Although wildlife workers and volunteers (WWVs) are regularly faced with ethical issues when rescuing, rehabilitating, and/or releasing animals, they may also be exposed to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). These include perpetrating (i.e., committing), failing to prevent (i.e., omission), or witnessing highly stressful acts or events that transgress one’s internalised moral beliefs.

For example, during bushfires, floods, and day-to-day rescues, WWVs often have restricted access to essential means of humane euthanasia, affordable medical treatment, organisation and government support, and care supplies. These situations are often exacerbated by human actions. For example, a common reaction might be: “Why didn’t they call it in?” when an animal is hit on the roadside. A wildlife worker, more often than not, struggles to understand how someone could care so little as to not even make a phone call—this lack of action goes against their own moral beliefs. Likewise, having to euthanise an animal on the roadside using blunt force can be deeply distressing.

Regular, low-level exposure to PMIEs can result in acute, functional moral distress (MD), which “can undermine foundational beliefs about the goodness and trustworthiness of oneself or others.” Repeated and/or severe exposure may lead to moral injury (MI), defined as the prolonged and impairing cognitive, emotional, behavioural, social, and spiritual burden of PMIEs.

Over the past five years, WildTalk has noted that MD and/or MI is often present in callers, in addition to post-trauma symptoms. While much literature has been written about military, healthcare, and emergency response personnel, we have been unable to find any that looks specifically at MD and MI in WWVs (or domestic animal shelter workers).

Therefore, we are conducting a small-scale (fewer than 300 participants) survey with WWVs across Australia to: (1) confirm the demographics of the people undertaking this type of work, and (2) determine the percentage and degree to which MI and MD are present in this population. Early results indicate that at least 50% of participants (aged 40–60) report some level of moral injury.

We acknowledge that this is a small step toward uncovering the moral impact of wildlife work on the people who carry out this volunteer work—sometimes to their own detriment.