Animal Welfare: Is Freedom from Suffering Enough? (#765)

For much of the history of veterinary medicine, our understanding of animal welfare has been dominated by a relatively straightforward objective: prevent suffering.

Provide adequate food and water. Protect animals from injury and disease. Ensure comfortable living conditions. Minimize fear and distress. Allow animals to express normal behavior.

These principles, embodied in the widely recognized Five Freedoms, have guided animal welfare legislation, veterinary education, livestock management, laboratory animal care, and zoological practice for decades.

They have undoubtedly improved the lives of countless animals.

But there is a question we should be asking ourselves.

Is an animal that is not suffering necessarily experiencing good welfare?

Or, put another way, is the absence of suffering sufficient to make a life worth living?

The distinction may seem philosophical, but it has profound implications for how we care for animals, how we assess their quality of life, and how we define our ethical responsibilities toward them.

In 2016, animal welfare scientist David J. Mellor addressed precisely this issue in an influential paper published in Animals, titled Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving Beyond the Five Freedoms Towards A Life Worth Living.

His argument challenges us to reconsider what good animal welfare actually means.

The Five Freedoms: An Important Beginning

The Five Freedoms, formalized in the early 1990s, represented a major advance in animal welfare thinking.

They proposed that animals should enjoy freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain and disease, fear and distress, and should have the freedom to express normal behavior.

These principles helped move animal care beyond simply maintaining health and productivity.

They acknowledged that animals have subjective experiences and that those experiences matter.

However, Mellor identifies an important limitation.

The Five Freedoms are largely framed around the prevention or reduction of negative experiences.

They tell us what animals should be protected from, but provide less explicit guidance about the positive experiences animals should be encouraged to enjoy.

There is also a biological problem with the idea of complete freedom from negative experiences.

Hunger, thirst, pain, and breathlessness are not simply undesirable sensations.

They are essential survival mechanisms.

Hunger motivates an animal to seek food. Thirst encourages drinking. Pain promotes avoidance of injury. Breathlessness stimulates respiratory responses.

An animal cannot, and should not, be permanently free of these experiences.

The objective is to prevent them from becoming excessive, prolonged, or debilitating.

But even if we achieve that objective, have we necessarily created good welfare?

Mellor argues that we have not.

The Difference Between Surviving and Thriving

Consider a dog living in a clean kennel.

The dog receives adequate nutrition, fresh water, veterinary care, and protection from extreme temperatures. It is free from significant pain or disease.

By many traditional measures, its welfare might be considered satisfactory.

But imagine that the dog spends most of its life alone, with little opportunity to explore, play, interact with other dogs, or develop meaningful relationships with people.

The dog may be physically healthy, yet bored, lonely, frustrated, or emotionally deprived.

Now consider another dog with the same standard of nutrition and veterinary care, but with opportunities to explore its environment, interact socially, play, investigate interesting smells, and make choices about its activities.

Both dogs are surviving.

Only one may be truly thriving.

This distinction is fundamental to Mellor's argument.

Good welfare requires more than the elimination of negative experiences.

Good welfare requires opportunities for positive experiences.

Animals Experience More Than Pain and Fear

Modern animal welfare science recognizes a much wider range of potentially significant emotional experiences than those explicitly identified in the Five Freedoms.

Negative experiences may include anxiety, frustration, helplessness, loneliness, boredom, and depression.

Positive experiences may include comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence, social bonding, excitement, and a sense of control.

These experiences are not incidental to welfare.

They are central to it.

Mellor distinguishes between two broad categories of negative experiences.

The first consists of biologically necessary sensations associated with survival, such as hunger, thirst, pain, and nausea.

Appropriate management can reduce these experiences to tolerable levels, but their relief does not necessarily produce lasting pleasure.

The second consists of experiences arising from an animal's perception of its circumstances, such as fear, loneliness, frustration, or boredom.

These experiences can often be reduced, and potentially replaced by positive experiences, through improvements in the animal's environment.

A barren enclosure can become stimulating. Social isolation can be replaced by appropriate companionship. Restricted behavioral opportunities can be expanded.

This distinction shifts our attention from simply preventing suffering to actively creating conditions in which animals can enjoy their lives.

