Making the Ethical Decision for Animal Euthanasia

     Euthanasia may be defined as ‘painless killing to relieve suffering’. Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses should be aware that these events are often highly emotionally charged. In these circumstances, small actions and/or omissions can take on a disproportionate level of importance. It is recommended that all practice staff involved in euthanasia are fully trained and a planned, rehearsed and coordinated approach is taken.

     Euthanasia is not, in law, an act of veterinary surgery, and may be carried out by anyone provided that it is carried out humanely. No veterinary surgeon is obliged to kill a healthy animal unless required to do so under statutory powers as part of their conditions of employment. Veterinary surgeons do, however, have the privilege of being able to relieve an animal's suffering in this way in appropriate cases.

     Generally, only veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses acting under their direction and in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, have access to the controlled drugs often used to carry out the euthanasia of animals. An exception to this is the use of Pentobarbitone by RSPCA Inspectors in England and Wales for the euthanasia of wild animals.

     The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States agree that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. However, occasionally (rarely), animal euthanasia may be performed using alternative methods to pentobarbitone injection. Euthanasia can be performed on an animal via the administration of large volumes of potassium chloride: this causes the animal's blood potassium levels to rise to critical levels, resulting in the animal dying from heart arrhythmia (sort of like a fatal, severe heart palpitation in people). Because potassium chloride injection is painful, the animal is normally placed under a general anaesthetic before the solution is injected. Some euthanasias may even be performed using such means as shooting (euthanasia by gunshot); captive bolt pistol (a form of shooting that does not involve a bullet); gassing (carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide); decapitation; neck-breaking (cervical dislocation); throat-cutting (exsanguination) and electrocution. None of these alternative euthanasia methods is generally used in the putting down of domestic pets (most are far too distressing for owners to watch), however, shooting, potassium chloride administration and captive bolt euthanasia may sometimes be used in the humane euthanasia of horses and livestock animals. Gassing, decapitation and electrocution are more likely to be used in the killing of poultry or pigs for human consumption, however, this would technically be termed slaughter rather than euthanasia.

There is list of valid reasons for animal euthanasia. 

1. The animal is suffering from a terminal illness that medical or surgical therapy can no longer relieve or help:
The relief of pain and suffering is probably the most common reason owners have for euthanasing a beloved pet. Because animals are now living long enough (just like people) to die slowly by degrees from chronic, incurable, sometimes-painful illnesses like cancer, renal disease and heart failure, it is becoming very common for owners to have to make this choice about what is kindest for their terminally ill pets.

2.The animal is suffering from a severe illness whereby survival and recovery is possible, but of minimal likelihood, and the animal is likely to go through significant pain and suffering while attempts are made to correct the problem:
Because animals, unlike humans, are unable to give any consent about the procedures that are performed on them, performing a large, painful surgical procedure on an animal or exposing that animal to long periods of severe illness, hospitalization stress and repeated medical procedures, in the remote chance that there will be recovery, must be weighed up very carefully. Human patients have a choice about how much pain they are willing to suffer for the remote chance of a cure and they also have a better cognitive understanding of what will be included in that care (prolonged hospitalisation, the use of ventilatory assistance, nausea-inducing medications and so on). Animals, on the other hand, do not have this understanding and so we (vets and owners) are the ones that must act on their behalf and in their best interests. Sometimes the pain and suffering involved in the care and attempted cure of an animal patient is simply not worth the very small chance there will be of a good outcome. This is a valid reason for an animal to be put out of its misery.

3. The pet has a chronic, manageable illness requiring a lot of medication (e.g. many pills and needles), regular hospital stays and frequent testing and veterinary check-ups to manage it, but the animal is behaviorally and emotionally ill-equipped to cope and gets far too distressed by all of the procedures to keep on having them done over and over again for the rest of its life.
As mentioned in the above section, pets can not give their consent for any of the things that we do to them (e.g. surgery, chemotherapy, diabetes therapy). Some animals with long-term manageable medical conditions such as diabetes and chronic renal failure become so fed up with being in hospital and being needled for blood or fluids or medication administration all the time that they become savagely aggressive and needle shy and require a vet to sedate them or anesthetize them just to do any little thing with them.

4. The pet has a severe, chronic disease where death from the disease itself is unlikely, but drugs are no longer helping the pet with its pain or mobility.
There are certain chronic disease conditions whereby the animal is unlikely to die as a result of the condition per se, but is in such severe, chronic, continuous pain or so debilitated (e.g. unable to move very far, unable to stand up) or so unable to maintain its hygiene and dignity that it can no longer be said to have any decent quality of life. In these cases, euthanasia is a viable option.

