Reproduction in Domestic Animals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$(Microsoft PowerPoint - Lecci\363n 2_07.ppt)$

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
The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 171regarding the welfare consequences for the dog, thesecountries appear to have applied a much moreprecautionary approach and have advanced theirresponsibility to the dog (duty of care) over theautonomy of breeders and veterinarians. The decisionalso appears to be predicated on the availability ofviable alternatives. Although some clinicians haveargued that this type of ‘ban’ is unworkable, as theavailability of viable alternatives is extremely limited(i.e. there are few surgeons who can perform theAI(TC) procedure successfully), others have arguedthat such a position may enhance veterinarianwellbeing and autonomy in the long-term by encouraging:(i) innovation through research (i.e. developmentof new techniques and enhanced semenpreservation) and (ii) personal investment in inseminationtraining.In conclusion, the use of AI raises some importantethical questions which cannot be fully analysed andevaluated here, however, the veterinary and researchcommunity can take several proactive steps to reducethe ethical risks associated with this reproductivetechnology by: (i) clarifying clinical decision-making,(ii) enhancing informed choice among clients and (iii)increasing the knowledge-base on potential impacts andthe use of all methods of AI.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Prof. Catharina Linde Forsberg(Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) and Sandy Tomkins(University of Nottingham) for their provision of valuable literaturethat aided the development of this paper.ReferencesEngland GCW, Verstegen JP, 1996: Radiographic contrastmedium for uterine insemination in the bitch, and its effectupon the quality and fertility of fresh dog semen. Theriogenology46, 1233–1241.Evans EI, 1933: The transport of spermatozoa in the dog. AmJ Physiol 105, 287–293.Fontbonne A, Badinand F, 1993: Canine artificial inseminationwith frozen semen: comparison of intravaginal andintrauterine deposition of semen. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 47,325–327.Fougner JA, Aamdal J, Andersen K, 1973: Intrauterineinsemination with frozen semen in the Blue Fox. NordicVet Med 25, 144–149.Linde-Forsberg C, 2002: Ethical aspects of artificial insemination(AI). In: Proceedings of the 3rd EVSSAR Congress,Liege, Belgium, pp. 41–42.Linde-Forsberg C, Forsberg M, 1993: Results of 527 controlledartificial inseminations in dogs. J Reprod FertilSuppl 47, 313–323.Lindsay FEF, 1983: The normal endoscopic appearance of thecaudal reproductive tract of the cyclic and non-cyclic bitch:post-uterine endoscopy. J Small Anim Pract 24, 1–15.Mepham TB, 2000: A framework for the ethical evaluation ofnovel foods: the Ethical Matrix. J Agric Environ Ethics 12,165–176.Mepham TB, Kaiser M, Thorstensen E, Tomkins S, Millar K,2006: Ethical Matrix Manual. Agricultural EconomicsResearch Institute (LEI), The Netherlands.Millar K, Tomkins S, 2007: Ethical analysis of the use of GMin aquaculture: emerging issues for aquaculture development.J Agric Environ Ethics 20, 437–453.Olar TT, 1984: Cryopreservation of dog spermatozoa. PhDThesis, Colorado State University.Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), 2005: AdviceNote 8 – Canine Surgical Artificial Insemination. RCVS,London.Seager SWJ, Platz C, Fletcher WS, 1975: Conception rates andrelated data using frozen dog semen. J Reprod Fertil 45,189–192.Smith FO, 1984: Cryopreservation of canine semen: techniqueand performance. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota.Takeishi M, Mikami T, Kodama Y, Tsunekane T, Iwaki T,1976: Studies on reproduction in the dog. VII Artificial inseminationusing frozen semen. Jpn J Anim Reprod 22, 28–33.Thomassen R, Sanson G, Krogenaes A, Fougner J, Berg K,Farstad W, 2006: Artificial insemination with frozen semenin dogs: a retrospective study of 10 years using non-surgicalapproach. Theriogenology 66, 1645–1650.Wildt DE, 1986: Diagnostic procedures, laparoscopy. In:Burke TJ (ed.), Small Animal Reproduction and Infertility,A Clinical Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment. Lea &Febiger, Philadelphia, pp. 121–140.Wilson MS, 1993: Non-surgical intrauterine artificial inseminationin bitches using frozen semen. J Reprod Fertil Suppl47, 307–311.Wilson MS, 2001: Transcervical insemination techniques in thebitch. Vet Clin North America 31, 291–303.Author’s address (for correspondence): Gary CW England, Dean,School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University ofNottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE125RD, UK. E-mail: Gary.England@nottingham.ac.ukConflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests.Ó 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag
Page 2 and 3:
Reproduction in Domestic AnimalsOff
Page 5 and 6:
Reproductionin Domestic AnimalsTabl
Page 7 and 8:
Minitüb:ProductsforArtificial Inse
Page 9 and 10:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 1-7
Page 11 and 12:
Embryo Biotechnologies in Farm Anim
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Ethical Models for Studying Reprodu
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Dietary Pollutants as Risk Factors
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Supp. 2), 23-30
Page 33 and 34:
Factors Influencing Reproduction in
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 33h
Page 43 and 44:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 35h
Page 45 and 46:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 37B
Page 47:
GH and IGF-I in Cattle and Pigs 39R
Page 51 and 52:
Seasonality of Reproduction in Mamm
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Dominant Follicle Selection in Cows