The Five Domains: A More Complete Picture

Mellor and his colleague C. S. W. Reid developed the Five Domains Model as a more systematic framework for assessing animal welfare.

The model considers four physical and functional domains:

Nutrition.

Environment.

Health.

Behavior.

These four domains contribute to a fifth:

The animal's mental state.

The important innovation is that welfare is evaluated in terms of the animal's likely subjective experiences, both negative and positive.

Adequate nutrition matters not only because it prevents starvation, but also because eating can be pleasurable.

An appropriate environment matters not only because it provides shelter, but also because it can offer opportunities for exploration, comfort, and choice.

Good health matters not only because disease causes suffering, but also because physical well-being allows animals to participate in rewarding activities.

Behavior matters not merely because animals should be permitted to express normal activities, but because many of those activities are enjoyable.

The Five Domains Model therefore encourages us to ask not simply whether an animal's basic needs are being met, but what its life actually feels like.

The Importance of Choice

One of the most interesting developments in contemporary animal welfare science is the recognition of animal agency.

Agency refers to an animal's ability to initiate voluntary, goal-directed behavior and exercise some control over its circumstances.

An animal that can choose where to rest, what to investigate, when to seek social contact, or how to obtain food may experience a greater sense of control than one whose every activity is dictated by its environment or human caregivers.

Consider a captive bird.

Providing an adequate diet in a bowl satisfies its nutritional requirements.

Providing opportunities to search for food, manipulate objects, explore different locations, and engage in species-appropriate foraging behaviors may also provide stimulation and enjoyment.

The nutritional outcome may be similar.

The welfare experience may be very different.

Importantly, agency does not mean unrestricted freedom.

Animals under human care will always experience some constraints.

Rather, it means recognizing that appropriate choice and control can contribute positively to their quality of life.

What Does This Mean for Veterinary Medicine?

Veterinary medicine has traditionally been organized around the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease.

We are trained to recognize abnormalities, identify pathological processes, relieve pain, and restore physiological function.

These are essential responsibilities.

But they do not encompass the entirety of animal welfare.

A dog with successfully managed osteoarthritis may no longer experience significant pain, but can it still enjoy walks, explore its surroundings, and interact with its family?

A cat with well-controlled chronic kidney disease may be clinically stable, but does it have opportunities to climb, investigate, play, and engage in preferred activities?

An elderly animal may have several chronic medical conditions yet continue to enjoy food, companionship, familiar routines, and environmental exploration.

Conversely, a young, physically healthy animal may experience poor welfare because of prolonged isolation, environmental deprivation, or chronic frustration.

These examples highlight an important distinction between clinical health and quality of life.

The absence of disease is not synonymous with the presence of well-being.

This has particular relevance to geriatric veterinary medicine, rehabilitation, chronic disease management, behavioral medicine, and end-of-life decision-making.

We should not evaluate our patients exclusively in terms of physiological function or the severity of their medical conditions.

We should also ask whether they continue to experience activities and relationships that make their lives rewarding.

A Life Worth Living

Mellor discusses a quality-of-life framework that distinguishes between a life not worth living, a life worth avoiding, a life worth living, and a good life.

The distinction depends on the balance between negative and positive experiences.

A life worth living is one in which positive experiences generally outweigh negative ones.

A good life is one in which positive experiences strongly predominate.

This does not mean that animals must experience continuous happiness.

No animal, including a human being, lives without discomfort, frustration, fear, or occasional suffering.

Indeed, some negative experiences are essential for survival.

The objective is not uninterrupted pleasure, but an overall quality of life in which positive experiences are sufficiently frequent, meaningful, and sustained to outweigh the negative ones.

This is an important and realistic distinction.

An animal can experience temporary discomfort while still enjoying a good life.

Similarly, an animal can be free from obvious suffering while experiencing very little that makes life rewarding.

The Challenge for Zoos, Farms, and Laboratories

Mellor's arguments extend well beyond companion animals.

In zoos, the objective can no longer be limited to keeping animals healthy, adequately fed, and capable of reproduction.

Modern zoological institutions increasingly recognize the importance of environmental enrichment, behavioral opportunities, appropriate social relationships, and meaningful choice.

In livestock production, good welfare must extend beyond the prevention of disease and maintenance of productivity.

