RESUMO
The objective of this study was to explore perspectives and attitudes about euthanasia specific to the Brazilian dairy cattle industry. Twenty-five Brazilian citizens (13 veterinarians, 4 animal scientists, 3 professors, 3 researchers, 1 dairy owner, and 1 caretaker) participated in one of three focus groups conducted and recorded online (10, 8, and 7 participants per group). Questions regarding euthanasia were posed by a moderator, and the focus group discussions were then transcribed verbatim for analysis. After the initial data analysis, themes were evaluated and collapsed into three major categories: Euthanasia Training and Farm and Human Components. A complex interconnection between the three main themes and multiple subthemes specific to dairy cattle euthanasia was also revealed. The lack of nationally recognized euthanasia guidelines for dairy cattle paired with ineffective and inaccessible euthanasia tools makes it difficult for dairy veterinarians to implement humane protocols for on-farm euthanasia. In addition, logistical factors, particularly, the financial cost of euthanasia and the human-animal bond, play a role in the failure to perform euthanasia when warranted. Future studies should focus on the development of science-based standards and producer training to improve the consistency of on-farm euthanasia in Brazilian dairy operations.
RESUMO
When dairy cattle become ill or injured to the extent that recovery is unlikely or impossible, on-farm euthanasia should be used as a tool to eliminate pain and suffering. Our study aimed to identify decision-making criteria and the most common factors considered by veterinarians when making and carrying out euthanasia decisions. Dairy cattle veterinarians were recruited to participate in an online survey (Part I, 61 surveys collected) or in one of three focus groups (Part II, 4-10 veterinarians/group, n = 22). Part I (survey): Surveyed veterinarians varied regarding health condition management and demonstrated a strong proclivity to treat compromised cattle, mirroring trends amongst dairy producers identified in previous research. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that most facilities for which they serve as the primary veterinarian have a written euthanasia protocol in place. Part II (focus groups): Three main themes about euthanasia decision-making (logistical, animal, and human) were identified from focus group discussions. Discussions focused primarily on logistical factors such as financial considerations and client/public perceptions. Development of specific standards for euthanasia, alongside interactive training programs for dairy veterinarians and producers are vital next steps to improving cattle welfare and consistency in euthanasia decision-making across the United States dairy industry.
RESUMO
There are currently no clear guidelines in the US and some other countries regarding euthanasia decision making timelines for dairy cattle that become injured or ill to the extent that recovery is unlikely or impossible. Our study aimed to identify decision making criteria and the most common factors considered when making and carrying out euthanasia decisions. Dairy producers were recruited to participate in a mailed survey (Part I, 307 completed surveys were returned) or in one of three focus groups (Part II, 8-10 producers/group, n = 24). Part I (survey): Farm owners were most commonly responsible for on-farm euthanasia and most respondents would treat and monitor compromised cattle for a majority of 15 health conditions. Responses were highly variable; for example, 6.3% and 11.7% of respondents would never euthanize a non-ambulatory cow or calf, respectively. Part II (focus groups): Three main themes (animal, human, and farm operation) were identified from discussion which focused primarily on animal welfare (16% of the discussion) and human psychology (16%). Participants expressed a desire to eliminate animal suffering by euthanizing, alongside a wide range of emotional states. Development of specific standards for euthanasia is a critical next step and more research is needed to understand the human emotions surrounding euthanasia decision making.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To identify the scope of occupational hazards encountered by veterinary personnel and compare hazard exposures between veterinarians and technicians working in small and large animal practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. POPULATION: Licensed veterinarians and veterinary staff in Minnesota. PROCEDURES: A survey of Minnesota veterinary personnel was conducted between February 1 and December 1, 2012. Adult veterinary personnel working in clinical practice for > 12 months were eligible to participate. Information was collected on various workplace hazards as well as on workplace safety culture. RESULTS: 831 eligible people responded, representing approximately 10% of Minnesota veterinary personnel. A greater proportion of veterinarians (93%; 368/394) reported having received preexposure rabies vaccinations than did veterinary technicians (54%; 198/365). During their career, 226 (27%) respondents had acquired at least 1 zoonotic infection and 636 (77%) had been injured by a needle or other sharps. Recapping of needles was reported by 87% of respondents; the most common reason reported by veterinarians (41%; 142/345) and veterinary technicians (71%; 238/333) was being trained to do so at school or work. Recent feelings of depression were reported by 204 (25%) respondents. A greater proportion of technicians (42%; 155/365) than veterinarians (21%; 81/394) indicated working in an environment in which employees experienced some form of workplace abuse. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Veterinary personnel in Minnesota were exposed to several work-related hazards. Practice staff should assess workplace hazards, implement controls, and incorporate instruction on occupational health into employee training.
