Читать книгу Infectious Disease Management in Animal Shelters - Группа авторов - Страница 36

Every attempt must be made to sustain quality of life for shelter animals. Like “happiness,” quality of life remains difficult to define. Both physical and emotional factors contribute to quality of life, well‐being, or welfare. These factors are broad, complex, and very individual. According to McMillan (2000), quality of life “is comprised of an array of affective states, broadly classified as comfort‐discomfort and pleasure states. In general, the greater the pleasant and the lesser the unpleasant effects, the higher the quality of life.”

Criteria are lacking for the objective measurement of the quality of life for cats and dogs; however, subjective assessments utilizing the most information possible can and should be made by medical and behavioral personnel at regular intervals (weekly or daily as indicated). Researchers are giving increased attention to validating quality‐of‐life measurements, which could help ensure humane endpoints for healthcare, define minimum housing standards, and be used for welfare audits in animal shelters as well as other settings where populations of animals are housed (Barnard et al. 2016). The Farm Animal Welfare Council's (FAWC) Five Freedoms represent a benchmark for measuring quality of life or assessing animal welfare (see Table 2.1). Since their introduction by council chair Dr. Roger Brambell in 1965, the Five Freedoms have been applied broadly as key animal welfare principles in numerous animal care settings.

Whereas the Five Freedoms emphasize freedoms from unpleasant experiences (hunger/thirst; discomfort; pain/injury/disease; fear/distress), it is recognized that good quality of life or good welfare is not merely the absence of negative experiences, but also the presence of positive ones. To this end, the FAWC continues to work to better define quality of life for animals across a spectrum of conditions that represent “a good life” to “a life not worth living.” In the case of a life not worth living, defining the minimal acceptable treatment of animals is key. As such, FAWC supports “Banner's principles”, which first and foremost state that “harms of a certain degree and kind ought under no circumstances to be inflicted on an animal.”

Table 2.1 The Five Freedoms.

1) Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.

2) Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3) Freedom from pain, injury, or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4) Freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind.

5) Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering.

According to the FAWC (2009), “achievement of a life worth living requires provision for an animal's needs and certain wants, and care by all involved. Wants are those resources that an animal may not need to survive or to avoid developing abnormal behavior, but nevertheless improve its quality of life. They may well stem from learned behaviors, so that once an animal has become accustomed to their provision, then withdrawal may lead to an adverse mental experience. They may also be innate such as space to play, to groom or engage in other normal behaviors.” These tenets purported by the FAWC expand and enhance the principles of the Five Freedoms and can be used to help better define requirements for humane care that promote an acceptable quality of life for animals in a variety of settings, including shelters.