My title to this article stems from a story in The Telegraph newspaper of yesterday which reports on a male veterinarian who ended his life because, in part, he was so distressed about a minority of relatively wealthy owners requesting that he euthanize their companion animals rather than treat them because the treatment would have been expensive.
The vet’s name is Dr. John Ellis. The newspaper says he killed himself over these unjustified requests to euthanize but my reading of the story is that this animal loving man had other issues which would have added to personal pressures.
The report is that he was upset that people with brand-new cars parked outside his clinic refused to pay for treatment and requested euthanasia instead.
On the other side of the coin, Dr. Ellis also referred to pet owners who, struggling financially, delay taking their ill companion animal to his veterinary clinic leading to the sad scenario where he could no longer treat them because it was too late. This is not uncommon. There is an inherent reluctance for pet owners to visit a vet because of cost and unknown future costs.
It appears that these two sides of the coil of cat and dog ownership impacted him emotionally to the point where he lost hope.
This led me to think about what is a known aspect of pet ownership namely the pet owner’s request to euthanise an animal that can be treated. Sometimes it is worse than that. Rarely, some cat and dog owners ask a vet to simply kill their healthy cat or dog. They do this out of convenience. It is shocking to think about it but it happens.
Many veterinarians – perhaps all veterinarians – enter the profession because of a deep love for animals and a desire to improve their well-being. It can be deeply distressing to euthanise an animal that can be saved.
My mind immediately turns to a recent story of a female veterinarian who was asked to kill a dog which she agreed to do but then took the dog home to rescue him or her. That was deemed to be an unprofessional act and I believe she was sanctioned for it.
But you can see where that desire comes from. This kind of moral distress is a known issue in the profession which can contribute to burnout, compassion fatigue and even on occasions thoughts of leaving the profession.
The concept of “compassion fatigue” is an important one. It can happened to both veterinarians and their associates. And it can happen to volunteers working in cat and dog rescue at shelters. They become burnt out and lose their compassion. A person’s emotional well of altruistic goodness is not bottomless. It’s like a battery which runs down. Compassion has limits. And those limits can be reached not only in the animal field but in human-to-human interactions.
Dr. Ellis refers to people with the means to treat companion animals even if that treatment is expensive but decide to euthanise their pet. This makes it doubly distressing for the veterinarian. It underscores the emotional challenges of the profession and the need to balance their professional responsibilities with their personal values and the realities of their clients’ decisions.
Sometimes euthanasia should be considered as the best course of action. It will be a nuanced decision made in partnership with a good veterinarian with normally extended experience.
My initial thought would be that if a person can’t afford the treatment then they should ask a rescue center to take the animal in the hope that they could treat their pet instead. However, that route might be closed because it isn’t always feasible as shelters and rescues are often overwhelmed and finding a suitable home for sick animal can be particularly challenging.
And if an owner can’t afford treatment and rehoming isn’t a possibility then the animal might suffer in the meantime.
The truth of the matter is that sometimes one has to act pragmatically even in matters of life and death. It’s a question of purity of objectives or acting, as I said, pragmatically and realistically.
In the real world pragmatism is often the only way forward. It’s about resources and practicalities. Sometimes they simply aren’t there and the only way forward is to euthanise even if it isn’t in the animal’s best interests.
It comes down often to the overall state of affairs regarding the animal-to-human relationship. There are many successes within this relationship but also many failures.
While euthanising a treatable pet feels ethically wrong, the decision often stems from complex, imperfect circumstances. It underscores the importance of compassion, understanding and systemic efforts to reduce such dilemmas in the future.
Putting aside the morality and ethics of this topic, there is a minority of pet owners who may unjustifiably request euthanasia for reasons that can be deeply troubling to veterinarians. This can create a tension between client and veterinarian and undermine the veterinarian’s motivations.
“Convenient euthanasia” is a phrase which is sometimes used in articles. The owner simply finds it inconvenient to carry on looking after a pet and rehome the animal because it’s inconvenient to bother to do that too. They ask a veterinarian to end their companion animal’s life. This points to a failure to recognise the intrinsic value of an animal and their sentience.
And this is a great weakness in the human-to-companion animal relationship. The vast majority of pet owners treat their companion animals as family members but there is a minority who, perhaps through a lack of education, do not recognise sentience in companion animals.
Veterinarians swear an oath at the beginning of their career to relieve suffering and promote animal welfare. They mustn’t do anything to harm the animal. Euthanising a healthy or treatable pet for unjustifiable reasons directly conflicts with this. Separately, and incidentally, so does declawing cats. And hundreds of thousands of veterinarians in America have done this in breach of their oath over the past 50 years.
A pet owner is a position of trust towards their companion animal. It works a bit like the law of trusts. The owner is the voice of their pet. They are their pet’s advocate. This puts the animal in a vulnerable position and puts the owner in a very responsible position. A minority do not discharge this responsibility morally.
Veterinarians can have the responsibility to educate owners about alternatives to euthanasia such as behaviour training, rehoming or resources for managing care.
I’m sure that most if not all veterinarians resist euthanising a companion animal that’s treatable on the request of their owner. But as mentioned this would cause friction between the two parties which would undermine the business and veterinarians are in the business of making money. They are not charities.
Although veterinarians are within their rights to refuse euthanasia but once again this would harm the business model.
Perhaps veterinarians should have a sign up saying that they do not euthanise healthy animals so clients have forewarning. And this would eliminate the difficult discussion that might arise.
I’m told that in some jurisdictions there are protections in place to prevent unjustifiable euthanasia but enforcement can vary.
For some pet owners their companion animal is valued primarily for what they provide to them in terms of companionship, utility or entertainment rather than for their inherent worth as living creatures. When a pet no longer fits their life they may fail to see the ethical obligation to ensure the pet’s welfare whether through treatment or rehoming.
There is a cultural issue here and societal norms play a role. In some cases societal attitudes towards animals reinforce the idea that they are “property” rather than beings with intrinsic worth. This view will diminish the moral weight of decisions about their lives.
Cultural issues add to educational problems leading to unnecessary euthanasia of pets.
In addressing the root causes it might be plausible to suggest the following:
- Education on Animal Sentience:
- Promoting awareness of animals’ emotional and cognitive capacities can help foster greater empathy and responsibility among pet owners.
- Schools, media, and veterinarians can play a crucial role in spreading this understanding.
- Promoting Ethical Pet Ownership:
- Efforts to educate prospective pet owners about the responsibilities of care—including the commitment to their pet’s well-being throughout its life—can reduce these behaviors.
- This could include mandatory counseling or information sessions when adopting pets.
- Stronger Legal Protections:
- Laws recognizing animals as sentient beings rather than property can influence public attitudes and hold owners accountable for unjustifiable actions.
- Fostering Emotional Connection:
- Encouraging deeper bonds between people and their pets—through activities, shared experiences, and education—can help owners recognize the intrinsic value of their companion animals.
Conclusion:
The insensitivity that leads some people to unjustifiably request euthanasia for pets often reflects a failure to acknowledge the sentience and intrinsic value of animals. Addressing this requires a combination of education, cultural change, and systemic efforts to promote empathy and responsibility toward all living beings. By shifting perspectives, we can ensure that companion animals are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
