|
The American Veterinary Medical Association has announced an update to its 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia.
Now called the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia, it includes the addition of a physical method for euthanasia, and a clear statement against recent misinterpretation of the guidelines.
The AVMA Executive Board approved a recommendation in July of 2006 that it will convene a panel of scientists at least once every 10 years to review all literature that “scientifically evaluates methods and potential methods of euthanasia for the purpose of producing the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.”
In interim years, requests for inclusion of new or altered euthanasia procedures or agents in the guidelines are evaluated by the Animal Welfare Committee. According to the AVMA, revisions are based on a thorough evaluation of the available science and require Executive Board approval. The first interim revision, also approved in July 2006, is the addition of a physical method for euthanasia.
Revisions
Maceration - use of a specially designed mechanical apparatus having rotating blades or projections - causes immediate fragmentation and death of day-old poultry and embryonated eggs. According to the guidelines, the use of commercially available macerators for euthanasia of chicks, poults, and pipped eggs indicates that death in day-old poultry occurs immediately with minimal pain and distress.
Maceration is an alternative to the use of carbon dioxide for euthanasia of day-old poultry, and is believed to be equivalent, in terms of the time element, to cervical dislocation and cranial compression. It is also considered to be an acceptable means of euthanasia for newly hatched poultry by the Federation of Animal Science Societies, Agriculture Canada, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and European Union.
The advantages of maceration are that death is almost instantaneous, it’s safe for workers, and large numbers of animals can be killed quickly. However, special equipment is required and macerated tissues may present biosecurity risks.
The guidelines recommend that the equipment be kept in excellent working order, and that animals are delivered to the macerator in a way that reduces risk of injury, suffocation and avoidable distress prior to maceration.
“Each means of euthanasia has advantages and disadvantages,” according to the guidelines. “It is unlikely that, for each situation, any means will meet all desirable criteria. It is also impractical for these guidelines to address every potential circumstance in which animals are to be euthanatized. Therefore, the use of professional judgment is imperative.”
Clarification
The latest revisions begin – highlighted in red text - with an explanation that the document has been widely misinterpreted. It’s made clear that they are in no way intended to be used for human lethal injection, that the application of a barbiturate, paralyzing agent, and potassium chloride delivered in separate syringes or stages (the common method used for human lethal injection) is not cited, and that the report never mentions pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human lethal injection.
The guidelines are available at www.avma.org by clicking on the dark blue Issues bar.
|
