From Unpleasant to Unbearable-Why and How to Implement an Upper Limit to Pain And Other Forms of Suffering in Research with Animals

The focus of this paper is the requirement that the use of live animals in experiments and in vivo assays should never be allowed if those uses involve severe suffering. This requirement was first implemented in Danish legislation, was later adopted by the European Union, and has had limited uptake in North America. Animal suffering can arise from exposure to a wide range of different external and internal events that threaten biological or social functions, while the severity of suffering may be influenced by the animals' perceptions of their own situation and the degree of control they are able to exert. Severe suffering is more than an incremental increase in negative state(s) but involves a qualitative shift whereby the normal mechanisms to contain or keep negative states at arm's length no longer function. The result of severe suffering will be a loss of the ability of cope. The idea of putting a cap on severe suffering may be justified from multiple ethical perspectives. In most, if not all, cases it is possible to avoid imposing severe suffering on animals during experiments without giving up the potential benefits of finding new ways to cure, prevent, or alleviate serious human diseases and generate other important knowledge. From this it follows that there is a strong ethical case to favor a regulatory ban on animal experiments involving severe suffering.

Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party

Modern veterinary medicine offers numerous options for treatment and clinicians must decide on the best one to use. Interventions causing short-term harm but ultimately benefitting the animal are often justified as being in the animal's best interest. Highly invasive clinical veterinary procedures with high morbidity and low success rates may not be in the animal's best interest. A working party was set up by the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia to discuss the ethics of clinical veterinary practice and improve the approach to ethically challenging clinical cases. Relevant literature was reviewed. The 'best interest principle' was translated into norms immanent to the clinic by means of the 'open question argument'. Clinical interventions with potential to cause harm need ethical justification, and suggest a comparable structure of ethical reflection to that used in the context of in vivo research should be applied to the clinical setting. To structure the ethical debate, pertinent questions for ethical decision-making were identified. These were incorporated into a prototype ethical tool developed to facilitate clinical ethical decision-making. The ethical question 'Where should the line on treatment be drawn' should be replaced by 'How should the line be drawn?'

Animals and the 3Rs in toxicology research and testing

Despite efforts to eliminate the use of animals in testing and the availability of many accepted alternative methods, animals are still widely used for toxicological research and testing. While research using in vitro and computational models has dramatically increased in recent years, such efforts have not yet measurably impacted animal use for regulatory testing and are not likely to do so for many years or even decades. Until regulatory authorities have accepted test methods that can totally replace animals and these are fully implemented, large numbers of animals will continue to be used and many will continue to experience significant pain and distress. In order to positively impact the welfare of these animals, accepted alternatives must be implemented, and efforts must be directed at eliminating pain and distress and reducing animal numbers. Animal pain and distress can be reduced by earlier predictive humane endpoints, pain-relieving medications, and supportive clinical care, while sequential testing and routine use of integrated testing and decision strategies can reduce animal numbers. Applying advances in science and technology to the development of scientifically sound alternative testing models and strategies can improve animal welfare and further reduce and replace animal use.