A topic as delicate as euthanasia in animals sparks great interest, touching the deepest chords of the human soul — whether it concerns the animal’s owner or the professional.
The recognition of animals as sentient beings and the growing tendency to regard pets as family members mean that the choice to accompany one’s pet to death — on the one hand as an owner, and on the other as a patient — carries a significant moral weight.
While it is fairly common to dwell on the perspective of the animal’s life companion, the viewpoint of the veterinarian is often pushed into the background. The veterinarian must, in some way, carry out their duty in good conscience and knowledge, managing the animal, the owner, and their own emotions. Yes, emotions indeed: the veterinarian is a human being and remains one, despite years of study, experience, and the daily habit of facing doubts and choices — both their own and those of others.
Fortunately, in Italy the so-called “convenience euthanasia” — which allows an owner to “get rid of” an animal without a plausible justification related to its health condition — is not permitted. However, even here it is not uncommon for veterinarians to face requests for the termination of an animal’s life that have little to do with a genuine right to the animal’s wellbeing and dignity, but instead stem from human interests, more or less cleverly disguised. Even in these cases, for the good of the animal, the veterinarian must find the right arguments and suggest the right course of action to avoid becoming complicit in a crime — and, above all, in conduct that cannot be justified morally, before others or before oneself.
On the other hand, the ever-increasing availability of treatments and new technologies makes it possible to catch diseases early or to manage chronic conditions with greater ease, allowing for greater longevity. At that point, however, a different doubt arises: to what extent is it right to keep one’s animal alive when it can no longer cope? When must one set limits, in order to ensure a dignified life for the animal and spare it unnecessary suffering?
While debate currently occupies considerable space on the question of whether human dignity also involves the choice — under certain conditions — of when and how to die, domestic animals depend on the will of the human who cares for them. Among the factors that may influence the owner’s decision are, for example, and in addition to the animal’s health condition and the availability of treatments and equipment that might offer some hope of recovery, the owner’s financial circumstances, the sharing of the decision within the family, and the availability of help and support for the “caregiver” (borrowing a term used in human care, meaning the person who looks after the animal) from the network of friends and associations.
The therapeutic alliance between the veterinarian and the owner makes it possible to thoroughly analyse all the elements under discussion, explore solutions, and face even moments of crisis. The owner, knowing their animal’s habits, preferences, and signals, can understand — if aware and “present” in the here and now — what might be best for the animal; while the veterinarian, thanks to their expertise, can be well equipped to explain and help the owner understand the animal’s actual condition, the risks, and the possible side effects of treatments. If it is easy to condemn the putting down of an animal for selfish reasons, it becomes harder to recognise in an owner who is viscerally attached to their pet the form of blindness that leads to a denial of reality and an inability to see how much more grateful their friend would be if spared from suffering.
To do this, the veterinarian must possess not only medical competence, but also ethical and communicative skills, which are indispensable for guiding the owner through the decision and, where necessary, for helping them cope with grief. Only the alliance between the veterinarian and the owner, guided by the animal’s best interests, can help navigate the most acceptable path. A path that will certainly not be the ideal one, a path that no one would have chosen, but one that in that specific situation can be justified to others and, above all, to ourselves.
