BACKGROUND Veterinarians are faced with significant conflicts of interest when issuing certificates for the transport and slaughter of acutely injured and casualty livestock. In a recent Policy Delphi study, emergency and casualty slaughter certification was a key concern identified by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the third in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate clinical veterinary services and the on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials), we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and opportunities for best practice in emergency and casualty slaughter certification in Ireland. RESULTS Using a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely a representative from the regulatory body, local authority veterinarians with research experience in emergency slaughter, an animal welfare research scientist, official veterinarians from the competent authority, a private veterinary practitioner, and a member of a farming organisation. Results revealed a conflict between the responsibility of private veterinary practitioners (PVPs) to safeguard the welfare of acutely injured bovines on-farm and the client's commercial concerns. As a consequence, some PVPs may feel under pressure to certify, for example, an acutely injured animal for casualty slaughter instead of recommending either on-farm emergency slaughter or disposal by the knackery service. Among Official Veterinarians, there are concerns about the pressure within processing plants to accept acutely injured livestock as casualty animals. Confusion pertaining to legislation and definition of fitness to travel also contribute to these dilemmas. CONCLUSIONS Conflicts of interest arise due to the gap between governance and provision to facilitate on-farm emergency slaughter of livestock. Increased availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by Food Business Operators (FBOs) would mitigate the need to certify acutely injured animals fit for transport and slaughter and thereby safeguard animal welfare. In the absence of nationwide availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by FBOs, consideration should be given to methods to encourage all those involved in the food chain to prioritise animal welfare when in conflict with the commercial value of the animal. Training and guidelines for PVPs on the regulatory landscape and ethical decision-making should become available. The reintroduction of the fallen animal scheme should be considered to support farm animal welfare.

中文翻译：

---

爱尔兰兽医行业面临的挑战：3.紧急和伤亡屠宰认证。

背景技术兽医在签发运输和屠宰重伤和伤亡牲畜的证书时面临着重大的利益冲突。在德尔福最近的一项政策研究中，紧急和伤亡屠宰认证是爱尔兰兽医专业人士确定的一个关键问题。在这个案例研究中（由一个研究研讨会得出的三个系列中的第三个，探讨了爱尔兰兽医行业面临的挑战；另外两个案例研究调查了临床兽医服务和兽医抗菌药物的农场使用），我们的目标是提供对爱尔兰紧急和伤亡屠宰认证最佳实践的限制和机会进行基于价值的反思。结果 本研究采用定性焦点小组方法，收集了相关利益相关者的证据，即监管机构的代表、具有紧急屠宰研究经验的地方当局兽医、动物福利研究科学家、主管当局的官方兽医、私人兽医从业者和农业组织的成员。结果显示，私人兽医 (PVP) 保护农场重伤牛的福利的责任与客户的商业考虑之间存在冲突。因此，一些 PVP 可能会感到压力，需要对重伤动物进行伤员屠宰认证，而不是建议在农场进行紧急屠宰或由食品加工服务机构进行处置。官方兽医担心加工厂内部承受重伤牲畜作为伤亡动物的压力。与旅行健康相关的立法和定义的混乱也导致了这些困境。结论 由于治理和促进农场紧急宰杀牲畜的规定之间的差距，出现了利益冲突。食品企业经营者 (FBO) 增加农场紧急屠宰的可用性和接受度，将减少证明重伤动物适合运输和屠宰的需要，从而保障动物福利。在全国范围内缺乏且无法接受 FBO 进行农场紧急屠宰的情况下，应考虑采取一些方法，鼓励食物链中的所有参与者在与动物的商业价值发生冲突时优先考虑动物福利。应为 PVP 提供有关监管环境和道德决策的培训和指南。应考虑重新引入倒下动物计划以支持农场动物福利。