the duration of their lives.13 The loss of these animals may cause individuals to safeguard their emotions by avoiding a bond with them in the first place.14 The culmination of the emotional labour and the moral complexity of the killing-caring paradox during depopulation events can result in painful psychological impacts for veterinary and other animalrelated professionals.15 Since these situations inherently involve death, they meet the criteria for what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders considers“trauma”—that is,“exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways: directly experiencing the traumatic event(s); witnessing, in person, the traumatic event(s) as it occurred to others; learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend.”16 Additionally, since depopulation involves veterinarians and other animal-related professionals actively engaged in the killing of animals, the experience can be described more precisely as perpetration-induced traumatic stress (PITS).17 Perpetration-induced traumatic stress is an important construct to understand because it helps us understand that people can have PTSD symptoms as a result of perpetrating trauma as opposed to being the victim of trauma. The symptoms of “traditional” PTSD and PITS are similar—it is the cause of the distress that is the important distinction. In other words, knowing that people could experience PTSD by causing harm or trauma to others in ways similar to if they experienced the trauma themselves can help us identify appropriate interventions. Hence, PITS can have a grave impact on the mental health of those involved by eroding the positive sense of identity they have as animal caregivers and stewards.18 Symptoms as a result of this traumatic stress include intrusive unwanted thoughts and images, nightmares and difficulty sleeping, trouble concentrating, hyperarousal (such as increased startle response), and avoidance or numbing of upsetting stimuli (especially through the use of substances to mask unpleasant emotions and memories).19 There are also often feelings of shame and guilt associated with moral injury—the emotional and mental effects of engaging in a behaviour that goes “against the grain”—in this case, being a caregiver for animals.20 Not everyone who engages in depopulation has significant, longstanding emotional trauma. There are several factors that mediate how moral complexity and emotional labour of depopulation impact psychological health. This includes internal factors, such as personality, temperament, preexisting trauma, and cognitive factors, and external factors, including the context of the animal death and separate personal and global circumstances, which also contribute to psychological stress. Personality and temperament Personality styles impact how individuals interact with and experience their environment. One commonly used personality model is the Big Five personality traits. These 5 traits include openness to experience, neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Research suggests that individuals with higher levels of neuroticism (increased sensitivity) tend to experience more mental distress than those with lower levels,21 including an increased tendency to develop posttraumatic symptomatology after a traumatic event.22 Another trait that appears to impact how one is impacted by trauma is sensory processing sensitivity.23 Also referred to as environmental sensitivity, people with this trait have increased awareness and sensitivity to their environment and often respond to external stimuli more deeply on both cognitive and emotional levels. These individuals are likely to spend more time reflecting, ruminating, or brooding on the experience instead of using distraction or cognitive reappraisal (the ability to reframe challenging situations in a more positive light) as coping mechanisms. Additionally, situational stressors, as well as current global factors and an individual’s prior history of stress and trauma, all impact how one is affected by the moral complexity and emotionality of depopulation. Preexisting trauma and cognitive factors Approximately 60% of the US population has experienced at least 1 adverse childhood experience.24,25 Examples of adversity in childhood include a parent with a mental illness, parental divorce or separation, or physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect. As traumatic experiences accumulate in a person’s life, there is an increased likelihood of worse mental and physical health outcomes. The presence of developmental or adult-onset trauma predisposes people to experience prolonged traumatic stress after a traumatic event. “Dirty work,” defined as jobs likely to be perceived as disgusting or degrading, often falls to people who are marginalised.26 These are the same groups more likely to have suffered earlier trauma and challenging life situations. These factors should be considered when assigning individuals to varying roles in depopulation efforts. It is important that they be invited to consider and respect their own trauma history factors and be given options for participating in roles the individual deems they are able to carry out safely; doing this, as well as offering psychological assistance, can mitigate further psychological harm to these individuals who may be at higher risk. Context The context in which depopulation occurs can also influence the psychological impact for those involved. Contextual issues (such as [1] the reason the depopulation is occurring; [2] the nature of the relationship between the involved parties and the animals; [3] instrumental factors such as urgency, access to recommended methods for depopulation, proper training in implementation of methods; and [4] public response, including the role of social media) all influence the potential detrimental impact of involvement in depopulation efforts. The rationale behind a decision to depopulate is critically important to those involved. Research exploring resilience among military personnel has shown that the ability to find meaning, for even the most traumatic parts of war, can be helpful in preventing and recovering from trauma.27 This has direct implications for depopulation efforts. It is easier to find meaning in depopulation aimed at reducing animal suffering; it is more challenging to find meaning in the necessary killing of healthy animals, as in the case of what was required in response to COVID-19’s effect on meatpacking plants. This challenge is not unique to food animals and can also apply to research laboratory environments. Better messaging related to the need to sometimes kill healthy animals, whether it is due to disease contagion or other uncontrollable elements such as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTc5MDU=