How to decide when the protection of life and welfare is no longer compatible with each other in a compromised animal : ethical analysis of moral and legal demands

One of the most challenging decisions that veterinarians and animal owners face is whether to treat or kill diseased or injured animals. While this decision is hard in any setting, it is pronounced in the context of farm animals, where the sheer number of animals amplifies the frequency of such decision-making. In Germany, animal welfare laws protect both the well-being and the life of the animal. However, these two protected goods can become mutually exclusive at times, for instance, when the animal’s well-being has deteriorated or is assumed to be deteriorating to a point where it becomes questionable if an extension in lifetime is in the animal’s best interest. In such cases, where inaction is ethically and legally untenable, animal owners and veterinarians must make a decision that considers not only the medical circumstances but also the moral and legal demands of the situation, in addition to the sometimes-opposing interests of the different stakeholders (animal, animal owner, veterinarian). To address this problem, we developed a decision-making tool and visualisations that help navigate the ethical dimension of these decisions. These tools can serve as a means for reflection about one’s own decision-making. Moreover, results serve as a precursor for developing more ambitious and holistic decision-making tools aiming to provide practical, medically and ethically sound recommendations. Notably, the aim of our decision-making tool and the ethical analysis is not to replace the individual decision-making process of the animal owner or veterinarian; it is to supplement it by providing structure and perspective.