An animal may grow efficiently, reproduce successfully, and remain clinically healthy while living in an environment that severely restricts rewarding behaviors.

Likewise, laboratory animals may be maintained under carefully controlled conditions that support physical health while offering limited opportunities for exploration, social interaction, or environmental stimulation.

These situations raise difficult questions about the distinction between acceptable minimum standards and genuinely good welfare.

Mellor does not suggest that every desirable improvement can be introduced immediately.

Rather, he advocates progressive, evidence-informed improvements that expand opportunities for positive experiences wherever practicable.

The important point is that minimum standards should not become our maximum aspirations.

The Human Responsibility

There is another dimension to this discussion that deserves attention.

Animals under human care have limited control over many of the circumstances that determine their welfare.

We decide where they live, what they eat, whether they have companions, how much space they occupy, and what opportunities they have to engage in rewarding activities.

Their quality of life is therefore substantially influenced by our decisions.

Mellor emphasizes that the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior of animal caregivers can profoundly affect welfare.

This applies to veterinarians, animal owners, farmers, zookeepers, researchers, and everyone else responsible for animals.

It also means that animal welfare cannot be separated from institutional culture.

An organization may comply with all relevant welfare regulations while doing relatively little to promote positive experiences.

Compliance is important.

But compliance alone is not necessarily evidence that animals are living good lives.

Can We Measure Happiness?

One obvious difficulty with this approach is that animals cannot tell us directly how they feel.

We cannot measure pleasure, confidence, frustration, or loneliness in the same way that we measure blood glucose or body temperature.

Instead, we must infer subjective experiences from behavior, physiology, environmental circumstances, and other scientifically supported indicators.

There are inevitable uncertainties.

Play behavior, voluntary exploration, social interactions, and engagement with enrichment opportunities can provide useful evidence of positive welfare, but their interpretation must be species-specific and context-dependent.

Similarly, an animal that appears quiet or inactive is not necessarily content.

Absence of visible distress should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of happiness.

These limitations do not invalidate the importance of positive welfare.

They simply remind us that animal welfare science must continue developing better ways to assess animals' subjective experiences.

From Protection to Opportunity

Perhaps the most important implication of Mellor's work is that it changes the nature of our ethical obligation to animals.

Preventing suffering is primarily a protective responsibility.

Promoting positive welfare is a constructive responsibility.

The first asks us to prevent harm.

The second asks us to provide opportunities for enjoyment.

Both are necessary.

This distinction also reflects a broader evolution in how we think about the animals with whom we share our lives and our planet.

Animals are not simply biological organisms whose welfare can be judged by their health, productivity, or survival.

They are sentient beings whose experiences matter.

Recognizing that fact requires us to consider not only what animals need to stay alive, but also what makes their lives worth living.

Conclusion: Is Freedom from Suffering Enough?

The answer is no.

Freedom from significant suffering is essential, but it is only the beginning of good animal welfare.

The Five Freedoms provided an enormously valuable foundation by directing attention toward the prevention of negative experiences.

Mellor's work builds on that foundation by recognizing that positive experiences are equally important.

An animal that is not hungry, thirsty, frightened, injured, or diseased may still have a profoundly impoverished life.

Good welfare requires opportunities for exploration, pleasure, social connection, behavioral expression, and appropriate control over one's environment.

For veterinarians, this means extending our responsibilities beyond the prevention and treatment of disease to include consideration of the quality of the lives our patients experience.

For animal owners and caregivers, it means asking not simply whether animals are comfortable and healthy, but whether they have opportunities to enjoy being alive.

And for society, it means recognizing that protecting animals from suffering and enabling them to experience positive lives are complementary ethical obligations.

Perhaps the most useful way to express this change in thinking is through two questions.

The Five Freedoms encouraged us to ask:

What can we do to prevent animals from suffering?

The concept of a life worth living asks us to go further:

What can we do to make their lives better?

The future of animal welfare depends on our willingness to answer both.

References

Emeritus Professor David Mellor. Animal welfare pioneer. https://www.une.edu.au/alumni/meet-our-alumni/people/emeritus-professor-david-mellor

Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living.” Animals, 6(3), 21. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/3/21

#bunyipsbooksbeyond