Standards & Advice update: May 2024

At its April 2024 meeting, the RCVS Standards Committee considered two questions relating to euthanasia of wildlife via controlled drugs that had been posed to it by representatives from the wildlife veterinary sector.

These questions were:

1. Can vets remotely prescribe controlled drugs (CDs) for the purposes of euthanising wildlife?
2. Can lay people working in wildlife rescue centres administer CDs for the purposes of euthanising wildlife via intraperitoneal (IP), intracoelomic (IC), and intrahepatic (IH) injection under the current legislation?

The questions were posed by the representatives because in many instances where severely injured wildlife require euthanasia, there are no or limited options for direct veterinary involvement in their treatment. The Standards Committee shared the concerns for animal welfare but acknowledged that, due to restrictions by the current legal framework, there was no perfect solution. When considering these questions, the Committee was also mindful that as well as animal welfare, human safety was of paramount important where controlled drugs – and in particular barbiturates - were concerned.

Regarding the first question, the Committee agreed that a veterinary surgeon may prescribe CDs remotely within the current wording of the guidance on prescribing POM-Vs where there are exceptional circumstances. Whether there are exceptional circumstances will need to be decided by a veterinary surgeon on a case-by-case basis and the remote prescription made following this assessment.

Further, in relation to whether lay people working in wildlife centres could consider that a prescription has been made after following a protocol or guidance, the Committee was of the view that due to the requirements within the Veterinary Medicines Regulations (VMRs) there needed to be a prescription by a vet in each and every case before CDs were administered, and therefore the following of a protocol by a lay person, even where that protocol was drafted by a vet, is not enough. However, it was acknowledged that the veterinary surgeon’s prescription could be made via telephone call, video chat, instant messaging etc where appropriate.

In relation to the second question, the Committee did not feel there was a way to allow lay people to euthanise wildlife via the specified routes under the current legal framework. The general rule under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 is that acts of veterinary surgery are reserved for veterinary surgeons, unless there is a relevant exemption, eg RVNs acting under direction. While it was suggested that some of the exemptions for laypeople under the Veterinary Surgeons Act could apply, ultimately, the Committee decided that laypeople euthanising wildlife with CDs went beyond the scope of any of the existing exemptions.

The Committee decided therefore that laypeople should not carry out euthanasia with CDs via the administration routes specified as there is no legal basis that allows it. Whilst the Committee recognised the practical difficulties this may cause, it felt there was no other conclusion that could lawfully be reached.

If you have any questions arising from this decision, please contact the Standards and Advice team – [email protected]