Wildlife rehabilitation as a practice in the United States exists in a complicated ethical landscape. The Wildlife Rehabilitator's Code of Ethics exists to guide the profession and states that rehabilitators must respect the wildness and maintain the dignity of an animal in their care. This thesis explores the question: How do the attitudes and actions of wildlife rehabilitators exemplify the ways in which they understand and enact respect for an animal’s dignity and wildness while in their care? Additionally, in what circumstances do rehabilitators align and diverge from each other in their interpretation and demonstration of this respect? These questions were answered through a literature review, interviews with rehabilitators, and site visits to wildlife rehabilitation centers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. My results suggest that rehabilitators are aligned in their understanding of respect for wildness and dignity as it applies to the animals in their care that are actively undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitators achieved consensus on the idea that they should interact with the animals as little as possible while providing their medically necessary care. Rehabilitators began to diverge when considering the animals in their sanctuary spaces. Specifically, they varied in their perception of wildness in sanctuary animals, which informed how some saw their responsibilities to the animals. Lesser perceived wildness correlated to increased acceptance of forming affectionate relationships with the sanctuary animals, and even feelings of obligation to form these relationships. Based on my research, I argue that the Wildlife Rehabilitator's Code of Ethics should be revised to reflect the specific boundary that wildlife rehabilitators identified in the rehabilitation space and provide substantive guidance as to what respecting wildness and dignity means in this field.