Research Article | 26 Feb 2026

Veterinarians’ perspectives on animal welfare, legal enforcement, and forensic readiness in companion animal cruelty investigations in Thailand: A cross-sectional qualitative study

Athip Lorsirigool1 , Yuttana Sudjaroen2 , Narong Kulnides1 , Natapol Pumipuntu3,4 , Atthaporn Roongsitthichai5 , Supawadee Piratae3,4 , Manakant Intrakamhaeng6,7 , Surangkanang Chaiyasak6,8 , and Kanokpon Saenkaew9 Show more
VETERINARY WORLD | pg no. 725-744 | Vol. 19, Issue 2 | DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2026.725-744
Citations: —
View PDF

Cite this Article

  • APA
  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • Vancouver
  • Harvard

              
            

          

        

      


      


      

      

        

          
Abstract

          
Background and Aim: Animal cruelty is a persistent concern for animal welfare and society worldwide. In Thailand, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Animal Welfare Act B.E. 2557 (2014) provides a legal framework to address animal abuse; however, effective enforcement remains constrained by limitations in investigative procedures and the limited integration of veterinary forensic science. Veterinarians from the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) play a central role in responding to cruelty reports, conducting inspections, and supporting legal processes. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of DLD veterinarians toward companion animal welfare, the effectiveness of existing animal welfare legislation, and the current and potential role of forensic science in animal cruelty investigations in Thailand. 
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted between August 2024 and December 2024. Eighteen veterinarians with DLD from six geographic regions of Thailand were recruited using stratified purposive sampling. Data were collected via a validated, open-ended online questionnaire that addressed animal welfare challenges, legal enforcement, investigative procedures, and forensic applications. Qualitative content analysis was performed using the NVivo software, with double-blind coding to enhance analytical rigor. The codes were organized into categories and overarching themes following inductive thematic analysis. 
Results: Multiple interrelated drivers of companion animal cruelty were identified by veterinarians. The major welfare-related themes included a lack of owner responsibility and preparedness, insufficient knowledge and ethical awareness regarding animal care, socioeconomic constraints, deficiencies in stray animal management systems, weaknesses in law enforcement, and cultural attitudes that undermine animal welfare. While most respondents perceived the existing animal cruelty law as partially effective in reducing abuse, they highlighted critical gaps, including ambiguous legal definitions, inconsistent enforcement, and limited public awareness. The absence of standardized veterinary forensic protocols, limited forensic training, and restricted inspection authority were the primary factors driving investigative challenges. Respondents strongly supported the integration of forensic science, emphasizing its potential to improve evidentiary reliability, strengthen legal credibility, and enhance investigative outcomes, while also identifying the need for structured training programs and interagency collaboration. 
Conclusion: Companion animal cruelty in Thailand is driven by multifactorial welfare, legal, and societal challenges. Although current legislation provides a foundation for protection, the absence of standardized forensic practices limits investigative effectiveness. Strengthening veterinary forensic capacity through harmonized protocols, targeted training, and coordinated enforcement could substantially enhance animal welfare protection and support consistent application of animal cruelty legislation within a One Welfare framework.
          
Keywords: animal cruelty, animal welfare law, forensic veterinary science, qualitative analysis, Thailand, veterinarian attitudes, veterinary forensics, welfare enforcement.