Euthanasia In Veterinary Medicine

Doctors also try and keep their patients as free from pain and discomfort as possible. Most people take comfort in knowing that their loved ones are receiving the best care possible from their doctors. Not all individuals look down on doctors for respecting the wishes of the terminally ill, even if that desire is to end their lives so that they no longer have to deal with the pain and suffering.

Death is a touchy enough subject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoral decision to take away the life of someone or it’s seen as a logical and peaceful release from pain and misery. There’s this idea that asking a healthcare provider to help you end your life is unfair and unnecessary, no matter how much a person is suffering suicide is not justified. People fear patients changing their minds, physicians being severely impacted by this, and families not agreeing with the decision making it hard to cope. On the other side people believe that it’s freedom of choice to choose to be medically assisted with a suicide; this is a right the patient has. Some believe if you’re in pain and dying why should you be forced to stay in a painful state of life. Freedom of choice versus life isn’t ours to take away. If you were in a terminally ill patients position, what would you do?

Imagine having to witness a family member or even a friend on life support be kept alive while knowing that there is no chance for a cure. A patient might feel like it is their time to go, but family members might have a hard time accepting the situation and will disagree. That is why patients in those extreme situations should have the option to end their life peacefully or continuing living in the conditions they are in.

According to the The Humane Society of the United States roughly six-million animals are handled by shelters and clinics every year; though, only four million are adopted or claimed . The other two million animals are left in these shelters until they die or are subjected to cruel practices of euthanasia. There are simply too many animals and not enough people who are open to adoption. The animal overpopulation crisis and euthanasia cruelty can be prevented by an approach called animal birth control and adopting.

There are occasions when medicine is not your friend and the effects of the treatment will only prolong the suffering of the patient. Healthcare professionals must be objective and ask will the end result be changed. We must know when it is appropriate to discuss end of life options and when it is not. According to Adams (2015), most desire to die at home, but less than half are allowed to do so (p. 13). Our responsibility is to allow the client to make an educated decision about all the available service and treatments.

A personal experience of mine was this past year, when a close family member was diagnosed with brain cancer. She had refused treatment, with that was given 6-8 months to live. She was the most strongest, independent, family oriented lady I have ever met, however, that quickly changed when the tumour spread like rapid fire. She could not eat on her own, she could not talk, and she could not do the basic everyday routine, needing constant help. As the days went on she was getting worse, she was not herself. Now, we are left with these memories and the sadness of witnessing a strong independent lady just disappear in front of us. For a terminally ill patient with the knowledge of dying with dignity should be given this choice. As learnt in class it is based on the rights approach, giving the individual the right to choose for him or herself. The right to choose to die before the illness takes over and takes away who the person really was. Their right to leave their family with happy memories, instead of sad memories of them being sick and in

Those who are in favor of physician-assisted suicide attribute utilitarian theory to justify the act. In the context of physician-assisted suicide, the doctor takes the decision for termination of patient’s life with the intention of ending suffering and pain. It can be concluded that the physician aimed to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. An ethical theorist stated that “physician-assisted suicide is the right choice to provide relief not only to the sufferings of terminally ill patients but those family members who are also on a suffering spree and yet there is no hope for the recovery” (Snyder, 2017). Moreover, they believe that one is a proprietor of his life and enjoys a prerogative to end his life if his life becomes a burden on him. In addition, patients suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer last stage go through peak emotional and physical pain. Some of these patients request for options that end their lives with the minimal suffering as they want to escape from unbearable

Quill, M.D., the methods of which physicians chose to help a patient die should be of last resort. I too believe that “excellent palliative care should be the standard of care for all dying patients, and no patient should be medically assisted with a hastened death because she is not receiving the standard of care” (Quill, 2012). “No one should choose to die from suffering that could have been relieved if clinicians had the will and expertise” (Quill, 2012) Palliative care is intended to identify most, but not all, causes of suffering at end of life (Quill, 2012). Physicians should have the proper training in providing pain and symptom management before being able to determine if a patient is ready to make the decision to

If a family member was terminally ill everyone would be very supportive on that persons wishes, but there comes a point where a person dying and suffering can be very unbearable to watch for that patients’ family. Medicine today is very expensive and sometimes too much for that patients’ family. Being a mentally stable patient knowing that you are going to die within a few months, and everyday towards the “end-of-life” the bills will start to sky rocket. “The cost of maintaining [a person dying] has been estimated as ranging from about two thousand to ten thousand dollars a month” (Dworkin 187). Of course the family will do anything that they can to save their loved ones, but only to be in financial debt after their loved one passes. The author of Life’s Dominion, Ronald Dworkin states that, “many people want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive”(193). This is a great example of the financial burden that relative will go through just to prolong their loved ones life. These terminally ill patients’ have accepted the fact that they are going to die and would like to end their lives in the most peaceful way as possible. So, if a terminally ill individual decides that PAS is the route they want to take, it will easy their families’ financial burdens as well as their own personal

Some of these include, it can lead to the increased anxiety, discomforts due to the worsening of the symptoms and distress of the patient. It could hasten death. Those interventions which are expensive are futile during that time still increases the hospital bill. The main controversy about this issue is that it is possible to withhold the necessary treatments that benefit the patient. An example for this includes withholding of pain or anxiety medicine, that could help the patient a lot when nearing death. The opposing ethical principle includes the following. Continuation of the treatment measures can prolong the life and delay the natural death of the patient. If the patient does not wish to continue their life, prolonging life goes against their right (Center for Bioethics University of Minnesota, 2005).

It should be clarified that when inevitable death is imminent, it is legitimate to refuse or limit forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, for as long as basic humane, compassionate care is not interrupted. Physicians are not obligated to and should not offer useless or futile treatments, even in the name of patient automony. Despite this, physicians still seek to obtain patient and proxy consent before writing a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. Reasons for this include fear of legal repercussions, limited physician patient relationship, time constraints, hospital culture, guilt, grief and concerns about family reaction. Some data show that physicians, tend to avoid end of life discussions due in part to their own discomfort with death and dying. Agreement to DNR status does not preclude supportive measures that keep patients free from pain and suffering as possible. Acceptable clinical practice on withdrawing or withholding treatment is based on an understanding of the medical, ethical, cultural, and religious issues of each patient. There is a need to individualize care option discussions to illness status, and patient and family preferences, beliefs, values, and

From a panel of veterinarians, they all explain how before even thinking of euthanasia as an option, they consider the physical and psychological health of the animal before determining the solution to a case. Dr. Flinchum introduces his method of considering euthanasia when an animal’s quality of life is deteriorating and would then draw a plan up to consult with the owners and would only resort to euthanasia if it is in the owner’s best interest for their pet (Hess 53). Dr. Horton states, “We also have it in our policy that we do not euthanize healthy animals. We do offer placement services or referral to behaviorists for those animals that may just need to be rehomed or retrained” (Hess 54). The method that many doctors use for euthanasia is to administer isoflurane gas through a mask until the animal is in a deep sleep state (American Veterinary 6). After, the chosen euthanasia solution would be administered into the jugular or intracardiac vein on the animal which would then result in a calm and peaceful ending for the animal. Unfortunately, the methods and practices of the doctors gathered on this panel are oftentimes not practiced at other animal hospitals. Instead, the policies of the professionals often do not consider the psychological, mental, or physical state that an animal is in and will implement euthanasia regardless of the animal’s health

With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.

Today we are face with death in a different setting then our ancestors, instead of dying at a younger age and dying in our home with our families, people are now dying at a hospital or in a medical setting. We are living longer because of the advances in medicine, this is causing us to develop diseases that our ancestors never had to face. Our ancestors did not live long enough to develop some of the diseases we face today. As Jones (2011) provides, “we don’t just die of different diseases then our ancestors, we also die in different circumstances” (p. 302). The changes in circumstances have caused us to reevaluate what is believed to be ethical when faced with dying. There are many medical options a terminal ill or elderly patient that is dying can choose from, however there is great debate whether some of these options are ethical.

Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.