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Regulation of Luteal Function 59and
Page 69 and 70:
Regulation of Luteal Function 61bov
Page 71 and 72:
Regulation of Luteal Function 63(+/
Page 73 and 74:
Regulation of Luteal Function 65sys
Page 75 and 76:
Captive Breeding of Cheetahs in Sou
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Non-invasive Monitoring of Hormones
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
Page 95 and 96:
Biotechnology Methods for Preservin
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Genetic Improvement of Dairy Cow Re
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Nutrient Prioritization and Fertili
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
CL-Endometrium-Embryo Interactions
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 113-
Page 123 and 124:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
Page 125 and 126:
Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
Page 127 and 128: Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
Page 129 and 130: Reproductive Status Assessed by Mil
Page 131 and 132: Genetic Aspects of Reproduction in
Page 137 and 138: Reprod Dom Anim 43 (Suppl. 2), 129-
Page 139 and 140: Nutritional Interactions and Reprod
Page 147 and 148: Developmental Capabilities of Prepu
Page 153 and 154: Reproductive Physiology, Pathology
Page 159 and 160: Reproduction of Domestic Ferret 151
Page 167 and 168: Canine Anoestrus, Oestrous Inductio
Page 175 and 176: The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
Page 177: The Ethics and Role of AI in Dogs 1
Page 181 and 182: Control of Fertility in Females by
Page 189 and 190: Controlling Animal Populations Usin
Page 195 and 196: Recombinant Gonadotropins in Assist
Page 203 and 204: Farm Animals Embryonic Stem Cells 1
Page 209 and 210: Reproduction in Domestic Buffalo 20
Page 217 and 218: Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
Page 219 and 220: Postpartum Ovarian Activity in Sout
Page 223 and 224: Mother-Offspring Interactions 215an
Page 227 and 228: Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
Page 229 and 230:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
Page 231 and 232:
Reproduction Augmentation in Yak an
Page 233 and 234:
Follicles and Mares 2251982). Simil
Page 235 and 236:
Follicles and Mares 227Studies invo
Page 237 and 238:
Follicles and Mares 229dominant fol
Page 239 and 240:
Follicles and Mares 231trus, spring
Page 241 and 242:
Proteins in Early Equine Conceptuse
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Follicular and Oocyte Competence un
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Fertilization in the Porcine Fallop
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Mastitis in Post-Partum Dairy Cows
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Embryo ⁄ Foetal Losses in Ruminan
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
Page 279 and 280:
Death Ligand and Receptor Pig Ovari
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Lactocrine Programming of Uterine D
Page 286 and 287:
278 FF Bartol, AA Wiley and CA Bagn
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
282 KC Caires, JA Schmidt, AP Olive
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
290 I Dobrinskisuccessful also betw
Page 300 and 301:
292 I DobrinskiCreemers LB, Meng X,
Page 302 and 303:
294 I DobrinskiOkutsu T, Suzuki K,
Page 304 and 305:
296 N Rawlings, ACO Evans, RK Chand
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
304 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X Yanggr
Page 314 and 315:
306 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X YangIn
Page 316 and 317:
308 A Dinnyes, XC Tian and X YangHo
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
312 RC Bott, DT Clopton and AS Cupp
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
318 BK Whitlock, JA Daniel, RR Wilb
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
326 CR Barb, GJ Hausman and CA Lent
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
332 C Galli, I Lagutina, R Duchi, S
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
340 D Rath and LA JohnsonCommercial
Page 350 and 351:
342 D Rath and LA JohnsonThe Commer
Page 352 and 353:
344 D Rath and LA JohnsonX- and Y-b
Page 354 and 355:
346 D Rath and LA JohnsonWalker SK,
Page 356 and 357:
348 JM Vazquez, J Roca, MA Gil, C C
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
356 CBA Whitelaw, SG Lillico and T
Page 366 and 367:
358 CBA Whitelaw, SG Lillico and T
Page 368 and 369:
360 ACO Evans, N Forde, GM O’Gorm
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
370 JP Kastelic and JC Thundathilsp
Page 380 and 381:
372 JP Kastelic and JC Thundathilme
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
376 GC AlthouseTable 1. Potential s
Page 386 and 387:
378 GC Althousesemen to the domesti
Page 388 and 389:
380 B Leboeuf, JA Delgadillo, E Man
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
388 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannFig.
Page 398 and 399:
390 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannMMPs
Page 400 and 401:
392 N Kostereva and M-C HofmannTado
Page 402 and 403:
394 P Mermillod, R Dalbie` s-Tran,
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
402 K Kikuchi, N Kashiwazaki, T Nag
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
408 B ObackNumber of publications20
Page 418 and 419:
410 B ObackReprogramming Ability of
Page 420 and 421:
412 B Obackstudies have shown that
Page 422 and 423:
414 B ObackFig. 4. Climbing mount e
Page 424 and 425:
416 B ObackRenard JP, Maruotti J, J
Page 426 and 427:
418 P Loi, K Matzukawa, G Ptak, Y N
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 434:
Table of Contents Volume 43 · Supp
show all

Reproduction in Domestic Animals

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?