Would Some Rescued Animals Be Better Off Dead?

"I'd wanted to work in wildlife rescue for as long as I can remember. As a child, my mum was the person in our neighbourhood who everyone brought orphaned or injured garden birds and small mammals to. I found it so rewarding to witness them recover, and I felt proud to play a small part in it. I also felt a profound sense of privilege and wonder in being in close proximity"

"and relationship with them, even just for a short while. I was enchanted by them. I have always had a 'soft spot' for the misunderstood and the maligned. I hated learning how grey squirrels and corvids were losing their lives for reasons that did not feel to me to be right, just, or necessary. Being able to give some of them a different future and contributing to change through both research and practice is what motivates me."

Lifetime sanctuary for injured or disabled wild animals raises ethically fraught questions about quality of life versus death. Philosophical ethology, care ethics, compassionate conservation, and indigenous ways of knowing offer differing criteria for judgments. Practical rescue experience reveals deep emotional bonds with individual animals and motivations rooted in childhood caregiving, empathy for misunderstood species, and desire to change harmful practices. Disability perspectives highlight how impairment, adaptation, and long-term dependency alter welfare assessments. The central dilemma balances obligations to care, respect for agency and natural lives, and whether permanent captivity can honor animal flourishing.

Read at Psychology Today