Nowadays, animal welfare is seen as a ‘common good’ and a societal expectation. Veterinarians are expected to promote and ensure the welfare of animals under their care by using their scientific knowledge and skills in ethical reasoning and advocacy. Veterinary education must equip veterinary graduates with the necessary competences to fulfil these roles. In 2013, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) and the European Association of Establishment of Veterinary Education (EAEVE) adopted the Day-1 competences on animal welfare science, ethics and law for veterinary undergraduate education after having surveyed European veterinary schools in 2012. In 2019, the FVE carried out a follow-up survey to monitor the evolution of animal welfare teaching in Europe. A total of 82 responses were received, representing 57 faculties from 25 European countries. Overall results showed that the teaching of animal welfare science, ethics and law has increased in response to growing societal needs, and that welfare is more and more internally embedded in the profession, which is reflected in the curriculum. Nevertheless, at least one quarter of European schools still only partially meet the 2013 Day-1 competencies. This indicates the need for greater efforts, both from the EAEVE and from individual schools, to ensure that the teaching of animal welfare across Europe is standardised.

Veterinarians are faced with significant conflicts of interest when issuing certificates for the transport and slaughter of acutely injured and casualty livestock. In a recent Policy Delphi study, emergency and casualty slaughter certification was a key concern identified by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the third in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate clinical veterinary services and the on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials), we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and opportunities for best practice in emergency and casualty slaughter certification in Ireland. Using a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely a representative from the regulatory body, local authority veterinarians with research experience in emergency slaughter, an animal welfare research scientist, official veterinarians from the competent authority, a private veterinary practitioner, and a member of a farming organisation. Results revealed a conflict between the responsibility of private veterinary practitioners (PVPs) to safeguard the welfare of acutely injured bovines on-farm and the client’s commercial concerns. As a consequence, some PVPs may feel under pressure to certify, for example, an acutely injured animal for casualty slaughter instead of recommending either on-farm emergency slaughter or disposal by the knackery service. Among Official Veterinarians, there are concerns about the pressure within processing plants to accept acutely injured livestock as casualty animals. Confusion pertaining to legislation and definition of fitness to travel also contribute to these dilemmas. Conflicts of interest arise due to the gap between governance and provision to facilitate on-farm emergency slaughter of livestock. Increased availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by Food Business Operators (FBOs) would mitigate the need to certify acutely injured animals fit for transport and slaughter and thereby safeguard animal welfare. In the absence of nationwide availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by FBOs, consideration should be given to methods to encourage all those involved in the food chain to prioritise animal welfare when in conflict with the commercial value of the animal. Training and guidelines for PVPs on the regulatory landscape and ethical decision-making should become available. The reintroduction of the fallen animal scheme should be considered to support farm animal welfare.

This paper presents and illustrates, with a working example, a hypothesis for the assessment of ongoing severity before and during an experiment that will enable humane endpoints and intervention points to be applied accurately and reproducibly, as well as helping to implement any national legal severity limits in subacute and chronic animal experiments, e.g., as specified by the competent authority. The underlying assumption of the model framework is that the degree of deviation from normality of specified measurable biological criteria will reflect the level of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm incurred by or during an experiment. The choice of criteria will normally reflect the impact on an animal and have to be chosen by scientists and those caring for the animals. They will usually include measurements of good health such as temperature, body weight, body condition and behaviour, which vary according to the species, husbandry and experimental protocols and, in some species, unusual parameters such as time of the year (e.g., migrating birds). In animal research legislation, endpoints or severity limits may be specified so that individual animals do not suffer unnecessarily or endure severe pain and distress that is long-lasting (Directive 2010/63/EU, Art.15.2). In addition, the overall severity is estimated and classified as part of the harm: benefit licence assessment. I present a mathematical model to analyse the measurement data to determine the degree of harm (or severity) incurred. The results can be used to initiate alleviative treatment if required or if permitted during the course of an experiment. In addition, any animal determined to have breached the severity classification of a procedure can be humanely killed, treated or withdrawn from the experiment. The system incorporates the flexibility to be used in most animal research work by being tailored to the research, the procedures carried out and the species under investigation. The criteria used to score severity can also be used as additional scientific outcome criteria and for an analysis of the scientific integrity of the project.

Antimicrobial resistance has emerged in recent years as a significant public health threat, which requires both an ethical and a scientific approach. In a recent Policy Delphi study, on-farm use of antimicrobials was a key concern identified by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the second in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring the challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate clinical veterinary services and emergency/casualty slaughter certification) we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and possible opportunities for responsible use of veterinary antimicrobials in Ireland. Using a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely veterinarians working in public and private organisations, a representative from the veterinary regulatory body, a dairy farmer and a general medical practitioner. Three overarching constraints to prudent on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials emerged from the thematic analysis: ‘Defective regulations’, ‘Lack of knowledge and values’ regarding farmers and vets and ‘Farm-centred concerns’, including economic and husbandry concerns. Conversely, three main themes which reflect possible opportunities to the barriers were identified: ‘Improved regulations’, ‘Education’ and ‘Herd health management’. Five main recommendations arose from this study based on the perspectives of the study participants including: a) the potential for regulatory change to facilitate an increase in the number of yearly visits of veterinarians to farms and to implement electronic prescribing and shorter validity of prescriptions; b) a ‘One Health’ education plan; c) improved professional guidance on responsible use of veterinary antimicrobials; d) improved on-farm herd health management practices; and e) the promotion of a ‘One Farm-One Vet’ policy. These findings may assist Veterinary Council of Ireland and other competent authorities when revising recommendations concerning the prudent use of veterinary antimicrobials in farmed animals.

The provision of veterinary clinical services is known to elicit a range of challenges which require an ethical appraisal. In a recent Policy Delphi study, referrals/second opinions and 24 h emergency care were identified as matters of key concern by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the first in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate the on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials and emergency/casualty slaughter certification) we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and possible opportunities for two prominent veterinary clinical services in Ireland: referrals/second opinions and 24 h emergency care. Using a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely referral and referring veterinarians, clients, animal charities, and the regulatory body. Six overarching, interrelated constraints emerged from the thematic analysis: the need to improve current guidance, managing clients’ expectations, concerns with veterinarian well-being, financial issues, timeliness of referral, and conflicts between veterinary practices. Possible solutions to improve veterinary referral and out-of-hours clinical services included clarifying the terms used in current norms and regulations (namely ‘referral’, ‘second opinion’, ‘24 h emergency care’ and ‘24 h cover’), improved communication (making the client aware of the different levels of veterinary care that are being offered, and transparent and full disclosure of clinical records), and the promotion of Continuing Veterinary Education in communication, business management and ethical decision-making. These findings may help inform the Veterinary Council of Ireland about future recommendations and regulatory measures.