A recent North American study found nearly 27% of vets across different practice types 'sometimes or often' received what they considered inappropriate requests for ending animal lives.
SIMON COGHLAN: ‘Vets often grapple with the moral dilemma of when a client wants to kill an inconvenient ‘pet’. Clients might, for instance, hint that caring for the ‘pet’ has become too much trouble, or that it interferes with their lifestyle or living situation. This is called “convenience euthanasia”. Most vets have no qualms about euthanasia and believe it’s necessary for animals suffering severely or threatening public safety because of uncontrollable aggression. But vets may also feel strongly that killing animals for insufficient reasons is, though legal, contrary to their professional role… Some vets worry that euthanasia refusals risk owners illegally mistreating or killing the animal themselves. This assumption may sometimes be true, but it often lacks evidence…
A recent North American study found nearly 27% of vets across different practice types “sometimes or often” received what they considered inappropriate requests for ending animal lives. Most vets had received such requests at least once, only about 7% had never received them. Just over 75% said they never or only rarely carried out “inappropriate” euthanasia. Another 2018 study focusing on small animal practice found 83% of vets did not agree that euthanasia was always ethical. I argue in a recent journal article vets should be strong advocates for their patients. A veterinary professional who is a strong patient advocate works diligently on behalf of animal patients to promote their interests. As health care professionals, vets are powerfully guided by a duty to protect their patients from harm, including premature death’. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: