| dc.description.abstract | Being pets, animal models, meat and fur producers, rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are used by humans in a variety of contexts. Interestingly, the euthanasia methods employed for rabbits appear to vary between different contexts.
Hence, it appears that a rabbit is not a rabbit, being it a pest or a pet. The latter fact deserves to be questioned: is the variation of euthanasia methods used between different contexts justified in terms of welfare? This issue requires, on one hand, a reflection on the biological aspects of welfare, and on the other hand, an ethical reflection on the moral validity of such a difference.
The present review aims to constitute a first step in the debate by tackling biological aspects of welfare implicated in each euthanasia method put in its context, and by determining whether such variation in methods is justified in terms of welfare. As welfare and ethics are intermingled concepts, ethical implications of different methods and the moral validity of the variation in methods between contexts is also developed.
After an introduction to the issue, a presentation of the contexts of rabbit use and a brief overview of the species biology, the present paper examines thoroughly each method, explores its welfare implications and specifies the context in which it is used. An ethical reflection is then developed which details the relation between animal welfare, ethics and euthanasia; and explains the key ethical views on animal use. Finally, the present paper discusses the issue per context and across contexts, and concludes whether the use of different methods in different contexts is justified from a biological perspective of welfare, on one hand, and an ethical perspective on the other hand.
The present review comes to the conclusion that from a biological perspective of animal welfare, the variation of euthanasia methods across contexts is not justified and that from an ethical perspective, there is a need for further reflection. | |
