Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

mariette asselbergs — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:22:14 GMT

Wow, well done, definitely 5 stars for you. And hope it made your day too!

Mariette

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

lordof1 — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:57:19 GMT

Well, one good thing to come from writing my blog. Today, I was faced with the exact same situation from the dog warden. I took the time, stopped and thought about it, asked everyone I could think of if they knew of anyone... and one of my colleagues vaguely remembered someone. We gave them a ring, and the dog now has a new home.

I know this just cannot happen in every case, so I've still got to be realistic and know that I still will have to euthanase healthy dogs from time to time. But I took the time, and I tried harder. This time, it paid off.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:45:45 GMT

Total agreement It still remains a horrible thing to have to do-and to me far far more stressful than either long hours, or on call-neither of which I actually mind.

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

lordof1 — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:37:56 GMT

On the current topic - euthanasia when there's something that can be done but the owner doesn't 'want their animal messed around' with is particularly hard - especially when the 'messing around' involves giving a carprofen tablet daily. Much as it pains me, it's hard to see that there's very much of a victory in refusing to put these cases to sleep. The owner still, ultimately, has an animal they do not want, and one that is likely to be suffering. All you're likely to be doing is delaying the time that the animal's suffering is relieved.

This is not to say it feels in any way like the sort of thing we were trained to do, but on a pragmatic level it's the right thing to do.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

lordof1 — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:37:43 GMT

This is not to say it feels in any way like the sort of thing we were trained to do, but on a pragmatic level it's the right thing to do.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:41:14 GMT

I agree that's not an easy one-it is mainly older owners, so I'm hoping (in time) the problem will solve itself

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:54:20 GMT

[quote user="rhona kerr"]

I only feel sad for the owners most of the time, not the pet, especially when it is that old man(woman) who was too frightened to bring his(her) beloved companion in because he(she) thought we would euthanase it out of hand because it was too old to treat. I try and let them know that there is no 'sell-by-date' for next time, but need to be gentle so as not to upset them more today.

[/quote]

I think this is very important, and not easy to do. I have to admit I sometimes struggle to find the balance between not upsetting someone who obviously loves their pet very much, but should have come in sooner when treatment options would have been available, and making them realise that if something similar happens to another of their pets in the future they should be coming in to see us.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

rhona kerr — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:14:58 GMT

Thanks Martin, I agree wholeheartedly that almost all euthanasia's I perform are going to better off than continuing in the situation they are in. I do get sad/angry when it's obviously just an unwanted pet and the owner has made little effort, or when I feel that behavioural intervention could have helped earlier (had we known.....), but what makes my blood boil is the "I just don't want to se him suffer" line, when the dog has clearly been struggling for some time and the owner has not sought any advice, never mind treatment. I only feel sad for the owners most of the time, not the pet, especially when it is that old man(woman) who was too frightened to bring his(her) beloved companion in because he(she) thought we would euthanase it out of hand because it was too old to treat. I try and let them know that there is no 'sell-by-date' for next time, but need to be gentle so as not to upset them more today.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:32:44 GMT

My argument is that if doctors can defy the law by automatically aborting unwanted babies, can they be trusted not to kill unwanted people. I'mjust not happy that the medical profession's record on integrity justifies them making a decision on human euthanasia

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

James Laidlaw — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:54:15 GMT

I doubt anyone has ever "happily" been through an abortion either.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:38:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I can't helpfeeling that a society which goes all squemish at the thought of executing murderes, yet happily destrys unwanted,and viable babies, is one which has lost all sense of moral proportion[/quote] Aborting an unwanted baby is infinitely better that allowing a child to be brought up in an uncaring dysfunctional family and causing problems for itself and society for the rest of its life, the aborted foetus may have been capable of continued assistance but is not a sentient being. I'm not against capital punishment under the right circumstances but its biggest flaw is that execution is not something can be reversed if evidence is later found to show the executed was innocent.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:12:11 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

I can't helpfeeling that a society which goes all squemish at the thought of executing murderes, yet happily destrys unwanted,and viable babies, is one which has lost all sense of moral proportion

Wynne

[/quote]

I do think you are a bit unfair to society here. Big Society claims notwithstanding, abortion support is far from uniform.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:52:55 GMT

Bob My objection to human eithanasia atems from the fact I don't think doctors can be trusted. My opinion of their systematic robbery of taxpayers (by signing false sick notes) is well known

More relevant (in this context ) is their open contempt of the law on abortion Abortion on demand is the actual reality-we all know that. This is illegal. When the Abortion Act was passed, it only allowed abortion in certain specific scenarios-one of which was a serious risk to the mental health of the mother. It is this clause which is now interpreted to mean abortion on demand.

There is a cross referance here to the original OP A similar situation exists in the human field One baby (wanted) miscarries spontaneously,is classified as a human baby,and heroic efforts are made to successfully save it. Another, of the same, or older gestational age is unwanted,legallyclassified as a foetus,and wilfully destroyed.

I can't helpfeeling that a society which goes all squemish at the thought of executing murderes, yet happily destrys unwanted,and viable babies, is one which has lost all sense of moral proportion

My worry is that if we depend on doctors to police human euthanasia, it will (like abortion) end up in the killling of the unwanted

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Mark Holmes — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:45:36 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Mark I'm glad you agree with me, that the stress of unnecessary killings is a major factor in our profession's suicide rate-though whoever red-starred me obviously doesn't

Wynne

[/quote]

I did. I don't think it's a major factor at all. You've only got to look at the number of anon posts here - such as the one on 'work related stress' to see that the profession has a problem and it's nothing to do with euthanasia. It's due to long hours - and that's even without on call - and the general stress of dealing with the public. As pointed out on on that thread, even working in a well-run practice with a decent rota and support can be stressful at times.

[/quote] But not inherently more stressful that many other careers. Chronic stress is a factor in mental health but that doesn't explain why vets with mental health problems have more serious outcomes that other people. I don't buy the means argument. Stand at any train station and you are frequently 6 inches from death. Mental health is an issue but I don't think it goes far enough as an explanation.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:22:54 GMT

Robin We'll just have to agree to differ

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Robin Grimmer — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:20:17 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Mark I'm glad you agree with me, that the stress of unnecessary killings is a major factor in our profession's suicide rate-though whoever red-starred me obviously doesn't

Wynne

[/quote]

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:03:02 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"] If you can think of anybody else who has our specific relationship with death I would be interested to know what they do. Even Doctors who are exposed to it, fight it to the bitter end. They don't ever consider it/propose it/accept it or advise it.[/quote] Don't be naive Mark. People are dispatched humanely every day by the medical profession by judicious over-use of morphine on patients (including my father) to electing not to resuscitate. I feel there are very many doctors, if not the majority, who wish they could do this openly rather than surreptitiously. The danger is the Harold Shipmans of the world!

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:40:54 GMT

Mark I'm glad you agree with me, that the stress of unnecessary killings is a major factor in our profession's suicide rate-though whoever red-starred me obviously doesn't

Wynne

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:06:15 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Change of topic but as we are talking about dictators and given whats happened in the muddle east since the fall of some. Are some areas if the world so inherently unstable that it takes a dictator to manage them. ie Natural selection applies and you have to be ruthless, blood thirsty and merciless to stabilise the place?

[/quote]

Not exactly. Musharraf, Assad, and Hussein spend decades neutering and nurturing any kind of effective opposition, especially any nascent democracy movements, and promoting the principle of 'if you shut up and follow a strongman, you'll survive and stay out of jail'. End result, you've got at least 2 generations of population that's been conditioned to respond to an authoritarian governing style. People underestimate how hard democracy is; it took the UK from 1645 to 1832 to really move from a 'divine right by might' to a parliamentary democracy.

(The Commonwealth was not a democracy, and anyway the Restoration put paid to that, the Glorious Revolution was a coup d'etat by the nobility. The main reason Parliament essentially got the power was because the Hanoverian kings basically didn't give a monkey's, and even then, the Reform Act wasn't passed until 1832 after overcoming staggering opposition from the elite.)

A power vacuum ensued when the middle eastern dictators were removed, and while it's not Natural Selection, Nature does abhor a vacuum. Actually the Egyptians are managing rather decently because they mainly did it on their own. It's going to take 20 years for this to shake out at a bare minimum; you need a generation to grow up first.

(Source: 20 years in the middle east.)

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:45:55 GMT

[/quote]

You may well be right.

Certainly it's plain that you can't just export Western democracy and expect the rest of the world to embrace it with glad cries of joy.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Mark Holmes — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:41:56 GMT

Change of topic but as we are talking about dictators and given whats happened in the muddle east since the fall of some. Are some areas if the world so inherently unstable that it takes a dictator to manage them. ie Natural selection applies and you have to be ruthless, blood thirsty and merciless to stabilise the place?

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:31:27 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]But that is exactly what I meant Evelyn, without putting blame on the people who are being used for the "solutions" which the politicians and the military find acceptable and normal. It is this disastrous dividing the world into "us" and "them = the enemies" and accepting the killing and heroic dying as solutions which is the norm for many people.[/quote]

But we do have enemies. Some of them want to kill us. Sometimes we have to fight them.

Sometimes we have to fight people to make life better for other people (recent example, Sierra Leone). Sometimes politicians tell us that we have to fight somebody when it's bleedin' obvious to anyone who actually understands the situation that fighting is going to make things far worse (obvious current example, Syria!).

It's politicians, dictators and other leaders who consider war as a solution (which it sometimes is and sometimes is not). The military rarely see war as a solution, only as an occasionally necessary means to achieve a state from which a more permanent solution can be managed. In this country anyway, the military maintain their competence and do their utter best to do the bidding of the politicians, with whatever insufficient manpower and lousy equipment those same politicians choose to allow. (Then they come home to their rat-infested quarters and find the government mean and penny-pinching over the treatment of their physical and mental injuries).

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]

Sadam Hussein was a problem, how to solve it? Kill him.

Ossama bin Laden the same, kill him, that problem solved. (Well not really, but thats what they thought).

Murderers in the US, kill them, even "humanely" in the vet's way, by injection, problem solved.

[/quote]

Three very different things.

Murderers are not killed to solve a problem. They are executed for their crimes. It's a penalty.

Osama bin Laden? Who regrets killing him? I don't think anyone sees it as the solution to a problem, just something that had to be done.

Saddam Hussein? Well, he was tried for his crimes by the Iraqui court, and executed. Sure, it wouldn't have happened without the invasion of Iraq, and that was a ghastly, criminal mistake.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Utlendigur — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:01:30 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]There are soldiers, slaughter men, game keepers, poultry keepers, deer stalkers. All who deal out death. But they don't use it as a SOLUTION to a problem[/quote]

Of all of those, I would wonder whether soldiers do suffer some of the same issues, albeit in a more extreme way. They do a job where one minute they are under extreme stress in fear of their lives and having to kill, next minute they may be faced with dealing with injured civilians where they need to suddenly switch off the killing and switch on the empathy and caring, next they're back home on leave with family and friends suddenly back in normal life with people who don't share the same experiences. Many of them don't deal well with the demands made on them and end up with mental illnesses like PTSD, which in turn leads to violence, homelessness etc when they try to fit back into civilian life.

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Interesting Doctor's NEVER accept death as a solution)[/quote] Not sure that's true eg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Irwin Then there are the doctors at Dignitas, plus a few GPs who have sailed close to the wind with morphine dosages in terminally ill patients.

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

mariette asselbergs — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:53:57 GMT

Hi Mark,

I do understand, honestly.

Sadam Hussein was a problem, how to solve it? Kill him.

Ossama bin Laden the same, kill him, that problem solved. (Well not really, but thats what they thought).

Murderers in the US, kill them, even "humanely" in the vet's way, by injection, problem solved.

So in my view of the world I see lots of people trying to solve problems by deciding to kill people (or animals). It is not a vet's monopoly.

I do see your reasoning why our professional routine of solving problems by humane and friendly killing of animals might facilitate the decision to solve your own problems by suicide. But I do think that there is more involved, like the exclusion of feeling of responsibility for their loved ones which people who commit suicide or attempt it show. That is where mental health comes in. I think it is the combination of stress, mental heath issues and the availability of the skills and drugs to go ahead.

By the way I also know for sure that you are wrong that doctors never see death as a solution. Doctors also have a relatively high suicide rate, higher than the general population. I personally knew a few.

Mariette

Re: Euthanasia and the veterinary surgeon

Mark Holmes — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:37:28 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]

" they sign up to be soldiers or sailors or airmen, to fight our enemies and to kill them if necessary." Evelyn.

But that is exactly what I meant Evelyn, without putting blame on the people who are being used for the "solutions" which the politicians and the military find acceptable and normal. It is this disastrous dividing the world into "us" and "them = the enemies" and accepting the killing and heroic dying as solutions which is the norm for many people. It is not at all only us vets who are familiar and accepting of dealing out death to sentient beings.

Mariette

[/quote] But that's not my point. There are soldiers, slaughter men, game keepers, poultry keepers, deer stalkers. All who deal out death. But they don't use it as a SOLUTION to a problem. That is the crux. How many people have not, do not and will not next week, use death as a fall back "get out of trouble" solution. It's not the dealing out death bit - it's the why we deal out death bit. It's the mental processes that take us to "Death is the answer" That is not a bridge other people cross. Or not with the regularity, comfort and familiarity that Vets do. We're like the boatman of the River Stix - probably just a bit too familiar with the trip. Take the little Staffie in the op. So you buy into the argument that the only logical solution to the problem of unwanted dogs is to euthanase them. You euthanase the dog and then appreciate the problem is solved (for that dog at least) Death has provided an (easy, quick and readily available) answer to be problem in front of you - how healthy is that on a mental health level? Day after day, year after year. Problems going away on the end of a needle. I DO NEED TO POINT OUT AT THIS STAGE I AM NOT SUICIDAL IF ANYBODY IS IN DOUBT. I don't think the problem can be addressed until it is understood. I am totally convinced this is the root cause of the profession's disease. We are in a stressful job, but no more stressful than many other people's jobs and lives. We are familiar with death but so are many other careers. (Interesting Doctor's NEVER accept death as a solution. They DO have the means, familiarity and stress). Most people have some access to the means. Why are we blighted? Most Vets know somebody. Some more than one.