The Veterinarian's Oath1 seems to be a good starting point for this discussion: “I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering...”. A veterinarian's first concern should be the welfare of an animal. If an animal is suffering and moribund, then it is the veterinarian's ethical responsibility to alleviate that suffering, including, if needed, by euthanizing the animal.

Numerous organizations emphasize and reiterate that responsibility. The American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for Euthanasia discuss euthanasia and veterinary medical ethics2. The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine's statement on adequate care reads, “The veterinarian must have the responsibility and authority to assure that handling [and] euthanasia are administered as required to relieve pain and such suffering in research animals...”3. And the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International has issued a position statement titled The Attending Veterinarian and Veterinary Care4.

The responsibilities of the Attending Veterinarian (AV) are addressed in the Animal Welfare Act regulations5, which define the AV as the “person... who has direct or delegated authority for activities involving animals” and further states that “[e]ach research facility shall employ an attending veterinarian under formal arrangements.”

Scofield's animals had a known history of dermatitis with treatment and euthanasia as recommended by the veterinary staff, and there had been no past problems with this strategy. But in this case, Scofield objected when a veterinarian recommended euthanizing a nearly moribund mouse. The attending veterinarian (AV) agreed with the veterinarian's assessment. The veterinarian chose to euthanize the mouse when its condition deteriorated. He may have acted out of compassion or on the belief that it was a reasonable action on the basis of past practices.

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals6 states that “overall Program direction should be a shared responsibility among the IO, AV, and IACUC” but does not indicate that each entity must be a part of every singular decision within the animal program. Since Great Eastern has an IACUC and the investigator commented on lack of funding, it is safe to assume there is an Institutional Assurance document describing the animal care program. That document should include a description of the responsibility of the AV and his or her designees. A line of authority should be clearly delineated for all responsible parties: the Institutional Official (IO), the AV and the IACUC. This documentation would surely have made the subcommittee's investigation much easier. It would be very difficult to get all three responsible entities to meet and delegate authority to the clinical veterinarian each time a situation such as this occurs. Therefore, a written documentation of how the program will be managed in the future is crucial for good animal care and good animal research. This suggestion is in line with the emergency care section of the Guide addressing the need for delegated authority.

Return to Protocol Review