Articles
Quality of Life by Alan Marsh |
|
When the health
and well-being of domestic and food animals are assessed, inspectors
are looking to ensure that the housing/living conditions meet certain
criteria, namely that the animals still have access to what are termed
the “Five Freedoms”. These are:
Despite their creation for other purposes, however, there is no reason why the same rules cannot be used to gauge the future quality of life for injured wildlife. In cases where the animal’s chances of survival are in question, we can ask ourselves if, once returned to its natural environment, the animal’s ailments will still allow it these freedoms, comparable to a normal, healthy member of the same species. The 5th freedom mentioned, though, arguably applies more to an animal in our care than it does to one being assessed for release. Ironically, we want to preserve a degree of fear while an animal is being rehabilitated. If it no longer fears humans, it is at risk of becoming habituated, which typically leads to aggressive encounters when the animal does not get what it wants, among other problems. However, with regards to the 5 freedoms and existing in a wild state, obviously, even healthy animals can become hungry, thirsty, tired, sick, afraid, etc. But, they are able to do something about all of these difficulties. If it gets hungry, it may forage or hunt. If afraid, it may fly or run away. If sick, its body’s natural defences can help to fight diseases or parasites. As rehabilitators, we have the responsibility to ensure that every animal released is physically capable of “accessing” these freedoms on its own. If not, unfortunately, euthanasia (intentionally administering certain techniques, usually chemical injections, intended to cause a quick and painless death) must be considered. As well, simply making sure the animal has access to most or some of the 5 freedoms is not sufficient. For example, imagine releasing a bird of prey like a hawk or an eagle with suspect flying abilities. It may not be able to fly well enough to hunt properly, so we have now denied it access to the first freedom. |
If its injury
did not heal properly, which is often the reason flight is not fully
recovered, we may have denied it access to the second freedom, and
subsequently caused it undue stress. If stressed and unable to hunt
efficiently, eventually the animal becomes weak, and susceptible to
disease and predators. If too weak to fly long distances, it cannot
perform that behaviour most synonymous with birds, namely, migration,
which leaves it at the mercy of Canada’s winters. The point
is, if, upon release, an animal is unable to self-acquire one of the
freedoms, eventually it will unable to acquire any of them, and will
surely die. In wildlife rehabilitation, nothing compares to the elation felt when an animal, especially after a difficult or lengthy treatment, takes its first steps, or stretches its wings in a re-acquaintance with freedom. Releases are the highest point of the process, and the goal for every animal admitted. But, in every aspect of life, right down to the rhythm of the heartbeats that sustain us, there are powerful, surging highs, balanced by discouraging, and depressing lows. Seldom is there an event more emotionally crippling to a rehabilitator than to be faced with the reality that the animal we are caring for is not going to be able to survive on its own, and will have to be euthanized, or if you prefer the softer euphemism, “put to sleep”. It is a very trying time, indeed, when we are forced to perform the action we tried so hard to prevent to begin with. The only thing worse may be releasing an animal that cannot survive on its own. The realization that we have signed a slow and painful death warrant, likely by starvation, for such an animal is enough to make one physically ill, especially when, with euthanasia, the potential is there to prevent such suffering. Euthanasia will likely forever be a topic of debate, since it is usually reduced to a weighing of life against death, and choosing the latter is seen as a barbaric and cruel act. However, the motivations for ending an animal’s life quickly and painlessly are quite the opposite: mercy and compassion. Supporters of euthanasia do not weigh life versus death, but rather peace versus pain and suffering. Likewise, it is only considered as a last resort: when pain and suffering are not only going to be persistent, but terminal; when a life of quality in captivity as an educational or breeding aid is impossible or unavailable. It is only then that the decision will be made to make the inevitable quick and painless. |