Canine blood donor

Abstract

THIS series gives readers the opportunity to consider and contribute to discussion of some of the ethical dilemmas that can arise in veterinary practice. Each month, a case scenario is presented, followed by discussion of some of the issues involved. In addition, a possible way forward is suggested; however, there is rarely a cut-anddried answer in such cases, and readers may wish to suggest an alternative approach. This month's dilemma, ‘Canine blood donor’, is presented and discussed by Vanessa Ashall. Readers with comments to contribute are invited to send them as soon as possible, so that they can be considered for publication in the next issue. Discussion of the dilemma ‘Injured fawn’, which was published in the October issue of In Practice, appears on page 528. The series is being coordinated by Siobhan Mullan, of the University of Bristol. It is hoped it will provide a framework that will help practices find solutions when facing similar dilemmas.

Pet owners’ awareness of animal blood banks and their motivations towards animal blood donation

“…54 Many anthropomorphised as justification; if they donated blood themselves, then so should their animals, consistent with research showing many owners perceive their animals as equivalents to friends and family 59 and it has also been suggested that some owners believe their pets would like to help other animals via blood donation. 61 The motivations of registered canine blood donor owners revealed similar themes of altruism and mutality and human animal kinship, 39 showing motivations in these owners do not differ greatly from prospective donor owners.…”

“…This was expected, since in animals, a more complex ethical situation arises by the act of blood donation as they cannot truly consent to the procedure. 39,61 The "benevolence hypothesis" (whereby the donor benefits as well as the recipient due to feeling that they have performed a positive act) which is thought to be an important motivation in human blood donors 51,70 is not relevant here; the recipient will benefit from the transfusion, however the donor will not. Animals do not have capacity to consent to blood donation, therefore, the "benevolence hypothesis" effect and altruistic feelings are likely to occur by proxy, whereby the owner receives the gratification, rather than the animal itself.…”

Attitudes of dog owners in Edinburgh towards canine blood donation

“…1 Although donors may receive health rewards such as free vaccinations, there is no direct beneit to them in the donation process itself. 7 This, coupled with serious (albeit rare) complications of donation such as immediate or delayed haemorrhage, 8 presents a welfare dilemma for veterinarians. Human decisions regarding CBD may have complex links to beliefs and altruistic aims.…”

“…There has been debate about the use of the term ‘donor’, as the dogs themselves are not consenting to the procedure 1 . Although donors may receive health rewards such as free vaccinations, there is no direct benefit to them in the donation process itself 7 . This, coupled with serious (albeit rare) complications of donation such as immediate or delayed haemorrhage, 8 presents a welfare dilemma for veterinarians.…”

SBV in Wales

“…The demonstrable health status and the temperament of recruited blood donors hosted in shelters could increase the chances of adoption. Nonetheless, the costs to a donor are harder to quantify and are different for each individual (Ashall 2009). These are usually related to stress caused by handling and restraint.…”