Dear Editor,
I noted in the June 2012 CVJ (Can Vet J 2012;53:591), the ethical question of the month which described a case in which clients had brought their dog to be examined for dental problems. After being presented with the treatment options, the clients returned in 2 weeks requesting euthanasia because they could not afford the treatment. The clinic in question had a policy of not performing “convenience” euthanasia.
What I wish to address is that in recent years our profession has begun to ignore the fact that euthanasia is a valid treatment choice. An animal is a chattel, the property of its owners. Within the bounds of legal humaneness, all decisions concerning its well-being are the province of the owner(s).
In this and every situation, it is the veterinarian’s function and duty to clearly and fairly outline all treatment choices including euthanasia and then professionally and objectively respect the owners’ decision.
It is further noted that proper ethical deportment on the veterinarian’s part does not properly allow for interference with a client’s choice even when the veterinarian does not agree with the choice being made.