As the human–animal bond has elevated pets to the status of family member, veterinary palliative (pet hospice) programs, such as Pawspice, have become more popular.
Many societies condone, or even promote, euthanasia for suffering animals as an act of mercy, based on the philosophy that it is cruel to allow animals to suffer needlessly.
A Canadian court decision that allows physicians to provide life-ending medication to terminally ill human patients has set in motion a global debate about the option for people to choose a dignified death for themselves. Although physicians in the past have generally rejected assisted death in favor of promoting natural death, doctors of human medicine are now being confronted with a dilemma long-familiar to doctors of veterinary medicine.1
Both clients and veterinarians can experience emotional confusion at the end of a pet’s life. As veterinarians, we were trained to offer “either/or” medicine: “Either we do X treatment, or we euthanize.” Few caregivers are offered a third option of admitting their pet into a hospice program.2 Hospice for humans does not hasten death. In the same vein, some veterinarians believe that pet hospice should not hasten death, but rather, allow terminal pets to die a gradual “natural death.”
Some veterinarians disagree with this perspective. Mother Nature’s quick hand eliminates frail animals in the wild rapidly via predators and harsh elements. Perhaps prolonging a protected pet’s death is not such a “natural death” after all.
The goal for most hospice veterinarians is to maintain quality of life at the end of a pet’s life. Veterinarians can provide compassionate bond-centered euthanasia when the pet’s owner, acting as the pet's advocate, decides the pet’s life is no longer worth living.3
These conflicting theories of end-of-life care can lead to confusion and guilt, resulting in ethical dilemmas or fatigue in decision-making about euthanasia.
How do you decide whether to refer a pet to hospice or recommend euthanasia?