Wildile Triage and Ethics

When a wildlife casualty is presented to the general practitioner, rapid and important assessments and decisions have to be made, primarily to prevent suffering, but also in relation to staff health and safety and legislative requirements. Triage is the process of prioritizing patients based on the severity of their condition so as to treat as many as possible when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately. The term comes from the French verb trier, meaning “to sort, sift or select.” True triage can be applicable to wildlife casualty situations, such as mass oiling incidents, but more frequently the practitioner is faced with a single individual animal; however the process of assessment and decision making is essentially the same. The process of dealing with a wildlife casualty can be divided into 6 stages (Best and Mullineaux 2003):
1. Initial location, capture and translocation
2. Examination and assessment for rehabilitation
3. First aid and stabilisation
4. Treatment
5. Recuperation and rehabilitation
6. Release
The prime aim must always be to return an animal successfully to the wild. To do this the animal must be released with a chance of survival equivalent to that of other free-living members of its species. The alternatives are permanent captivity, which is rarely acceptable on welfare grounds, or euthanasia, which must always be considered at every one of the six stages listed above. Euthanasia, performed correctly, is not a welfare issue and it is often better to euthanase quickly and eliminate the possibility of further suffering, than to hold a wild animal captive and attempt treatment. Although members of the public frequently find this upsetting or unacceptable, it is an important educational opportunity to explain the reasons for any decision.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF REHABILITATION

To the wild population: unless working with an endangered species, the rehabilitation of wildlife casualties will have little, if any, significant conservation value. However, it may involve some potential threats to the wild population either by the release of individuals carrying non-endemic pathogens, or by the release of non-indigenous species

To the individual: the significance of capture and treatment of an individual casualty is primarily one of welfare. If the disability is short term, requiring minimal treatment and stress, and the animal is quickly released back, then there are few concerns. However, if the disability is medium or long term, involving extended treatment and associated stress, with the possibility of the disability being permanent, then euthanasia is a very valid alternative. The welfare costs and benefits of intervention should always be assessed.

To the general public: the general public will expect, and support, centres prepared to handle wildlife casualties.

As a source of information: the rehabilitation of wild animals offers the opportunity to gain information on different aspects of these animals and the environment where they live (e.g. environmental pollution, and infectious diseases). [...]