5. The animal is exhibiting severe aggression.
Aggression, particularly regularly-occurring, non-provoked aggression, in dogs and cats and even rabbits, horses and livestock animals is a very valid reason for destroying these animals. This aggression may be towards people, other pets in the household or other animals outside of the household (e.g. livestock killers).

6. The animal has a severe behavioural condition that has not responded to veterinary and/or behavioural modification therapies:
Some forms of behavioural disturbance are so severe that they are not conducive to a pet remaining in a household. Examples include: pets that insist upon toileting all over the house; pets that bark all the time; pets that display severe aggression or guarding tendencies; pets with severe separation anxiety that results in them regularly destroying the household in your absence (scratching down walls and doors etc.) and fence-jumper pets that constantly escape from their yards and roam. If these behaviors persist despite veterinary attention and behaviouralist consultation and all of your best efforts at re-training the animal and altering its environment to suit (e.g. building better fences), then euthanasia may well be the only solution to the problem. It is probably not fair to try to rehome animals with severe behavioural defects because this rehoming will just place stress on an already stressed animal and pass the problem on to another person (certainly you should warn the potential owner about the problem before passing the pet on).

7. Heard health and disease eradication programs:
Selective euthanasia is sometimes used in breeding colonies, in addition to desexing, as a means of eradicating genetic diseases or negative traits. Whether this is a humane or valid thing to do really depends on the nature of the defect itself. Euthanasia of animals to remove defects that will be detrimental to the survival of that animal, breed or species may well be warranted (e.g. the euthanasia of Dobermann pinchers with severe von Willebrand's disease or young German Shepherds with severe hemophilia - both genetically-spread blood clotting disorders). Euthanasia of animals because their coat pattern is no good in the show ring is not warranted: these animals can be desexed and sold 'pet-only' to a nice home.

The use of euthanasia as a means of eradicating infectious diseases (especially highly-contagious diseases and/or highly environmentally-resistant diseases) in a large animal population such as a shelter, breeding or animal production colony is often done. For example, litters of puppies afflicted with canine parvovirus are typically euthanased by most shelters, rather than being treated, because the prognosis is so guarded and the risk of contaminating the entire facility (and thus killing other dogs) so high. Sometimes the sacrifice of some is required for the greater good of the rest. 

 

8. Notifiable diseases of high risk to human lives, animal lives and the economy:
Animals that contract diseases, normally infectious diseases, which are of a high safety risk to man and other animals (e.g. rabies, bird flu, Anthrax) are generally put to sleep. Animal herds that contract exotic diseases that may or may not necessarily be fatal, but which are of massive economic consequence to the affected country (e.g. foot and mouth, Newcastle disease virus (NDV), Blue Tongue Virus and many more) are usually culled, along with the animals on surrounding farms, to preserve the country's livestock and animal production and export industries.

9. Financial euthanasia - the pet has a life-threatening and/or costly-to-treat disease and the owner simply cannot afford life-saving surgical or medical treatment:
The concept of financial euthanasia is probably the one reason given for euthanasia where peoples' opinions are most polarised and where vets and their clients most commonly clash. Some people consider finances to be a completely inexcusable ground for killing a pet and are outraged that vets will not provide services for free and/or that non-financial owners will even consider this option instead of going into debt for their animals. Other people and most veterinarians consider financial limitations to be a perfectly reasonable grounds for euthanasia of an animal (how reasonable we think it is does depend on the situation.

     Often, both veterinary surgeon and owner face difficulties during decision making on euthanizing the animals. Veterinary surgeons may face difficulties when an owner wants to have a perfectly healthy or treatable animal destroyed, or when an owner wishes to keep an animal alive in circumstances where euthanasia would be the kindest course of action.

     The veterinary surgeon's primary obligation is to relieve the suffering of an animal, but account must be taken not only of the animal's condition, but also the owner's wishes and circumstances. To refuse an owner's request for euthanasia may add to the owner's distress and could be deleterious to the welfare of the animal. Where, in all conscience, a veterinary surgeon cannot accede to a client's request for euthanasia, he or she should recognise the extreme sensitivity of the situation and make sympathetic efforts to direct the client to alternative sources of advice.

     Where the reason for a request for euthanasia is the inability of the client to pay for private treatment, it may be appropriate to make known the options and eligibility for charitable assistance or referral for charitable treatment.

    Where a veterinary surgeon is concerned about an owner's refusal to consent to euthanasia, veterinary surgeons can only advise their clients and act in accordance with their professional judgement. Where a veterinary surgeon is concerned that an animal's welfare is compromised because of an owner's refusal to allow euthanasia, a veterinary surgeon may take steps to resolve the situation, for example, an initial step could be to seek another veterinary opinion for the client, potentially by telephone.

     In a nutshell, animal euthanasia is ethical only if it fulfill any one of the listed valid reason. Should the animal be euthanized? The decision could only be made best with the mutual understanding and cooperation from both the owner and veterinary surgeon. 

References:
O’Meara, Shauna. (2008). Time to say goodbye: A Practical Guide to Pet Euthanasia (Having your pet put down). www.pet-informed-veterinary-advice-online.com.
Euthanasia of animals. (2012). Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. https://www.rcvs.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/euthanasia-of-animals/
Euthanasia. (2013). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/euthanasia.aspx

Animal Right or Animal Welfare?

Almost all of us grew up with eating meats, wearing leather clothing and going to circuses or zoos. Also, in this age and year, many of us bought our beloved pets from the pet shops and keep them at home. But, peoples don’t consider the impacts of the actions on the animals involved. For whatever, peoples will ask a question: Why should non human animal have rights? Further, peoples may have a traditional perspective where animals are put on earth to serve human being. Therefore, arguments of animal rights are not making any sense in this society.

According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2011), animal rights defined as the rights of animals to be treated well, for example by not being hunted or used for medical research. In Asian and African countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda and Sudan, there is still much disagreement of accepting the concept of animal rights and less disagreement of the consequences or impacts of accepting that animals have rights. Peoples tend to ignore and neglect the animal rights in this modern and well educated society which is morally wrong. By accepting the doctrine of animal rights means there is no experiments on animals, no breeding and killing animals for food, clothes and medicine, no use of animal as hard labor, no animal hunting, no selective breeding for any reason other than the benefits of the animal and no use animals for entertainment purpose (BBC, 2013). 

 

How right are animal rights? How far should we go in protecting every of the animal rights? In general, in the context of animal rights, animals are equal to human, where they should have their own life and own rights. And basically, it means that we human have no right in manipulating them, instead, leave them alone as how they are originally.

Nonetheless, how true is it that human and animal share the equality in status and every aspect of life? Are not we human are assigned as caretaker of the earth and every non-human animals? If it is so, animal rights play a big controversy here. Looking into taking care and well managing of the living animals on earth, perhaps animal welfare plays a better role than animal rights. 

 

Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. Protecting an animal's welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs. Ensuring animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.

The ‘five freedoms’, which were originally developed by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), provide valuable guidance on animal welfare. They are now internationally recognized, and have been adapted slightly since their formulation. The current form is: -

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst – ready access to water and a diet to maintain health and vigor.
   
   
2. Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
   
   
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
   
   
4. Freedom to express normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
   
   
5. Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

These 5 freedoms are ideal states, and it is recognized that some freedoms may conflict in a situation where animals are cared for by man e.g. the conflict between treatment (such as veterinary treatment) to cure illness/disease and freedom from fear and distress (that may be caused by the handling and procedure).

The AVMA, as a medical authority for the health and welfare of animals, offers the following eight integrated principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies, resolutions, and actions.

• The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.
• Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.
• Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.
• Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.
• Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.
• Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.
• Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.
• The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.

In conclusion, animal rights denote the philosophical belief that animals should have rights, including the right to live their lives free of human intervention (and ultimate death at the hands of humans). Animal rightists are philosophically opposed to the use of animals by humans (although some accept 'symbiotic' relationships, such as companion animal ownership. On the other hand, animal welfare denotes the desire to prevent unnecessary animal suffering (that, whilst not categorically opposed to the use of animals, wants to ensure a good quality of life and humane death). Perhaps, animal welfare will put things better in a well balanced state.

 

Do We Need to Care about Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism?

As the dawn near the 21st century nears, prejudice, racism and discrimination are the most persistent social problem in this society today. The concept of prejudice, racism and discrimination is related directly to the moral philosophy. Prejudice means having a hostile attitude or behavior towards a person or a group of people based on negative preconceived notions about them. It is a cultural attitude and bias that rests on negative stereotypes about individuals or groups based on the cultural, religious, racial, or ethnic background. Meanwhile, discrimination is the active denial of desired goals from a category of persons which can be based on sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, limited knowledge, social status or class. More recently, discrimination is also included those based on gender, age, marital status, pregnancy and physical disabilities.

When judging whether actions or attitudes constitute prejudiced and discriminatory behavior, there are various ethical questions for us to consider. These include such issues as whether the behaviors and opinions violate moral principles such as fairness, respect, equality for the dignity of others in the society, treating everyone as an equal and not taking advantage of an individual’s weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Discriminatory behaviors can be isolated, or performed by a single individual based on personal prejudices. Also, it can also be institutional, where it becomes the routine behaviors of an institutionalized group based on the prejudices of the group towards others. Likewise, discriminatory behavior can also be intentional, performed deliberately, or unintentional, where actions are performed unwittingly based on blind acceptance and adherence to prevalent stereotypes and prejudices or to institutionalized practice or corporate culture. In all of these cases, prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors are considered illegal and fall under the category of unethical and immoral behavior.

 In light of such a common human condition, prejudicial attitudes most often lead directly to negative behaviors and it will caused to the tragedy for the human in this society. For example, prejudicial attitudes against the Jews in Germany resulted in hate campaigns, loss of rights and social inequality for Jews, many acts of discrimination and ultimately the Holocaust (the Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime). Other instances of discriminatory behavior based on prejudice that fly in the face of ethical behavior are the denial of housing rights to blacks and Hispanics in the United States, the underpayment of women in the workforce, the denial of employment to disabled individuals, the treatment of someone unfavorably because of his or her race or color and other such activities.Racism, prejudices, discrimination, and stereotypes were fueled by the practice of slavery.  The effects of slavery are still present in today's society.

Modern philosophical ethics uses two traditional approaches to determine the ethical character of behaviors. The first tradition, called teleological ethics, states that actions acquire their moral status from their consequences but have no intrinsic ethical value on their own. Based on a school of thought called Utilitarianism, actions are deemed ethical or unethical, or morally good or bad, according to the extent that they result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus behaviors that help people are viewed as ethical and actions that harm people are considered unethical. The second tradition is deontological ethics. This approach argues that actions have inherent moral value. That is, they are intrinsically right or wrong. Thus respecting the rights of others, telling the truth and being honest in the business are considered good or ethical, while lying, cheating, stealing, coercing and manipulating are thought of as bad or unethical. According to this approach, even if lying or cheating results in some good, the behavior can never be moral.

Practically, then, evaluating whether behavior is prejudiced or discriminatory involves considering both of these ethical approaches. Although they appear to conflict at the theoretical level, in practice they complement each other and cover an array of factors motivating human behavior.

Is Racism Human Nature or Learned Behavior?

Racism is a broad topic that can be generally described as the prejudicial of a group on the basis of its common physical characteristics sociologically associated with undesirable behaviors according to the accepted social norms and values of a majority. The physical traits which serve to catalyze racist phenomena include skin color and hair color as well as the shape of specific features including the head, eyes, nose and mouth.

The racism with which most are familiar is the skin color based racism that has permeated the United States in the second half of the 20th century along with such countries as South Africa. In the United States, the social and legal restrictions that blacks experienced first as slaves and later as freedmen until the civil rights era of the 1960s subjugated them to second-class citizens. Blacks were restricted and unable to rise socially or professionally. The poverty that has traditionally characterized the black community has led many in the white majority to view blacks as an inferior social element relegated to performing menial, low-paying jobs while living in the dangerous ghetto neighborhoods of inner cities. These social dynamics resulted in the widespread stereotypes of blacks as being naturally criminal and anti-social. 

The research surrounding the sociological and psychological bases for racism and racist tendencies in individuals is vast, seeking to understand whether racism occurs naturally in individuals or if it is a behavior learned through time and social interaction. Racism is a behavior which is learned from a young age and developed in response to variables that include, but are not limited to witnessing how people of different races relate to one another, how the media portray individuals of a specific race and, most important, how racial attitudes are expressed at home.

As a result, education is a most crucial key for the young generation to amend or get to learn the good behaviors and develop healthy perspectives towards the society. Peoples should believe that a good fruit which has a good seed with it could bear another good fruit. This theory is same goes to the society where peoples with good behaviors and attitudes among each others will create a harmony and peaceful homeland.