Josh Scofield's research used C57Bl/6 mice, a strain he had used for years. Some of his animals had a dermatitis that was typical for the strain, and these animals usually received palliative care from Great Eastern University's veterinary service. When treatment could no longer provide adequate relief, the mouse was euthanized. There had never been any difficulty between Scofield and the school's veterinarians until he and one of the veterinarians disagreed about whether a particular mouse should be euthanized. Scofield said it should not be euthanized because grant money was tight and he needed to gain as much information as possible from every animal. The veterinarian said the mouse should be euthanized because it was suffering. The attending veterinarian was consulted, and she confirmed the opinion of the first veterinarian, adding that the animal was nearly moribund and that the longer euthanasia was delayed, the more likely it was that Scofield would not be able to use any of the data obtained from the mouse. Scofield strongly disagreed and said he would euthanize the mouse the following morning. There was a temporary stalemate, during which time the mouse's health deteriorated, Scofield continued to refuse euthanasia and, finally, the veterinarian took it upon himself to euthanize the mouse, knowing full well that there would be negative repercussions.
Scofield vented his anger on the IACUC and Institutional Official (IO). The IO acknowledged his concerns but would only commit to supporting any decision made by the IACUC. The IACUC chairman established an ad hoc subcommittee to investigate the incident and determine how to prevent a recurrence. The first thing the subcommittee did was to consider an investigator's authority to refuse euthanasia of an animal and a veterinarian's authority to euthanize an animal contrary to the wishes of an investigator. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals1 (the Guide) provided the subcommittee with guidelines for the emergency care of animals, and the subcommittee members believed that the current problem could have been considered an emergency. But the Guide seemed to give the veterinarian the authority to euthanize an animal only if two conditions were met: first, that she or he could not reach consensus with the investigator, and second, that the IO, attending veterinarian and IACUC had previously delegated such authority to the veterinary staff. The latter condition had never been met.
What is your opinion? Did the veterinarian have legitimate authority to euthanize the mouse, or did he overstep his authority in doing so out of compassion for the animal?
References
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 8th edn. (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Silverman, J. Authority to euthanize. Lab Anim 44, 13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.667
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.667
