Dysthanasia (animal): Difference between revisions
m →Context |
Added citation needed tag Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Prolonging the life of a dying animal}} |
|||
[[Image: |
[[Image:Mastiff Surgery.jpg|thumb|A geriatric [[mastiff]] with multiple tumors is being prepared for palliative surgery.]] |
||
'''Animal |
'''Animal dysthanasia''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]]: δυσ, ''dus''; "bad, difficult" + θάνατος, ''thanatos''; "death") refers to the practice of prolonging the life of animals that are seriously or even terminally ill and that are potentially experiencing suffering. Animal dysthanasia is a recent concept, emerging from changes in the social perception of animals and from advances in [[veterinary medicine|veterinary care]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2023}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Animal dysthanasia is particularly relevant in the context of small animal practice. For centuries, domestic animals in Western societies used to be mainly [[livestock|farm animals]]. With the industrialization process, humans become increasingly concentrated in urban areas, having preferential contact with [[Pet|companion animals]], namely cats and dogs. While farm animals are widely seen as property, companion animals are perceived as family members with whom humans keep close bonds and develop strong emotional relationships.<ref>Sandøe P & Christiansen SB (2008) "The Changing Face of Animal Ethics", ''Ethics of Animal Use''. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing pp.1-14</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | At the same time, scientific advances in the field of [[veterinary medicine]] enable practitioners to reach accurate diagnoses faster and more reliably than before, allowing life-threatening illnesses to be identified in the early stages of their development. In addition, more advanced options of treatment are currently available which may sometimes be used to prolong the lives of animals as much as possible regardless of their quality.<ref>Rollin BE (2006) "Euthanasia and quality of life", ''Journal American Veterinary Medical Association'', 228(7): 1014-1016</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
The Companion Animal Euthanasia Training Academy (CAETA) defines dysthanasia differently. To align more closely with the current definition of euthanasia, the act of humanely terminating life, CAETA views dysthanasia as the opposite of euthanasia; an actual bad death event wherein the medical act of euthanasia went poorly. Any lack of care or suffering leading up to death is considered a lack of veterinary hospice support during the end of life. |
|||
<ref>Cooney, KA (2017) "Overview of Companion Animal Euthanasia" Module One; Online Program, www.caetainternational.com</ref> |
|||
==Causes== |
|||
| ⚫ | Animal dysthanasia is particularly relevant in the context of small animal practice. For centuries, domestic animals in Western societies used to be mainly [[farm animals]]. With the industrialization process, humans become increasingly concentrated in urban areas, having preferential contact with [[companion animals]], namely cats and dogs. While farm animals are widely seen as property, companion animals are perceived as family members with whom humans keep close bonds and develop strong emotional relationships<ref>Sandøe P & Christiansen SB (2008) "The Changing Face of Animal Ethics", ''Ethics of Animal Use''. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing pp.1-14</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | Decision upon [[animal euthanasia]] often takes into account the relief of pain and suffering. Depending on how one defines the term, animal dysthanasia occurs because there is no agreement upon the acceptable and recognizable endpoints of the lives of companion animals. This is due to several reasons. The keeper (guardian; owner) may wish to extend the animal’s life because he rejects euthanasia as an acceptable solution. On the other hand, the veterinarian may have a scientific interest on studying the progress of a specific illness or even a financial interest in keeping the patient alive.<ref>Rollin BE (2005) “Ethics of Critical Care”, ''Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care'', 15(4): 233-239</ref> If one defines dysthanasia as an actual bad death event, causes include use of improper euthanasia techniques or failure to render an animal free of pain or distress. Proper training in euthanasia procedures is ideal to reduce dysthanasia and subsequent suffering. The keeper and the veterinarian may also want to make use of all possible treatment resources before making the decision of euthanasia. Genuine belief on the animal’s recovery and emotional attachment can also interfere in the decision-making process of euthanasia. Situations like these can be especially problematic in some veterinary specialities like small animal [[oncology]] where the course of the disease may be difficult to predict and the treatments themselves can cause severe distress.{{Citation needed|date=January 2023}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | At the same time, scientific advances in the field of [[veterinary medicine]] enable practitioners to reach accurate |
||
*[[Dysthanasia]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
*[[Palliative care]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== |
==References== |
||
| ⚫ | Decision upon [[ |
||
== Ethical considerations == |
|||
Dysthanasia involves an intractable conflict between the value of the animal’s life and the termination of the experienced suffering. In order to keep the animal alive we are necessarily impairing its [[Animal welfare|welfare]]. Since it is no longer possible to provide acceptable quality of life to the individual, the only way to prevent the animal from suffering is by putting an end to its life. |
|||
Three justifications can underlie the decision of a keeper to refuse euthanasia being performed in an animal: 1) euthanasia can be seen as a violation to the animal’s integrity <ref>Bovenkerk B, Brom FWA, van der Berg B, “Brave New Birds . The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics”,'' Hastings Center Report'', 2002, p16-22</ref>; 2) the keeper might not believe in the severity of the clinical prognosis and 3) although he understands the situation as irreversible, he refuses to detach himself from a loved one. |
|||
From the veterinary viewpoint he can accept dysthanasia if he believes to have a ''prima facie'' moral obligation to defend the lives of animals. But the relief of animal suffering and welfare considerations are also part of the ethical analysis and often veterinarians are reluctant to use their authority (what the philosopher Bernard Rollin calls the'' Aesculpapian Authority'' <ref>Rollin BE, "The use and abuse of Aesculapian authority in veterinary medicine", ''Journal American Veterinary Medical Association'', 2002, 220(8): 1144-1149</ref>) in recommending the practice of euthanasia. |
|||
We can also take into consideration the veterinarian’s responsibilities towards the interests of the owner and those of the animal: a veterinary surgeon is expected to attend simultaneously to the animal’s needs and to the client’s expectations which results in an ethical dilemma. This is reinforced by the fact that the social role of veterinarians has been increasingly questioned from being not only ''animal healers'' but also ''animal protectors''. |
|||
== References == |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
{{Reflist}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Veterinary procedures]] |
[[Category:Veterinary procedures]] |
||
Latest revision as of 15:26, 4 January 2023
Animal dysthanasia (from the Greek: δυσ, dus; "bad, difficult" + θάνατος, thanatos; "death") refers to the practice of prolonging the life of animals that are seriously or even terminally ill and that are potentially experiencing suffering. Animal dysthanasia is a recent concept, emerging from changes in the social perception of animals and from advances in veterinary care.[citation needed]
Context
[edit]Animal dysthanasia is particularly relevant in the context of small animal practice. For centuries, domestic animals in Western societies used to be mainly farm animals. With the industrialization process, humans become increasingly concentrated in urban areas, having preferential contact with companion animals, namely cats and dogs. While farm animals are widely seen as property, companion animals are perceived as family members with whom humans keep close bonds and develop strong emotional relationships.[1]
At the same time, scientific advances in the field of veterinary medicine enable practitioners to reach accurate diagnoses faster and more reliably than before, allowing life-threatening illnesses to be identified in the early stages of their development. In addition, more advanced options of treatment are currently available which may sometimes be used to prolong the lives of animals as much as possible regardless of their quality.[2]
The Companion Animal Euthanasia Training Academy (CAETA) defines dysthanasia differently. To align more closely with the current definition of euthanasia, the act of humanely terminating life, CAETA views dysthanasia as the opposite of euthanasia; an actual bad death event wherein the medical act of euthanasia went poorly. Any lack of care or suffering leading up to death is considered a lack of veterinary hospice support during the end of life. [3]
Causes
[edit]Decision upon animal euthanasia often takes into account the relief of pain and suffering. Depending on how one defines the term, animal dysthanasia occurs because there is no agreement upon the acceptable and recognizable endpoints of the lives of companion animals. This is due to several reasons. The keeper (guardian; owner) may wish to extend the animal’s life because he rejects euthanasia as an acceptable solution. On the other hand, the veterinarian may have a scientific interest on studying the progress of a specific illness or even a financial interest in keeping the patient alive.[4] If one defines dysthanasia as an actual bad death event, causes include use of improper euthanasia techniques or failure to render an animal free of pain or distress. Proper training in euthanasia procedures is ideal to reduce dysthanasia and subsequent suffering. The keeper and the veterinarian may also want to make use of all possible treatment resources before making the decision of euthanasia. Genuine belief on the animal’s recovery and emotional attachment can also interfere in the decision-making process of euthanasia. Situations like these can be especially problematic in some veterinary specialities like small animal oncology where the course of the disease may be difficult to predict and the treatments themselves can cause severe distress.[citation needed]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Sandøe P & Christiansen SB (2008) "The Changing Face of Animal Ethics", Ethics of Animal Use. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing pp.1-14
- ^ Rollin BE (2006) "Euthanasia and quality of life", Journal American Veterinary Medical Association, 228(7): 1014-1016
- ^ Cooney, KA (2017) "Overview of Companion Animal Euthanasia" Module One; Online Program, www.caetainternational.com
- ^ Rollin BE (2005) “Ethics of Critical Care”, Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 15(4): 233-239