Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T20:23:16.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The value of animal life: how should we balance quality against quantity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Sandøe  and
SB Christiansen
P Sandøe*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Large Animal Sciences, Groennegaardsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
SB Christiansen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Large Animal Sciences, Groennegaardsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
* 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.

In many situations choices must be made that will have an impact on the welfare of companion animals. Often one of the options will be to euthanase the animal in question. The way in which one views this option will depend not only on one's assessment of the quality of the animal's life (or the lives of other affected parties), but also on how one values an animal life as such. Clearly, a companion animal may be valued by a human being or by another animal. A dog's death may affect its owner's quality of life (QoL), or it may affect the QoL of other animals in the household. But does the life of an animal have any value other than that? Is anything lost, for example, when a dog that lived with a sole owner, now deceased, is euthanased? Conversely, would anything be gained if the dog were re-homed (apart from the potentially positive contribution to the new owners' QoL)? More generally, in prolonging, or refraining from ending, the life of an animal, is it thereby ensured that something of value persists? There seem to be three main views on this matter. The first is that animal life has no value in itself. The second is that animal life has value to the extent that the life in question is worth living for the animal. The third view is that the life of an animal has a value that exceeds what is ‘in it’ for the animal in question. The view one accepts here will have a dramatic impact on one's attitude to many of the choices to be made about the treatment of companion animals — choices in which one must balance quality of life against, as it were, quantity of life. So the heart of the matter is not only quality of life. It is also value of life. Unfortunately it may prove much more difficult to agree about the value of animal life than it is to agree about the significance of animal welfare.

Keywords

animal ethicsanimal welfareeuthanasiakilling of animalsquality of lifevalue of life
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. 109 - 115
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Animal Ark 2007 Home Page for Animal Ark No-Kill Shelter. http://www.animalarkshelter.org (accessed Jan 2007)Google Scholar
Appleby, MC and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Stuart: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hiby, EF, Rooney, NJ and Bradshaw, JWS 2006 Behavioural and physiological responses of dogs entering re-homing kennels. Physiology & Behaviour 89: 385–391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HSUS 2007 The Humane Society of the United States: Common questions about Animal Shelters and Animal Control. http://www.hsus.org/pets/animal_shelters/common_questions_about_animal_shelters_and_animal_control.html#3 (accessed Jan 2007)Google Scholar
Kirkwood, JK 2007 Introduction — Quality of life: the heart of the matter. Animal Welfare 16(S): 3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, M 1979 Singer on killing and the preference for life. Inquiry 22: 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, LC, Bennett, PC and Coleman, GJ 2004 What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis of data for 1 year from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7: 27–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, D 1986 Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, KR 1966 The Open Society and its Enemies: Vol 1, The Spell of Plato (5th Edition). Princeton University Press: Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1989 The case for animal rights. In: Regan, T and Singer, P (eds) Animal Rights and Human Obligations pp 105–114. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, USAGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2007 Rehoming — Introduction. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UK. http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=rehoming (accessed Jan 2007)Google Scholar
Russell, W and Burch, R 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1979 Killing humans and killing animals. Inquiry 22: 145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1990 Animal Liberation (2nd Edition). Thorsons: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Smart, RN 1958 Negative utilitarianism. Mind 67: 542–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, GW 1986 Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal, a review. Journal of Health Economics 5: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, B 2006 The odd logic of welfarism. Satya, September: 40-41Google Scholar
Wells, DL, Graham, L and Hepper, PG 2002 The influence of length of time in a rescue shelter on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Animal Welfare 11: 317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar