Euthanasia of healthy animals

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

grumpyoldman — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:16:53 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Oh wow, caution please.....[/quote]

We are cautious , we had a flat packed Inuit wolf creature ,with an n-stage toxic pyo , the duty vet pursuaded them to sign it over instead of euthanasia . They agreed, it recovered . On recovery it was completely feral unsocialised vicious and unhandleable, This info was not forthcoming at the time, I suspect with hindsight the pyo was an opportunity to get rid of a problem for them, it was euthanised ,

My last one was a 3 year old male chihuahua that growled at a child after it tried to shove a spoon in its ear. The owner left it with us ,and it as fine with us ,we neutered it ,and its now fine in its child free home.

You have to treat each case on its merits in these situations and you cannot trust a word the owners say or do not say about anything .

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:40:12 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]Not really : if there is nothing wrong with the dog and there are no behaviour issues , I will get them to sign it over FOC [/quote]

We rehome it

Oh wow, caution please.....

"Only to find that, actually, when re-homed it either, bit the children, barked all night, was impossible to housetrain, ran away, etc, etc."

Been there. done that, but then it was all our fault...... "and you call yourself animal lovers"

My guess is that 99.999% of "young healthy animals" presented to be re-homed have serious psychological problems, or should be considered to have them.....

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

grumpyoldman — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:12:39 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]Has there been a change of approach in practice ? [/quote]

Not really : if there is nothing wrong with the dog and there are no behaviour issues , I will get them to sign it over FOC , usually once they realise they do not have to pay for euthanasia and disposal ,they are chuffed to get rid of the problem ,scribble on a paper and they are out of the door faster than you can say 'have a very nice day you lovely people'. We rehome it. I have occasionally refused euthanasia in the past ,only for a member of the public to bring the dog in a few hours later as a foundling as it dodged the traffic on the A53. So its best to take it off them. Its more difficult if its older with fixable problems e.g. ,perineal hernias, CCLs etc that they just do not want to fund. But you can get them signed over ,use them as teaching opportunities , then rehome them. It looks nice on FB and keeps the nurses happy and you can create a strays account and write it off against tax as charity work .

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:02:53 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I hope you mean compassion for the poor animal, not the owner[/quote]

Always, which others seem to forget.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:07:01 GMT

I hope you mean compassion for the poor animal, not the owner.

Wynne

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:00:22 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]Get my point?[/quote]

Of course I do and this is a particular case where there are obvious grounds for support, advice and a different outcome.

I'm talking about some of the posters who state that they always refuse point blank to all requests in situations like this.

Compassion and common sense must be a part of the process.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:31:33 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"] If I was you, that dog would be dead by now and she'd regret it forever. Get my point?[/quote]I don't think he will Dagmar!

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Nhombokisheni — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:03:44 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]the driver on the M1: Of course they should be prosecuted [/quote]

Isn't it better to try and prevent the accident rather than waiting for a possible prosecution afterwards.

People may well have died already!

That's my point

[/quote]

I did get your point, the only thing is: If you stop the driver, no one will be killed. If you kill the animal, it is dead, no going back there, although you cannot be sure what the outcome would've been otherwise. Example: Elderly lady coming in, all in tears, he elderly dog has to be put down now, she cannot stand it any more. She cannot suffer through the daily walks, can't bend down to pick up the stool, thinks animal is in a lot of pain. On examination only well known heart condition (not very serious) plus a few minor things present, overall QOL seems to be quite good despite the age of 13. I refused to euthanize and talked her through several options, huge drama, left with the words she'd tie it to a tree in the woods. Two weeks later she is back, all smiles with a bunch of flowers, all ready to treat. She's ever so grateful we didn't put him down, her thyroid meds were all skew with which was the reasons why she was all in bits. Now sorted she is more than happy to keep the dog. If I was you, that dog would be dead by now and she'd regret it forever. Get my point?

[/quote]

TBH your story is one of many that we can point to......but equally there are many that have not turned out so romantically sweet. Back to the OP: asking a very to "believe the request to be unreasonable..." is essentially asking the vet to be judgemental.....which is not a good thing to do. How personal do you get with your questioning to actually establish that the request is not reasonable without invading "personal space". Not so long back we had a thread on stress at work...and it was clear we all have different takes on what bothers us.....so, in judging the "apparently unreasonable request" of a client, are we not being hypocritical in a way? After all we may think their reason trivial but to them it's mega.

Having said that, is it right to "essentially force" a client to keep an unwanted pet? Or is it fine to ignore their desire to avoid the pet going to someone.....what past experiences do they live with that drive them to believe no one else can be good for their dog?

After the consult and refusing their request, the very carries on with business as usual.....in many cases the incident is filed away and forgotten in a second.....not so for the client who still has to find a solution, and the poor dog who may already be aware they are no longer wanted.

Lastly what happens when the RSPCA calls you to put down a "couple of litters because their type never get adopted, including some twenty odd lively dogs...because it's the only kind thing to do.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:02:56 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]the driver on the M1: Of course they should be prosecuted [/quote]

Isn't it better to try and prevent the accident rather than waiting for a possible prosecution afterwards.

People may well have died already!

That's my point

[/quote]

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:46:16 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]the driver on the M1: Of course they should be prosecuted [/quote]

Isn't it better to try and prevent the accident rather than waiting for a possible prosecution afterwards.

People may well have died already!

That's my point

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:42:09 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The problem is that the client who is hell bent on getting rid of the animal isn't going to listen. I'm not saying that I would never euthanase a healthy animal, it depends very much on individual circumstances and I would feel no guilt giving the lethal dose, it may even be quiet satisfaction that I've relieved an animal from a fate worse than death.[/quote]

Apart from cherry-picking my post and leaving out the logical last part, you then go on to make my case so I rest.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:34:29 GMT

And to add to Martin's string of argumentation/answer Anthony's question about the driver on the M1: Of course they should be prosecuted if they did something horrible to that animal afterwards like dumping it in a river! There is a law against animal cruelty, so - if they get caught - they'll get punished for it. The thing is: It is not our responsibility if they decide to do so. And we are certainly not obliged to kill an animal just because there is a possibility the owner could do something horrible to it.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:25:47 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]If we don't like it then we should take steps to prevent it happening, like suggesting re-homing, discussing training, feeding etc. [/quote]Anthony are you so naive to think that we wouldn't have done all this already and that the vast majority of clients will be grateful and take heed of this advice? The problem is that the client who is hell bent on getting rid of the animal isn't going to listen. I'm not saying that I would never euthanase a healthy animal, it depends very much on individual circumstances and I would feel no guilt giving the lethal dose, it may even be quiet satisfaction that I've relieved an animal from a fate worse than death. But the whole point is that we should not be forced into doing something we don't want to do through guilt and moral blackmail. I reiterate, what happens if I refuse and that client walks out of the door is 100% their responsibility.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:04:51 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]At what point do you stop taking responsibility for other people's actions? That they may do something reckless is 100% their responsibility and we should not have to feel guilty or be subject to moral blackmail. The buck is firmly with them.[/quote]

So a driver weaving at high speed down the M1 should be ignored and nothing done because "the buck is firmly with them" and we should not have to feel guilty etc, etc.??

Not all of us I suspect! The person should be stopped before there's a big, or even a small, accident.

I just can't understand why posters don't get it!

If they were "doing something reckless involving themselves" possibly fine, but they may do something nasty to an animal, and I thought vets didn't like that.

If we don't like it then we should take steps to prevent it happening, like suggesting re-homing, discussing training, feeding etc.

But often euthanasia which, from the animal's perception, is just like an I/V anaesthetic and therefore involves the least apprehension, pain or suffering and, after considering the circumstances, is the only option.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:23:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

PS Anthony. Some people nowadays won't know who Pontius Pilate was, the atheists probably want your guts for garters because you dared mention the Bible, and the multiculturalists want to know why you didn't quote the Koran instead!

[/quote]

That's unfair Wynne. Being an atheist doesn't ban you from knowing the Bible in much more depth than some Christians, and even being able to quote it! And agreeing with multiculturalism is explicity the opposite of what you imply, since the prefix 'Multi-' covers all, including Christianity and the Bible too!

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:07:37 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]If the owner then does something worse or illegal, I have no control over that and hope that the authorities catch up with them.[/quote]

So the Pontius Pilate approach?

I don't think the animal dumped on the M1 when euthanasia was declined would agree with you.

[/quote]At what point do you stop taking responsibility for other people's actions? That they may do something reckless is 100% their responsibility and we should not have to feel guilty or be subject to moral blackmail. The buck is firmly with them.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:47:36 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I'm quite saddened by this comment. If you're that casual about the death of an animal, then, quite frankly, you are in the wrong job.[/quote]

I disagree. Only the living can suffer. There is no point getting all Disney and anthropomorphic about things.

[/quote]

I'm not getting all Disney or anthropomorphic. Just because euthanasia is simple to perform, and we do it all the time we shouldn't become blasé about it. Otherwise it can all too often be the easy way out just because the owner is a bit inconvenienced, doesn't want to spend a bit of money etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem in euthanasia when needed. Even for something like diabetes, which needs a lot of commitment from the owner for the rest of the dog's life, If the owner didn't want to treat then I would have no problem with pts.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 08:38:42 GMT

That's why I would do it, but I'd let the owners know what I thought of them by billing it as contract killing. Calling cases like this euthanasia in order to avoid upsetting these nasty people is morally dishonest.

Wynne

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:32:34 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]If the owner then does something worse or illegal, I have no control over that and hope that the authorities catch up with them.[/quote]

So the Pontius Pilate approach?

I don't think the animal dumped on the M1 when euthanasia was declined would agree with you.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Anthony Todd — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:29:58 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I always regarded euthanasia as just an overdose of anaesthetic.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that I meant "as far as the animal was concerned" or "from the animal's perception"

Others seem to have got it?

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I always regarded euthanasia as just an overdose of anaesthetic.[/quote]

I'll see if I can get you a place on mastermind - chosen subject "the bleedin obvious"

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:21:38 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I'm quite saddened by this comment. If you're that casual about the death of an animal, then, quite frankly, you are in the wrong job.[/quote]

I disagree. Only the living can suffer. There is no point getting all Disney and anthropomorphic about things.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:37:30 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I always regarded euthanasia as just an overdose of anaesthetic.

[/quote]

I'm quite saddened by this comment. If you're that casual about the death of an animal, then, quite frankly, you are in the wrong job.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Dagmar Steele — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:11:52 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]

Hi Dagmar

How interesting . Whereabouts are you where euthanasia of healthy animal is illegal ? Is it the case with horses and other animals such as rabbits? The example you give of the cats is appalling , if they were in your jurisdiction , would they know that they were asking you to break the law there and is there any redress on owners like that.

I dont think I have understood any vet on this list thinking an animals life doesnt matter. I find suffering intolerable and would love to live in an ideal world where no animals suffered or died prematurely but until every rescue centre is empty and every animal is wanted and cared for then I believe vets will need to do the best they can depending on the particular circumstances they find themselves.

The uk attitude to animals was very different thirty years ago but there is still a shameful throwaway attitude to pets here in some members of society. I do not think that driving them away is the answer but education is and hopefully vets can be a part of that.

This is not an easy discussion but all the better for being openly debated.

[/quote]

I am in Germany. The law states that it is illegal to kill any animal but for a reasonable reason. Reasonable is considered killing them if you want to eat them, if they suffer from something incurable and the likes. Of course there is a grey area, what is considered incurable, how much money does an owner have to spend (because some illnesses are curable, but it is costly) and so on. So it falls within the vets responsibility to decide if it is reasonable to put an animal down (nobody would blame you for euthanizing an 15you bitch with pyo, although the condition might be curable) and every vet may have a slightly different take on it. But yes, killing a perfectly healthy pet is illegal. Would the great general public know about it? I guess most of them do in some way although they certainly don't get every aspect of it, but there will be a certain percentage completely oblivious (there are people who even don't know who our chancellor is at the moment). And without wanting to sound racist it's often people from abroad where things are different (like in the UK, but also in Eastern Europe) who don't know and are completely taken aback when told.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:43:07 GMT

Hi Dagmar

This is not an easy discussion but all the better for being openly debated.

RE: Euthanasia of healthy animals

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:33:43 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]when combined with a sense of moral superiority, somewhat obnoxious.[/quote]Talk about pots, kettles and glass houses, that is rich coming from Mr Self Righteous himself!

[quote user="David Mills"]What about the dog who is weak on its hindlimbs and incontinent. It is not in any pain and appears to enjoy life. However the owners are a bit sick of cleaning up the mess. [/quote]I have no doubt you are playing devils advocate but I will take the bite. Because owing a pet is a two way relationship. If the owner's quality of life is suffering as a result of this and they are resenting the pet then maybe the best thing for it is euthanasia. This is clearly not a healthy pet and it is unlikely that it could be re-homed anywhere else. We can pontificate as much as we like about the owner having a responsibility of care but not everyone has the same tolerances to shit and piss as maybe we do. This is a totally different scenario to the example of a healthy pet which has just become an inconvenience or its owner has lost interest in it.