Continued from last week
Physicians who are deeply committed to the Hippocratic Oath must experience great agony when their patients are terminally ill, and they (the doctors) can do nothing treatment-wise to save them. At best the doctors (and family) can try to alleviate the pain and suffering of their patients. Let it be clear that although we can send men to the moon and bring them back safely, medicine/science have not been able to conquer pain for a long and continuous period. Gravely sick and dying persons have to endure the torture which accompanies slow death. Caring physicians like Dr Kevorkian opted to offer euthanasia as the ultima ratio (the final solution) to stop the suffering. Dr Kevorkian went to jail for his conviction. Religionists and doctors who are influenced by religious teachings (yes, the same ones who support the death penalty of convicted criminals) emerge in masses and called Dr Kevorkian “Doctor Death,” the personification of evil, and compared him with Josef Mengele, the Nazi ‘doctor’ who carried out the most heinous experiments in Auschwitz, a most notorious German concentration camp.
Then there are legal considerations. Yes, the practising medicos really have it tough. In fact, some opt for something they call MTI (Minimal Therapeutic Intervention), so as to hasten the demise of the terminally ill, while ensuring that the patient is as comfortable as possible in the last days/weeks/months.
We veterinarians do not experience, at the same level, the heart-wrenching situation as do the practitioners of human medicine. We can euthanize a suffering animal. Nevertheless, as mentioned in last week’s column, the veterinarian too is not immune to the agony that is associated with the decision to kill the animal. I purposefully use the word ‘kill’ (I could also have written ‘murder’ for that is what it is) to emphasise the gravitas of the decision.
Because of the anguish felt by all concerned, the reasons given for making the final decision on the animal’s continued existence must be neither superficial nor flippant.
Last week, we had a look at what could be considered valid arguments for euthanizing a pet. Even then, I documented some of these reasons, tongue-in-cheek. For example (August 24) should we put an animal to sleep because it has severe, genetically based, anatomical defects? My own position on this is that we can spay/neuter the companion animal with serious physical deficiencies, so that he/she cannot reproduce the genetic imperfections. The owner may be advised to accept the pet’s defect, which though unaesthetic is not life threatening. On other occasions, if the intervention is warranted, surgical correction can make the deficiency more bearable and less uncomfortable to both the animal and the care-giver.
The reason of cost documented in last week’s column is especially quite debatable.
I feel compelled to revisit this ‘financial’ reason for putting an animal to sleep (permanently). In so doing, I realized that the promised discussion of other not-so-valid reasons for pet euthanasia will have to be postponed.
Over the years, this particular reason (inability to pay the vet for treatment) has gnawed at my soul. It is a complicated issue. For example, it has been my experience over many decades that those kind-hearted do-gooders, who advocate that money should never be a reason for putting down a pet, themselves have plenty of money and truly cannot appreciate dire financial straits and abject poverty. Very often such advocates of ‘money not-a-reason for euthanasia’ themselves have no pets – and it is therefore easy for them to make a judgment call. Also many pet owners not endowed with appropriate financial bases just don’t have the capacity to borrow money for the treatment (or don’t even have rich friends from whom they can borrow immediately needed cash).
In fact, I have heard the position proffered that if one can’t afford a pet (vaccinations, dewormings, feeding costs, veterinary interventions and general check-ups, monthly preventative measures against heartworm, ticks, lice and fleas, etc), then one should not have a pet. That sounds really callous; practical and logical perhaps, but still callous. Could/would we carry the same argument to human families – if you can’t afford children, don’t produce them?
I’ll tell you one thing: hardly anyone who has seen the joy a child gets from frolicking with a pet – poor child or rich child – would argue that such happiness should not be experienced, because the parents will not or cannot pay the vet’s bill.
And what about the vets themselves? Can compassion associated with the maintenance of animal health not motivate them to perform interventions for free, or at a massively reduced cost? I think yes! Every practising veterinarian should set aside, say, one-half of one per cent (or more) of his/her monthly earnings for exactly such free services. Further, each veterinary clinic could have a donation box for rich(er) clients to make a monetary contribution, so that financially strapped pet owners in a lower economic bracket can have their pets treated for free in the vet’s clinic.
I do understand that vets and charities should not be relied upon to foot the bill of all financially disadvantaged pet owners and their irresponsible decisions. For example, the choosing of a Great Dane as a pet when one’s economic situation allows only for a Chihuahua cannot be a wise decision, even though both breeds could produce great joy for the family.
The points raised in the latter two paragraphs above really refer to those cases where the pet can surely be saved via veterinary intervention. Euthanasia becomes more an option when the animal is almost surely going to die, but the financially strapped owner wants to have the animal treated, and just won’t let go.
I truly do not wish to stretch out this theme, but it is of such day-to-day importance, that we are forced to discuss it in depth. More next week.
Please implement disease preventative measures (vaccinations, routine dewormings, monthly anti-heartworm medication, etc) and adopt-a-pet from the GSPCA’s Animal Clinic and Shelter at Robb Street and Orange Walk, if you have the wherewithal to care well for the animals. Do not stray your unwanted pets, take them to the GSPCA’s Clinic and Shelter instead. If you do not wish your pet to have puppies or kittens, you may exploit the GSPCA’s free spay and neutering programme. If you see anyone being cruel to an animal, or if you need any technical information, please get in touch with the Clinic and Shelter by calling 226-4237.
