Veterinary Medical Ethics

Ethical question of the month — December 2022

In zoo animal medicine, the timing of humane euthanasia for quality-of-life issues is an ethical challenge. Should we engage in “therapeutic relentlessness” on captive wild animals which have surpassed their wild conspecifics longevity and are not necessarily able to appropriately communicate their welfare level, especially regarding chronic pain? How much should we allow the patient to self-care and self-heal knowing that every human intervention is — usually — a great source of stress to the animal?

Ethicists’ commentary on medicine for geriatric zoo animals

Modern zoos accredited by organizations such as Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) aim to contribute both to wildlife conservation and to public education. Despite these laudable goals, zoos generate ethical controversies, both about their very existence and about the ways in which they acquire and care for their animals.

Accredited zoos commit to providing good welfare for the animals in their care; for example, CAZA’s Code of Professional Ethics requires that zoos “ensure the welfare of all animals.” However, there can be uncertainty and disagreement about what constitutes good animal welfare, including when it comes to veterinary treatment, as illustrated by this month’s question about the treatment of geriatric zoo animals.

In some cases, decisions regarding appropriate treatment are not problematic. For instance, zoos have shown leadership in using positive reinforcement training to make stress-free handling possible, thereby making administering veterinary care less troublesome from the animal’s perspective. However, if the zoo is unable to create conditions for stress-free treatment, it is necessary to balance the welfare costs of fear and distress with the potential benefits associated with the treatment. Such cases may sometimes lead to the decision that either no intervention (i.e., “self-care and self-heal”) or euthanasia is a better option.

Thus, there is not a “one size fits all” answer here; rather, the best option will depend on the specifics of the case. We suggest that a number of factors need to be considered in any decision. One is whether the proposed treatment can meaningfully improve the animal’s quality of life, considering the prospects for cure (e.g., is this a progressive and degenerative disease of old age?), or a reduction in suffering (e.g., is effective control of pain and other symptoms realistic?). Judging whether a treatment will allow the animal a good quality of life is difficult, but this is also true in companion animal medicine.

If the welfare cost of a treatment appears greater than the benefits, but the prospect for continued suffering is high, euthanasia may be the best option. As in the case of companion animals, strong human feelings from those who care for the animals may need to be considered in decision-making. Regardless, the decision to euthanize when this benefits the animal is ethically unproblematic from our perspective. More challenging cases are those in which zoo management uses euthanasia for operational reasons, including when the space the animal occupies is needed for other purposes and the animal’s genetics are considered of limited value to the zoo’s conservation programs.

Overall, we agree that “therapeutic relentlessness” should be tempered. The specifics of each case must be examined to determine what if any form of treatment is best for welfare; sometimes euthanasia or even non-interference will be the right solution for the animal.

Drs. Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, and Dan Weary

Ethical question of the month — March 2023

A client contacts you after a distressing incident in an emergency clinic with her 8-year-old English bulldog. The dog has some respiratory compromise typical of the breed but has led a moderately active life. On this occasion, it jumped off a bed, vomited, and aspirated. The owner took the dog to the emergency clinic where it was sedated and intubated. The owner was then presented with 2 options: a palate shortening surgery or euthanasia. The owner was not willing to do the surgery on both financial grounds and the concern for subjecting an older dog to an invasive procedure after a functional life. She felt badgered into making a decision she felt was not in the dog’s best interest. Eventually, after signing a waiver, the dog was extubated and recovered at home. Is there a danger that as veterinary care advances, that the only option given to owners is the “gold standard” of care? How much weight can be given the owners’ wishes and history with their animal in case of emergencies?

Responses to the case presented are welcome. Please limit your reply to approximately 50 words and forward along with your name and address to: Ethical Choices, c/o Dr. Bettina Bobsien, 4353 Yellowpoint Road, Ladysmith, British Columbia V9G 1G5; email: bettinadvm@gmail.com

Suggested ethical questions of the month are also welcome! All ethical questions or scenarios in the ethics column are based on actual events, which are changed, including names, locations, species, etc., to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.