MENU
Euthansisa and the putting down of pets is never an easy decision, either for the vet in question or the owner. Often seen as a last resort, the process is emotionally difficult for all concerned. In today’s blog we look into this thought provoking topic with an additional understanding of pressures on both pet owners and vets.
In the UK all vets take an RCVS oath, ‘ above all my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care’ Which, naturally, calls into question the difficult decision to prolong the life of an animal who is suffering and whose quality of life will not improve. There is a daily pressure for clinicians when faced with doing nothing to prolong an animal’s suffering in order to appease an owner or franchised/corporate body.
The concern comes from Richard “Eddie” Clutton, a diplomate of the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, who believes owners are increasingly putting pressure on vets to consider options other than euthanasia. Indeed, Eddie spoke of when he was an undergraduate, horse owners rode their horses for ‘strenuous leisure’ activities e.g. hunting and point to point. These owners were not afraid to make pragmatic decisions when horses could no longer fulfil ‘their purpose’ and when they agreed with the vet that long-term treatment was unlikely to improve the condition. Fast forward to today when increasingly, a growing population of horse owners see horses as large companion animals who contribute to the client’s well-being by just being there. This group is prone to wanting or being receptive to over-treatment.
He speaks of ‘care giver burden’ or ‘moral stress’ experienced by the owner and/or vet where there is a sense of guilt in allowing something unpleasant to happen to the sick animal through over treatment.
Over-treatment definitions:
- A treatment that results in a poorer quality of life than no treatment at all e.g. euthanasia or box rest.
- A treatment is chosen in favour of a less-expensive treatment that would be equally effective (upselling)
- A treatment or test that makes no difference to the animal’s condition or quality of life.
A change to the modern training of vets now regards euthanasia as a sign of clinical failure rather than the professional privilege to end an animal’s pain and suffering. This mindset does not serve the vet, client or patient well. The theory that a dying animal deserves a last- ditch attempt to extend its life and suffering is a flawed one. The quality of the animal’s life exceeds the quantity of that life.
He reports that the BVA and RCVS are both looking into over treatment concerns. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘unnecessary’ treatment or diagnostics can only be identified as such after the fact and periodic tests can reveal unexpected or early onset changes that increase the chances of successful treatment or alter the prognosis.
Speaking at the Association of Veterinary Surgeons Practising in Northern Ireland autumn conference in County Cavan, he said: “When we start to regard animals as humans, we begin deluding ourselves, and are increasing the risk of compromising animal welfare as a result.
“When we start treating animals like humans who have the capacity to understand the necessity for unpleasant treatment, and to hope for better times to come, then we run the real risk of aggravating [the animals’] suffering.”
“Many of the latter will be in training themselves, and in pursuit of credentials leading to ‘specialist’ status – a goal that is more readily achieved by the over-treatment of sick and dying animals, rather than their destruction.”
Prof Clutton agreed a need existed to advance veterinary medicine and surgery – but always under ethical regulation. These difficult decisions are always emotionally draining for all involved, not to mention the suffering of the animal in question, however by having these difficult discussions we can hope to offer even better treatment for animals and forge a greater understanding between vets and pet owners.
