Reproduction in Domestic Animals

170 GCW England and KM Millarthe animal–human bond. The impact on society’swellbeing will be influenced by the justification putforward for using the technique and whether the stated‘reasons’ enhance or infringe the human–dog relationship.Democratic choice (SA)The development and application of these techniquesmay result in the ability to conserve valuable genetictraits for the canine species and this could be seen as apositive impact. This will ensure society’s ability tochoose the breed traits that it wishes to preserve andpotentially allow future generations a degree of autonomythat may not have been possible without theapplication of these technologies. However, this argumentis relevant to the use of the technique only whenapplied to specific breeding strategies, rather than forroutine treatment purposes.Fair resource allocation (SF)Because the financial cost of using any form of AI willbe born by the breeder and the potential owner of thenew pup, the impact for the principle of justice forsociety will be neutral.Ethical Evaluation and DiscussionAlthough, because of the limits of this paper, the ethicalanalysis has only initially mapped the possible impactsof the application of AI technologies in dogs, theanalysis has highlighted a number of important issues.In order to come to a final judgement or position, theimpacts for the various interest groups need to beweighed against each other (ethical evaluation). It is thisweighing that can help identify the key areas ofdisagreement or value conflict between stakeholders.This process can also help identify knowledge gaps andareas of uncertainty. For some groups, the use of ascoring system (e.g. +1, 0, )1) can aid this weighingprocess, but it should be noted that the EM is a decisionsupportframework and not a decision-making tool. Theuse of numerical weighing in ethical evaluation has itslimitations.It is clear from the analysis that the use of AI mayinfringe ethical principles, particularly for the affectedanimal, but that it may respect other principles forbreeders, owners and veterinarians. Any veterinaryprocedure has a risk of infringing an animal’s wellbeingand autonomy as well as potentially being unjust.However, veterinarian intervention is repeatedly justifiedon the basis of clinical ‘need’ (i.e. inflicting acutepain for long-term benefit). One of the key issues in thedebate that surrounds the use of AI is the interpretationof ‘need’, as any ‘unnecessary procedure’ would representan infringement of the dog’s wellbeing and wouldnot be an ethically acceptable intervention under themajority of EU veterinary codes of practice. This impliesthat before AI is considered appropriate a comprehensivereproductive assessment must be carried out by aveterinarian. It also implies that a sequential approachshould be applied with the justification for each decisionstep [i.e. ruling out natural service and proceeding to theuse of AI(V)]. This information should then beproactively offered to future puppy owners and kennelclubs, etc.While the use of AI can result in a number of positiveethical impacts (for example for disease control orpreservation of genetic material), which outweigh potentialrisks, such benefits appears to be predicated onfour conditions: (i) a sequential decision-making process,which ensures that the use of AI is applied after naturalmating options are ruled out for clinical reasons, (ii)informed choice for breeder and owner is ensuredthrough proactive information provision and appropriaterecord keeping, (iii) veterinarian competence in use ofAI technologies is ensured, and (iv) the welfare consequencesfor the bitch are measured as negligible.If AI per se is acceptable under these conditions, italso appears that the judgment on whether surgical AI isacceptable (when all other options are excluded) ismodulated by evidence on (i) the incidence and nature ofthe reproductive failure and (ii) welfare consequencesfor the bitch. What appears to confound the assessmentof these two issues is a paucity of data. The literaturecontains very few reports on the consequences for thebitch and there are even fewer studies that record thefrequency of use and the form of the decision-makingprocess. There is a significant need for peer-reviewedevidence in these areas in order to facilitate an informedethical evaluation.Without explicitly conducting an ethical analysis, anumber of national bodies and professional organizationshave articulated their approach to ‘weighing’ theconflicting impacts and set out their ethical positions(e.g. through guidelines, regulations, etc.). It is usefulhere to examine a few of these positions and to reflect onthe risks associated with these strategies. In the UK, theRoyal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) set outtheir position (RCVS, 2005), stating that, although theuse of surgical AI ‘is unlikely to be carried out in the bestinterests of any particular dog’, veterinary surgeons mayperform the procedure when justified (e.g. ‘for example,the incorporation of new genetic traits’). The RCVSindicated that the reasons for not using other approaches,e.g. transcervical insemination, should berecorded. The RCVS approach is more conservativethan that applied in the USA where AI(S) is morecommonly used. It is important to note that the RCVS’sethical position is based on the assumption that, inexceptional circumstances, the potential welfare consequencesfor the dog are acceptable only if a sequentialdecision-making process and good record keepingoccur. However, no explicit advice is given on ensuringinformed choice [i.e. information provision on theavailability of AI(TC)] or whether the ‘recorded justification’for the procedure will be audited and reviewedby the RCVS. Because the surgical procedure is invasive,there may also be a proactive duty of care for theattending veterinarian to monitor and report on thewelfare outcomes for the bitch. These three aspects mayrepresent a significance risk to the RCVS’s principledapproach (ethical position) on the use of AI(S).Some EU countries, for example, Sweden, haveprohibited the use of AI(S). In the light of uncertaintyÓ 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag