The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia in Animal Welfare: A Closer Look at Marineland

The recent situation at Marineland in Ontario, Canada, has raised a sensitive and important question: should the euthanasia of healthy animals be part of welfare discussions? The park has stated that up to 30 beluga whales may be euthanised if alternative funding or transfers cannot be secured. This case forces us to examine a difficult issue in animal welfare science and ethics.

Understanding Welfare at the Point of Death

Animal welfare science has traditionally focused on the absence of suffering and, increasingly, the presence of positive states. If euthanasia is carried out humanely and without distress, according to current definitions, it would not reduce an animal’s welfare. Unlike humans, animals are not thought to have a concept of their own mortality or of “missing out” on future life. From this perspective, a painless death is “welfare-neutral."

In the zoo world, euthanising healthy animals is sometimes called management euthanasia. It is used in some regions much more than others, and for some species more than others. For example, in Scandinavian countries, it is often used as a population management tool where the argument is that it allows more breeding and diversity of ages in groups of animals. In facilities where management euthanasia is not used, breeding of animals must be restricted to a few individuals.

Impact of Euthanasia on Social Group Members

While euthanising an animal humanely might not harm its welfare, it may lead to negative welfare in other members of the group, both in the short and possibly long-term, especially for highly social species. We don’t know exactly how animals understand that conspecifics have died or process grief, but there is enough evidence to suggest that in many zoo species, it can have a negative impact if the animals shared positive social bonds. In species that live in tight social hierarchies, euthanasia of certain animals can certainly have unintended negative (or arguably, positive) effects on the social group, both of which are often difficult to predict.

For example, small carnivore species such as wolves and wild dogs present difficult cases for population management in zoos as family-based cooperative breeders, where one dominant pair breeds and the rest of the pack helps to rear young. In order to grow the population and maintain genetic diversity, there are often surplus animals. While euthanising subordinate animals seems like it would not impact group welfare and cohesiveness, it certainly can do so, as there are complex social bonds that help the dominant pair breed successfully.

The Argument About Lost Future Welfare

Not everyone agrees that euthanasia of a healthy animal is welfare-neutral. Some animal ethicists argue that depriving an animal of future positive experiences, i.e. future years of good quality life, is a welfare cost in itself. Heather Browning, for example, has argued in her publications that welfare assessments should include opportunities for positive experiences in the future.

Applying This to Marineland

The Marineland case brings these two perspectives into sharp relief. On the one hand, euthanasia could, in theory, be carried out without immediate suffering. On the other, the whales could have experienced many more years of social interaction, enrichment, and potentially improved welfare in a different setting. The decision appears to be driven largely by financial and logistical constraints, raising difficult ethical questions about where responsibility lies.

Would a Welfare Assessment Involve Euthanasia Considerations?

At Animal Welfare Expertise, we carry out welfare assessments and make recommendations for improvements based on the results. In very rare cases, if we see that welfare of an otherwise healthy animals is consistently poor and does not improve despite targeted, long-term changes, euthanasia may be discussed as part of a responsible, structured framework. We would deem it highly irresponsible to decide to euthanise animals before making significant efforts to improve welfare, either in situ or by moving them to another facility.

Moving the Debate Forward

This is not an easy conversation, but it is one we need to have with honesty and clarity. We believe euthanasia, more broadly, is a topic that should be discussed more openly by those working with and responsible for animals. A veterinarian once shared a thought with AWE's Isabella: "unless they pass away unexpectedly and instantaneously, all captive animals should be euthanised at some point; it's just a question of when." As in humans, disease and old age in animals can be debilitating, painful, and conducive to poor welfare. In these cases, humane euthanasia is in the animal's best interests.

Euthanasia of healthy animals is clearly more difficult to debate. However, avoiding it doesn’t make the ethical questions disappear. If we are to make responsible, transparent decisions, we need to be clear about what we mean by “welfare,” how future welfare is valued, and where institutional responsibilities lie.

The Broader Implications of Euthanasia in Animal Welfare

Understanding the Context

The discussion surrounding euthanasia in animal welfare is complex. It requires a nuanced understanding of both ethical considerations and practical implications. As we navigate these waters, we must consider the broader context of animal welfare, including the role of institutions and the expectations of the public.

The Role of Zoological Institutions

Zoological institutions play a crucial role in shaping the policies and practices surrounding euthanasia. They must balance the welfare of individual animals with the needs of the population as a whole. This often involves difficult decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

The Importance of Transparency

Transparency in decision-making is vital. Stakeholders must be informed about the rationale behind euthanasia decisions. This can help build trust and understanding within the community. It is essential to communicate openly about the factors influencing these decisions, including welfare assessments and the potential for improved conditions elsewhere. Zoos should have euthanasia policies that all stakeholders are able to access.

Future Directions in Animal Welfare

As we move forward, it is essential to continue the conversation about euthanasia in animal welfare. In conjunction with euthanasia discussions, we must explore innovative solutions that optimise the welfare of animals while addressing the challenges faced by zoos. This should involve collaborative efforts to improve facilities, enhance care, and ensure that animals receive the best possible quality of life.

In conclusion, the issue of euthanasia in animal welfare is multifaceted and requires careful consideration. By engaging in open dialogue and seeking to understand different perspectives, we can work towards solutions that uphold the highest standards of animal welfare.