Easy rescues, difficult decisions: Advancing the ethical dialogue in wildlife triage, treatment and rehabilitation.

Michelle Campbell-Ward, Clare Palmer, Anne Quain, Peter Sandøe

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michelle Campbell-WardSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-3910

Clare PalmerDepartment of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9098-5330

Anne QuainSydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

Peter SandøeDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences and Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0397-3273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife rescue is a morally motivated practice that seeks to alleviate suffering in free-ranging, predominantly native, wild animals. However, actions to help individual animals in circumstances that appear relatively easy to handle often have far-reaching and sometimes unintended consequences for animal welfare and raise wider concerns regarding animal ethics and ecological integrity. This can lead to difficult decisions that are inadequately addressed by existing triage guidelines. We present three example rescue scenarios as a foundation for exploring the broad range of concerns that may arise, including the immediate and longer-term risks, benefits and conflicts. Each example, drawn from contemporary Australian wildlife care settings, considers animal welfare implications amidst a variety of contextual factors and competing values. The cases include an orphaned Australian magpie (

Indexed as

Animal ethicsanimal welfareenvironmental ethicswildlife casualty triagewildlife ethicswildlife rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID42534187

DOI10.1017/awf.2026.10099

PMCPMC13419463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

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.