以動物福利為中心的臺灣鯨豚活體擱淺處理決策研究

Abstract

活體鯨豚擱淺帶來急迫的動物福利與倫理挑戰，常需在不穩定的現場條件下迅速決策。是否將個體運送後直接野放、送往復健中心，或執行安樂死，不僅取決於臨床評估，也與利害關係人如何理解「可接受的結果」、責任歸屬與道德優先順序相關。在臺灣，雖已有正式的應變流程與通報機制，但第一線作法仍因地點與事件而異；而決策倫理邏輯、治理結構中權力與問責的運作，以及公眾期待與福利導向標準的互動，仍缺乏系統性探討。

本研究以動物福利作為主要評估框架，強調介入是否「成功」不應僅以野放結果衡量，而應回到個體動物的身體狀態與受苦程度進行福利判斷。研究聚焦於臺灣活體鯨豚擱淺情境中倫理決策如何形成，並探討：（1）不同利害關係人如何界定福利與受苦；（2）在高度不確定下，決策權由誰主導、為何可能被拖延；（3）社會輿論如何牽動現場決策，使某些作法在倫理與政治層面被視為可取。

本研究採用混合方法（mixed-methods）設計。量化部分蒐集 654 份問卷，評估民眾對擱淺事件的認知、知識落差，以及對安樂死、復健與野放的態度；並納入情境題（scenario-based items），在控制案件關鍵條件不變下，以物種稀有性作為變項檢視其影響。質性部分採半結構式訪談進行，對象包含獸醫、NGO 第一線人員、學術研究人員、政府承辦人員與救援志工等10位受訪者，聚焦於現場限制、爭議決策的正當化，以及情緒與制度壓力。研究透過跨資料來源的主題統整（thematic analysis）來整合結果，辨識反覆出現的關鍵張力。 研究結果呈現三項反覆出現的倫理張力：（1）治理分散與權責不明，使時間壓力下更易延誤並導致作法不一致；（2）公眾知識不足，可能驅動出於同理但傷害福利的介入；（3）社會期待偏好「成功野放」等象徵性成果，形成政治與聲譽壓力，使福利導向的專業建議在爭議情境中被弱化或改寫。綜合而言，活體擱淺事件的福利結果不僅取決於臨床專業，也深受治理安排、制度責任與社會輿論與價值觀影響。

本論文主張，改善擱淺應變不應只仰賴技術流程或個人專業，而需強化一套能將科學評估連結到具正當性行動的決策系統。依據研究結果，本研究提出以福利為中心的臺灣擱淺應變框架，強調程序清晰、倫理一致與現場可操作性，包含：（1）建立委員會式（committee-based）決策機制，釐清問責、訂定明確判準並透明紀錄；（2）依角色設計訓練（role-based training），將倫理推理納入課程，並針對政府人員、第一線應變者、志工與學生進行差異化培訓，以降低直覺式但可能有害的介入並提升決策可辯護性；（3）建立公眾溝通與輿情監測機制（sentiment monitoring），支持即時且一致的訊息發布，降低福利導向決策因未被管理的公眾期待而遭削弱的風險。雖然本研究立基於臺灣的制度與社會文化脈絡，但對同樣面臨「福利—治理—社會認可」張力的其他地區，也具有比較與參照價值。

Live cetacean strandings pose urgent welfare and ethical challenges that demand rapid decisions in unstable field conditions. Whether the animal would be transported for immediate release, rehabilitation, or euthanasia depends not only on clinical assessment but also on how stakeholders interpret acceptable outcomes, responsibility, and moral priorities. In Taiwan, formal response protocols and reporting mechanisms exist; however, frontline practice varies across sites and events, and the interaction among decision ethics, governance, and public expectations remains underexplored.

This study adopts animal welfare as the primary evaluative framework, emphasizing that “success” cannot be judged by release outcomes alone but must be grounded in the individual animal’s condition and suffering. It examines how stakeholders conceptualize welfare and suffering, how authority is asserted or deferred in the face of uncertainty, and how public perception shapes what becomes ethically and politically viable in the field.

A mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data from 654 survey respondents assessed awareness, knowledge gaps, and attitudes toward euthanasia, rehabilitation, and release, including scenario-based items that held key case features constant while varying the rarity of the species. Qualitative data were generated through 10 semi-structured interviews with veterinarians, NGO frontline responders, academic researchers, government officers, and rescue volunteers, focusing on field constraints, contested justifications, and emotional and institutional pressures. Findings were integrated through thematic analysis across data sources.

Three ethical tensions emerged: (1) fragmented governance and ambiguous authority, fostering delays and inconsistent practice; (2) inadequate public knowledge motivating empathetic but welfare-compromising interventions; and (3) public expectations prioritizing symbolic outcomes such as “successful release,” creating political and reputational pressure that can override welfare-based recommendations. The thesis discussed that improving stranding response requires strengthening the decision system that links scientific assessment to legitimate action, and proposes a welfare-centered framework for Taiwan: a committee-based mechanism with clarified accountability and transparent documentation, role-based training integrating ethical reasoning, and public communication with sentiment monitoring to support consistent messaging and reduce unmanaged expectation pressure. While grounded in Taiwan’s context, the analysis offers comparative value for regions facing similar tensions among welfare, governance, and public legitimacy in marine mammal rescue.