Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33375377›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison.

Rochelle Morton, Michelle L Hebart, Rachel A Ankeny, Alexandra L Whittaker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rochelle MortonSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0328-681X
Michelle L HebartSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.
Rachel A AnkenySchool of Humanities, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Alexandra L WhittakerSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9011-8296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of 'animal' and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings.

Indexed as

animal crueltyanimal welfare legislationAustraliaenforcement gaplaw enforcement

Identifiers

PMID33375377
PMCPMC7824303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.