When should owner-custodians mull over the topic of euthanasia versus long term, continual, palliative nursing and caregiving for a deteriorating, gravely ill pet?
In our aging society, the right to assisted suicide (aka euthanasia) in humans is becoming a significant topic that concerns many people.
The debates, involving religious and moral issues, as well as compassion and respect for the terminally ill, are repetitive and can be confusing or distressing for many.
I am going to indulge by broadening this discussion, comparing, and exploring the views on assisted death of our pets in this article.
In the Western world, petitions to legalise humane euthanasia of terminally ill humans were recorded as early as 1906; and similar actions for animals has been practiced much earlier and the perception more tolerated compared to our side of the world.
Never the less, the term “euthanasia” carries a negative connotation; it is the same as “murder” to many.
For others, "euthanasia" is the humane act of ending suffering for our loved ones from an incurable and possibly painful disease or condition.
In some countries, terminally ill humans, who are in the final stages of their lives, can - and have - requested their physicians to legally aid them in exercising active euthanasia. Many of them are in great agony and want to find all or any way to stop this anguish – even if it means actively ending their lives through medical means.
Advancement of medicine today means society can prolong the lives of humans but not necessarily alleviate their personally perceived suffering.
Therefore, to these competent but terminally ill humans, the touted cutting-edge medical therapy or technology is meaningless, they are simply prolonging their suffering and thus cost too much to be justifiable.
This rhetoric persuades that a dying, finitude-conscious human has the right to crossover peacefully with the assistance of a medical doctor. After all, the patient is deemed medically incurable and terminal, and likely to worsen, sometimes, in drastic manners.
He or she has the right to determine the trajectory of his or her own life.
Some are against it, while others are for it.
Human physicians all over the world are also divided on the subject.
So are veterinary professionals.
Now. let us tread gingerly close to the anthropomorphic concept, raising the status of our pet from a mere property to the equivalent of a human family member.
The lives of most veterinary professionals are complexly intertwined with the celebration of the pets’ lives, healing of their diseases, managing their medical conditions, to wrestling with and preventing their deaths. We truly see no difference between a family pet and a human family member, thus accept and expect the dilemma and deliberation -about euthanasia of either- of equal magnitude.
If you are still reading the article, I assume you agree with me on this point.
The obvious difference is that the terminally ill pets cannot actively vocalise their desire and dictate how their life should end, no matter how much you or I attribute the human characteristics, emotions, or intentions onto them.
They do not comprehend the finitude of life.
Then, who can determine that a sickly pet should have the right to not suffer anymore from a medical condition and be put to rest permanently?
Who can decide if the dying pet has the right to live despite a debilitating condition?
When should these decision to actively terminate their lives be made?
Should it be at the first knowledge of a confirmed, terminal, incurable, debilitating medical condition?
Or should it be when the pet is completely and utterly incapacitated?
Who should conclude that all medical procedures or treatments are a waste of time and not generating any benefits or comfort for the pets?
Where does one draw the line that separates humane relief from suffering and active killing of the pet in question?
The responsibility falls squarely on the shoulder of the owner-custodian.
In our profession, we have seen many cases where the owner-custodians were clearly unable to cope with basic palliative care of the ailing pet and suffering is visible.
Whether it is due to issues like the lack of nursing knowledge, time and money, many owner-custodians struggle to sensibly conclude if euthanasia is plausible to them at the crucial point when a decision needs to be made.
Therefore, as horrible as it may sound, the question of possible euthanasia must be deliberated when the pets are healthy 8-10 years old individuals, or even younger.
Just like in planning for the risk of sudden incapacitation in humans, having a living will is important. Thus, having a clear understanding of what end of life approaches are morally or emotionally acceptable for the collective, majority of the members in the family that are directly involve in the pets' lives is vital.
Let us dissect the 2 opposing theories.
Never seeking euthanasia.
If the decision is never to actively terminate the life of a gravely ill pet, then the owner-custodian should:
Accept that they will witness the dire deterioration of their once vibrant and cognitively vigorous pet.
Bear in mind that home nursing is mentally and physically challenging and can be extremely complicated for untrained people, thus caregiver fatigue will set in.
Have the financial means to engage veterinary professionals to provide necessary care for and manage the ailing pets with medical therapies and protocols such that being alive remains acceptable and manageable.
Work closely with a competent veterinary team.
Not get tormented by any self-doubt or self-blame.
Not allow random self-proclaimed-animal-lover-passerby to bully them with narratives that accuse them of “selfishly prolonging the suffering of their sick pet”.
Accept that the last memory of their pets may be extremely distressing.
Prevent unresolvable suffering at all cost.
If the decision is to never let the pet struggle and suffer from an agonising terminal disease, then the owner custodian should:
Deliberate and set a point when euthanasia should be activated
Accept that they will still witness the dire deterioration of their once vibrant and cognitively vigorous pet.
Bear in mind that home nursing is mentally and physically challenging and can be extremely complicated for untrained people, thus caregiver fatigue can still set in.
Have the financial means to engage veterinary professionals to provide necessary care for and manage the ailing pets with medical therapies and protocols such that being alive remains acceptable and manageable.
Work closely with a competent veterinary team.
Not get tormented by any self-doubt or self-blame.
Be courageous to face the allegation of being cruel and heartless, despite their every good intention.
Accept that the last memory of their pets may be still extremely distressing.
For many years, our clinic’s mandate has been to disseminate the concept of “Real Pet Ownership” versus basic “Responsible Pet Ownership” to the pet owner-custodians.
We want owner-custodians to elevate and go beyond their basic obligation - of providing food, water, and shelter during the pet's young and adult live stages - and include the planning and budgeting for their pets’ palliative, hospice care and end of life decisions, as soon as possible.
It is a very difficult and even morbid preposition, but to be genuinely accountable to your pet, it has to be done.
Comments