Dysthanasia (animal): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Deleted ethical considerations section for being a blatant rant against the topic Tag: section blanking |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Causes == |
== Causes == |
||
Decision upon [[euthanasia (animal)|animal euthanasia]] often takes into account the relief of pain and suffering. 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>. 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 on 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. |
Decision upon [[euthanasia (animal)|animal euthanasia]] often takes into account the relief of pain and suffering. 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>. 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 on 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. |
||
== 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]]. In situations when it is no longer possible to provide acceptable quality of life to the individual, the only way to prevent the animal from further suffering is by putting an end to its life. |
|||
Possible justifications underlying the decision of a keeper to refuse euthanasia being performed in an animal include: 1) euthanasia can be seen as a violation to the animal’s integrity <ref>Bovenkerk B, Brom FWA, van der Berg B (2002) “Brave New Birds . The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics”,'' Hastings Center Report'', p16-22</ref>; 2) the keeper might not believe in the severity of the clinical prognosis, 3) although he understands the situation as irreversible, he refuses to detach himself from a loved one, or 4) he believes the animal to retain an acceptable quality of life despite the presence of pain and/or illness. |
|||
From the veterinary viewpoint, dysthanasia can be acceptable for a clinician who believes to have a ''prima facie'' moral obligation to defend the lives of animals. However, 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 (2002) "The use and abuse of Aesculapian authority in veterinary medicine", ''Journal American Veterinary Medical Association'', 220(8): 1144-1149</ref>) in recommending the practice of euthanasia. |
|||
An additional aspect for consideration is potential conflict between 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 often 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''. |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
Revision as of 08:51, 7 January 2012
Animal dysthanasia (from the Greek, meaning “difficult death”: dys (bad; difficult) + 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.
Context
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 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].
Causes
Decision upon animal euthanasia often takes into account the relief of pain and suffering. 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 [3]. 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 on 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.
See also
References
- ^ 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
- ^ Rollin BE (2005) “Ethics of Critical Care”, Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 15(4): 233-239