Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:36:52.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Does the current regulation of assisted reproductive techniques in the UK safeguard animal welfare?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MLH Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Production and Population Health, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, South Mymms, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Reproductive medicine is one of the fastest developing fields of veterinary medicine. Regulation of veterinary-assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) is currently divided between the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986), the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1966), and the Animal Welfare Act (2006). None of those pieces of legislation was purpose designed to protect the welfare of animals undergoing ARTs, either directly or by determining which veterinary ART procedures may or may not be performed. Consequently, due to the lack of reference to such procedures, the welfare protection aims of the legislation are sometimes ambiguous. It is therefore difficult to ascertain whether the aims of the legislation are being fulfilled but, in the opinion of this author, the legislation is anyway inadequate in scope, most particularly because it fails to provide a reporting function. It is unclear whether all or any veterinary ART procedures being undertaken on post-natal animals are associated with suffering. Some ARTs may cause discomfort, stress or pain: study or review of the welfare effects of these would be valuable. Any future review of the legislation regulating veterinary ARTs, be that an overall review or a review of one of the relevant statutes (for example the VSA), should take into account the interface between research and clinical medicine; the potentially welfare-compromising gaps between the Acts, the need to introduce reporting functions in order to build an evidence base, and the issue of veterinary specialisation and whether specialised techniques should be carried out only by those with specialist post-graduate qualifications.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Campbell, MLH 2013 The role of veterinarians in equestrian sport: a comparative review of ethical issues surrounding human and equine sports medicine. The Veterinary Journal 197(3): 535–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.05.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, SWG and Fitzgerald, M 2010 The painful consequences of neonatal nociceptive input. Pain 150(2): 220221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, K 2007 Laboratory Animal Law: Legal Control of the Use of Animals in Research. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470753361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, MH 2013 New developments in hysteroscopy. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 27(3): 421–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAWC 2004 FAWC Report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/breedingreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2012 FAWC Opinion on the Welfare Implications of Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Livestock Agriculture. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/Opinion-on-the-welfare-implications-of-breeding-and-breeding-technologies-in-commercial-livestock-agriculture.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fovargue, S 2007 Oh pick me, pick me: selecting participants for xenotransplant clinical trials. Medical Law Review 15(2): 176219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwm005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fovargue, S and Ost, S 2010 When should precaution prevail? Interests in (public) health, the risk of harm and xenotransplantation. Medical Law Review 18(3): 302329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwq017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House of Commons Select Committee 2005 Human reproductive technologies and the law. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/491/491.pdfGoogle Scholar
House of Lords 2002 Animals in Scientific Procedures, Report. Chapter 5: Regulation and the A(SP)A 1986. HMG: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jirkof, P, Fleischmann, T, Cesarovic, N, Rettich, A, Vogel, J and Arras, M 2013 Assessment of postsurgical distress and pain in laboratory mice by nest complexity scoring. Laboratory Animals 47(3): 153161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023677213475603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, KL and Fujiwara, Y 2008 The use of buprenorphine as an analgesic after rodent embryo transfer. Laboratory Animals (NY) 37[2]: 879010.1038/laban0208-87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liddell, K and Hall, A 2006 Beyond Bristol and Alder Hey: The future regulation of human tissue. Medical Law Review 13(2): 170–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwi012Google Scholar
Liddon, A, Bradley, S and Lowe, P 2011 Securing the veterinary role in society. The Veterinary Record 169: 302303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.d5383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, P 2009 Unlocking Potential. A report on veterinary expertise in food animal production. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/vservices/pdf/lowe-vets090806.pdfGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Mounier, L, Le Neindre, P, Leterrier, C, Mormède, P, Paulmier, V, Prunet, P, Terlouw, C and Guatteo, R 2013 Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review. Animal 7(6): 9981010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlahos, NF, Giannakikou, I, Vlachos, A and Vitoratos, N 2009 Analgesia and anesthesia for assisted reproductive technologies. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 105(3): 201–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warnock, M 1984 Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Warnock_Report_of_the_Committee_of_Inquiry_into_Human_Fertilisation_and_Embryology_1984.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wicks, E, Wyldes, M and Kilby, M 2005 Late termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality: medical and legal perspectives. Medical Law Review 12(3): 285305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med-law/12.3.285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle (September 2013). A4, 68 pages. Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) of Canada. ISBN 978-0-9920910-0-2 (book), ISBN 978-0-9920910-2-6 (electronic book text). Available at: http://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/codes/beef_code_of_practice.pdf.Google Scholar