Following the letter of the law and considering the information provided in this scenario, Great Eastern should not appeal the citation and should further train their PIs and IACUC members to avoid future citations. Common sense plays very little role when it comes to legal matters and the current verbiage of AWA regulations makes no exceptions for terminal procedures (§2.31,d, ii; ref. 1). Further, clarification on the requirements regarding a search for alternatives to painful procedures are provided in the Animal Care Policy Manual2. As with the AWA regulations, no exceptions are mentioned for terminal procedures.

I can understand the IACUC chair's logic regarding the level of pain in this case. Assuming the animal(s) were under deep anesthesia, there would be no conscious perception of pain, only a physiologic response at best. Furthermore, postoperative pain and/or morbidity are completely out of the picture. Perhaps the best argument—other than legal—for providing evidence of this search is in the rare case where anesthetic depth might not be as deep as was intended. While there is no published data suggesting how often inadequate anesthesia is a problem for animals, a small amount of human data is available. In humans, the incidence of intra-operative awareness is approximately 0.13% in the United States with similar rates in other countries3.

A PI can easily search for alternative procedures and with that information potentially make an argument for their chosen method/approach should they need further justification. Perhaps more importantly, a good faith effort to search for alternatives should be performed in deference to the animal's well-being.

Return to Protocol Review