Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T22:17:09.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting quality of life discussions between the veterinary profession and the pet-owning public

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

DCJ Main
DCJ Main*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
Correspondence: [email protected]
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.

Because it is the pet-owning public that normally provides the day-to-day care for companion animals, maintaining or improving standards in animal welfare is best achieved by engaging owners in the debate over an individual animal's quality of life (QoL). Veterinary practice teams (including veterinary surgeons and nurses) are in an ideal position to promote discussion of pets' QoL, as most owners respect and value their opinion. As well as educating each new generation of animal carers on appropriate husbandry, the veterinary profession can engage the pet-owning public in the scientific process of QoL assessment and the related debates concerning definitions of welfare and QoL. QoL assessment is a complex process with many influencing factors. The structure of an assessment will depend upon its purpose, which may be research, legislation, a certification scheme or, probably most usefully, a management tool to facilitate clinical decision-making. The process of completing a QoL assessment within a clinical environment may result in positive changes in human behaviour towards animals irrespective of the actual result of the assessment. This influence on human behaviour is a key test of validity for formal assessment systems that are designed to improve QoL.

Keywords

animal welfareassessmentdebatepublicquality of lifeveterinary profession
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue S1: Quality of Life: the heart of the matter: Proceedings of the UFAW/BVA Ethics Committee International Symposium, The Royal Society, London, 13-14 September 2006. , May 2007 , pp. 159 - 163
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Blackshaw, J and Blackshaw, AW 1993 Student perceptions of attitudes to the human–animal bond. Anthrozoös 6: 190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Arnould, C, Chaillou, E, Désiré, L, Duvaux-Ponter, C, Greiveldinger, L, Leterrier, C, Richard, S, Roussel, S, Saint-Dizier, H, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Valance, D and Veissier, I 2007 Emotions and cognition: a new approach to animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16(S): 37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAWC 2004 The report on companion animal welfare establishments: sanctuaries, shelters and re-homing centres. Companion Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
de Boo, J and Knight, A 2005 Concepts in animal welfare: a syllabus in animal welfare science and ethics for veterinary schools. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 451–453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAWC 1993 Report on priorities for animal welfare, research and development. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2006 Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: a framework for assessing the options. Animal Welfare 15: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, CJ 2005 Why the theme animal welfare? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 416–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, M and Cockcroft, P 2004 Evidence-based veterinary medicine: 3. Appraising the evidence. In Practice 26: 154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Kent, J, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, F 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12: 523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, SM and Main, DCJ 2006 Survey of the husbandry, health and welfare of 102 pet rabbits. Veterinary Record 159: 103–109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, SM and Main, DCJ 2007 Preliminary evaluation of a quality of life screening programme for pet dogs. Journal of Small Animal Practice: in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Farrell, V 1990 Students' stereotypes of owners and veterinary surgeons. Veterinary Record 127: 625Google Scholar
Paul, ES and Podberscek, AL 2000 Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146: 269–272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RSPCA 2006 Greyhound racing campaign. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UK. www.greyhoundpetition.org (accessed Jan 2007)Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Scott, EM 2004 Development of a questionnaire to measure the effects of chronic pain on health-related quality of life in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65: 1077–1084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed