BVA Guide to euthanasia
Please see BVA’s guide The role of the vet in treatment choice decision-making for discussions
surrounding treatment options, not including euthanasia.
1
The Chambers English Dictionary
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition. 1973
British Veterinary Association, 7 Mansfield Street, London WG 9NQ
Tel: 020 7636 654 Email: bvahq@bva.co.uk Web: www.bva.co.uk
Copyright © 206 British Veterinary Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process
without written permission from the publisher. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be made to
BVA at the above address.
There are many definitions of euthanasia:
● ‘The act or practice of putting painlessly to death’
● ‘The action of inducing a quiet and easy death’
2
Euthanasia does not include the slaughter of animals for human consumption or killing for sport.
Euthanasia of an animal is an important part of veterinary work, although legally it is not an act of
veterinary surgery.
Here we attempt to provide guidance for practitioners making euthanasia
decisions:
● Legal aspects
● Quality of life and euthanasia
● Decision outcomes
● Decision Tree
● Euthanasia
● Further reading
1
▲
▲
▲
Legal aspects
The Animal Welfare Acts 2006 (England and
Wales, Scotland) requires owners and others
responsible for animals to ensure that the welfare
needs of their animals are met. The wellbeing of
an animal is the responsibility of its owner.
The RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct lays out
guidelines for the euthanasia of healthy animals
and euthanasia without the owner’s consent. It
also includes specimen consent forms.
The BVA new graduate guide contains a section
on communication and the practicalities of
euthanasia.
An animal is the property of its owner, therefore
once euthanased the carcase remains the
property of the client and must be disposed
of according to applicable regulations for the
species. Please see BVA’s advice on handling
veterinary waste.
Sometimes euthanasia may be legally mandated.
This is quite common for dangerous dogs, and
is almost always the case for notifiable disease
control (e.g. FMD and BSE).
Quality of life
and euthanasia
The decision whether to euthanase an animal
cannot be made without considering what other
options are available to the owner and veterinary
surgeon (also see The role of the vet in treatment
choice decision-making). Could the animal have a
good quality of life with treatment, palliative care
or by re-homing?
The question of whether death is in an animal’s
interest is not necessarily black and white,
many cases will fall somewhere in the grey area
between these two extremes. The solution
to a particular situation will depend on many
factors including the welfare outcomes for each
available option.
Identical animals may benefit from dierent
treatment decisions depending on the
environmental situation of each animal. Often the
decisions reached by a vet will have to take into
account owner factors, including the ability to
pay for treatment, as well as animal factors and
more specifically what the owner will do with the
animal if it is not euthanased.
An ill animal may be considered to be harmed
by death if it could receive treatment that
would improve its quality of life; but it would
benefit from euthanasia if after treatment it
would continue to suer. An unwanted animal
would benefit from death if it is likely to spend
a long period of time in an unsuitable kennel
environment. It may be argued that for animals,
who ‘live in the now
3
’, quality of life is more
important than quantity of life.
Some vets consider that death is not a welfare
issue and believe that euthanasia is not a harm
as the animal does not suer poor welfare
when dead. However, it is reasonable to
argue that euthanasia is neither a benefit nor
a harm (except that the animal is ‘missing out
on life’). Others might consider that an animal
deprived of a positive quality-of-life is harmed
by this deprivation.
Euthanasia is absolutely justified when there is
no better option for an animal than euthanasia.
Euthanasia could be described as being
contextually justified when there is at least one
better option available but the circumstances
are such that it could not be taken, therefore
euthanasia is the best available option.
There may be times when a vet could suggest
many alternatives to euthanasia that would
give the animal a good quality of life. If these
were not undertaken the reason for euthanasia
could be described as non-justified. There
are occasions where the owner(s) of a healthy
animal request it be euthanased. This presents
a dicult ethical dilemma for many veterinary
surgeons, who must consider both their duties
to the animal and to their client. Vets may
accede to this wish, but do not have to do so.
Each case must be considered individually;
there will be occasions where it is appropriate
to advise or request another opinion and if
euthanasia is refused, this should always be
oered to the client.
3
This refers to the concept that animals live, relatively speaking, in the present and unlike humans, do not wish to fulfil future hopes or ambitions. The implication of this is that it is vital to focus on the animal’s current quality of life and not
compromise this for some perceived (and possibly dubious) future benefit. Although humans can rationalise this type of sacrifice (such as enduring chemotherapy to enhance the likelihood of long term survival), an animal cannot.
2
▲
▲
▲
Absolutely justified euthanasia
For example, trauma: compound
fracture of a long bone in a production
animal, catastrophic head or spinal
injury in a companion animal.
Where euthanasia is necessary, it is still
important that vets ensure that clients consent
to the euthanasia. Where owners refuse to
consent to necessary euthanasia, vets must
consider what action to take. Options may be
communicated again to the client in a dierent
manner and the suggestion that a second
opinion is sought from an alternative vet may
be made. Owners who continue to refuse to
consent should be informed of the law and the
consequences of their actions. The RCVS can
be consulted for advice.
Contextually justified euthanasia
For example, an animal has
unpredictable aggression towards
children or persistent ‘animal worrying’
or euthanasia on economic grounds.
When euthanasia could possibly be avoided
by the owner, it is a matter of balancing the
harms and benefits to the animal, the owner,
other animals and members of the public. If an
animal is euthanased because an owner will not
provide basic care, then it may reasonable to
educate the owner. It may even be advisable
to report them to the police if they are
responsible for causing the animal to be in a
situation that required euthanasia.
Non-justified euthanasia
For example, an owner will not
consider re-homing healthy animals.
Where a vet feels that euthanasia is not
justified, then there is no reason for them to
perform it, though a second/another opinion
should be oered. Limitations on time or fears
of damage to public relations are not legitimate
reasons for killing an animal unnecessarily.
Owners may be encouraged to re-house
an animal; however, if they will not take this
option a vet should not be afraid to refuse
to euthanase. In such an instance, a second
opinion or a referral should be oered. If
both veterinarians refuse euthanasia and it
is a real danger that the animal would be
abandoned or inhumanely killed, the RCVS
can be consulted for advice. An option is
to place an embargo on the decision for
a defined time to explore alternatives, as
applied in rescue centres.
See the Decision Tree to explore these
options in greater depth.
Please see BVA’s guide The role of the
vet in treatment choice decision-making
for discussions surrounding treatment
options, not including euthanasia.
Decision outcomes
3
▲
▲
▲
NO
NO
Decision Tree
This Decision Tree has been devised
in order to give guidance to vets
when faced with euthanasia as a
management option for an animal
under their care.
It may be useful to consider the following
scenarios when using the Decision Tree:
● Owned but unwanted healthy animal.
● Owned terminally ill, suering
animal; owner wants euthanasia.
● Owned terminally ill, suering animal;
owner refuses euthanasia.
● Owned terminally ill, mildly suering
animal; owner refuses euthanasia;
owner very attached.
● Owned terminally ill, suering
animal; owner not available.
● Owned animal with illness with minor
eect on quality of life — for example, mild
heart failure; owner wants euthanasia.
● Owned healthy animal with incontinence/
minor behavioural problem — owner
requests euthanasia.
● Unowned wild animal with major injuries.
● Unowned wild non-indigenous species
(for example, grey squirrel).
● Injured wild non-indigenous/pest species.
To avoid a poor quality of
life, euthanasia is a benefit
for the animal
Euthanasia is neither
a benefit nor a harm
to the animal
The animal could have
a good quality of life,
euthanasia is a harm
Does the owner
consent to euthanasia?
Does the owner
consent to an option
that gives a good
quality of life?
Is the benefit of
euthanasia to other
animals greater than
the harm to the animal?
Get a second
opinion
Contact the
RCVS, then the
police if needed
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
Is the objection
reasonable?
Is the benefit of euthanasia
to the animal greater than
the harm to the owner?
Palliative
care
YES
Palliative
care
NO
YES
Do you think you should
do what the owner
wants? (Actions must
comply with the Animal
Welfare Act 2008)
Pursue
alternatives
YES NO
Is the benefit of
euthanasia to the
owner greater than the
harm to the animal?
YES
YES
4
▲
▲
▲
Consent forms
It is important to obtain a consent form
from an owner when performing euthanasia.
A template consent form is available (to
members) on the BVA website. Explain to
the owner carefully and sympathetically what
they are signing and talk through with them
what it means practically speaking in terms of
payment, cremation options, etc.
Fees
It is important to communicate sympathetically
to owners the cost implications of euthanasia
and clearly explain fees. Some clients may
wish to pay before the event so they can
leave promptly and others may wish to pay
in the consulting room rather than reception.
Discuss these options with clients before
the euthanasia. If payment is deferred oer
for them to call in to pay at a later date, or if
possible they may wish to call in at another
branch surgery. Oer for them to pay when
collecting the ashes if private cremation is
chosen. If they request an account is sent then
inform administration to send the account after
a few days delay for sensitivity. You may wish
to send a condolence card in one to two days,
as condolence cards from the practice can help
owners with grieving, or if they feel guilty for
making the decision to pursue euthanasia they
can be of great comfort.
Helping clients
Bearers of bad news may get the blame; do
not take it personally. It is important to provide
time for owners to adjust to the news/diagnosis
unless it is an absolute crisis situation as owners
need time to process the decision and clear
communication is essential. Communicate clearly
and avoid ambiguity. For example, the Veterinary
Defence Society has received complaints where
“put to sleep” has been taken to mean general
anaesthesia. Discuss the process of euthanasia
before the event, describe what the drug does,
and that it needs to go intravenously. Explain that
the animal is being helped to die peacefully and
painlessly. Warn that occasionally injections can
be problematic, and if it is, then intramuscular
(i/m) sedation may be given to make the process
go more smoothly. Tell owners what will happen:
● Hair clipped
● Intravenous (i/v) injection (which the animal
may occasionally resent)
● Anaesthetic overdose in vein
● Will become unconscious, and then
heart stops
● Warn regarding agonal gasping, urination,
twitching, eyes open.
Always be sympathetic but not overly
emotional, as owners need to see the vet
coping with the situation. Speak to the animal
by name and let owners have time with the
body with or without your presence. Oer the
owners the animal’s collar, tag or lock of its hair.
Euthanasia
5
▲
▲
▲
Further reading
Click on the following links for further information:
BVA guidance on the Practice Standards Scheme
Available at www.bva.co.uk
RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons
Available at www.rcvs.org.uk
General Medical Council (203) ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’
Available at www.gmc-uk.org
Broom, D M and Fraser, A F. (205) Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare 5th edn.
Wallingford, UK; Cambridge, MA: CABI.
Legood, G (2000) Veterinary Ethics. London; New York: Continuum.
Mullan, S and Main, D C J. (200) ‘Principles of ethical decision-making in veterinary practice’,
In Practice 23, 394–40
Main, D C J. (2005) ‘Oering the best to patients: ethical issues associated with the provision of
veterinary services’, Veterinary Record 58, 62
Rollin, B E. (2006) An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics: Theory And Cases 2nd edn.
Iowa: Iowa University Press.
Rollin, B E. (2005) ‘Ethics and critical care’. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care,
5, 233–239
Rollin, B E. (2003) ‘Oncology and ethics’. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 38, 50–53
6
▲
▲
▲
