Continuing Comments On Euthanasia for Pets
Our readers and posters continue to discuss the effects and affects of pet euthanasia.
..."Thanks for posting! I should also add that Virginia, where I'm located, has seen substantial changes in 2008 with its animal law provisions, along with a rash of hoarding and abuse cases.
The statute mandates standards of care, and vets and shelters (and possibly now judges) may refuse to put down a perfectly healthy animal.
I am very empathetic to the individual who, particularly given the economic climate, is unable to pay for the care of their animals.
But there are many, many rescues and shelters out there who are able to help -- and as my earlier comment notes -- often cage-free and in a foster situation."
Let us know your thoughts...
Is Euthanasia a Viable Component of Estate Planning for Animal Owners
The issue of euthanasia for pets continues to bring new and different comments from the readers.
Here is the latest post:
As an owner of an animal, do we have the right legally to euthanize our healthy pet due to a health issue, death, or loss of income.
1) I agree caging a dog that has never been crated is cruel and they can lose sanity within a certain amount of time.
2) Risking that the adopter will be kind and loving is an ongoing torture for the previous owner. 3) Getting lost by the new owner is more mental and emotional torture for the previous owner.
Life doesn't guarantee humans a steady smooth course and sometime we must sacrifice giving away our beloved pets.
My question is as a pet owner do we have the right to put our healthy pet down if we fear for its safety and well being?
What If we feel, no one will love them and care for them the way we did?
After death we know where our pet is and our belief is that they are in a better place and at peace.
I would like to know what other readers feel about this.
Yet Another View on Pet Euthanasia and Estate Planning for Animal Owners
Another response on the continuing issue of euthanasia for your pets follows from a regular reader.
"Your reader's concern for preserving the life of a healthy pet when he is gone is laudable.
It is not realistic, though, to push that responsibility on to others without providing them with the means to do so.
Whether through a pet trust or informal arrangements of the sort the read describes,chosen cargivers must be provided with the financial resources to insure the pet's proper care."
Send us your thought son this issue.
A Reader's Thoughts on Pet Euthanasia and Estate Planning
I have written extensively on the various views on euthanasia for pets.
I recently received this email from one of our readers in response to a previous posting by another reader.
I can't possibly condone euthanizing perfectly healthy animals just because I'm no longer around. I would think it best to plan for your companion animals as follows: (1) Name individual(s) who can have the first option of whether to take your animals when you die; or (2) If there is no such individual, look to the place that you got your pet. Any breeder, rescue or shelter worth a lick should have had a contract stating that they would take the animal back (and should be given the opportunity to OK the individual who you name in option #1); or (3) If that fails, look to the local shelter -- or rescue if you are not satisfied with your local shelter.
The reader's blanket statements just don't hold up. First, I do not understand the statement that cruel people adopt from shelters. Many, many wonderful folks adopt many, many wonderful animals from shelters every year. Second, there are so many incredible rescue organizations out there, many of which are foster only, with no cages at all. For that matter, more and more local shelters are also setting up foster programs.
Don't get me wrong -- I believe euthanasia has its time and place. It just seems incredibly egotistical to me to think that an animal shouldn't go on because I'm no longer around. I guess I have more faith in people, shelters and rescues than this particular reader.
Your thoughts or response?
Another View on Pet Euthanasia
I recently wrote that euthanasia should be a part of your estate planning for your pets.
A reader responded with her ideas to this post:
"I would want my 14 cats euthanized if i died because
#1-they have never spent more than a few hours in a cage. I believe cages damage the spirit of animals and if they could speak English would rather be euthanized to start their spirit on a new journey!
#2- I realize that cruel people adopt animals from the shelters-never do i want my cats to suffer cruelty!!!
#3-some people loose animals. i never want my guys to EVER be lost!
I've had as many as 28 cats at one time and never had a lost one in 30 years.
Yes all of mine are neutered, get shots and vet care as needed!
I believe in humane euthanasia for feral and strays. How long could a human hang out in a cage without going bonkers? why do we think animals that sometimes have had a territory of miles and miles can do so and be healthy?
Euthanasia is a good thing and we need more vets to do it willing if that is what the owner wants!
why are humans so afraid of death? It is something everyone and everything is going to do-why not do it at a good time instead of after the suffering has set in!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Your thoughts on this difficult issue are welcome.
Euthanasia May Be a Necessary Part of Your Pet Estate Planning
I receive many inquiries regarding the need to euthanize pets when the unfortunate time arrives.
Generally both the animal owner, as well as the pet, know when it is time to consider other alternatives to medical treatment.
Although each state differs on their mandated legislation for this process, the optimal procedures to be followed are outlined below.
Procedures for Euthanasia
A warm-blooded animal may be euthanized only by administering sodium pentobarbital, a sodium pentobarbital derivative, or a substance or procedure, which acts on the central nervous system and is clinically proven to be humane. When euthanasia is accomplished by adding a lethal solution to water or food, adequate installations shall be provided for feeding and watering which are sufficiently enclosed in order to provide for protection from contamination by feces, uric acid, feathers, and any other debris.
A lethal solution must be administered in the following order of preference:
1. By intravenous injection by hypodermic needle;
2. By intraperitoneal injection by hypodermic needle;
3. By intracardial injection by hypodermic needle; or
4. By solution or powder added to food.
The animal shall be tranquilized with an approved, humane substance before euthanasia is performed.
Euthanasia must be performed by a licensed veterinarian or a licensed or registered veterinary technician under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
At least two people must be present for administration of an injection, one to hold the animal and one to perform the procedure.
An animal may not be left unattended between the time euthanasia procedures are commenced and the time death occurs, nor may its body be disposed of until death is confirmed by a qualified person.
If you find yourself in this difficult position, demand that these procedures are followed.
Reconsider an Euthansia Clause In Your Estate Planning for Your Pets
Many times, pet owners believe that no one can care for their companions with as much care and love as the owner.
Unfortunately, many owners take this idea to the extreme and inset a clause in their will that dictates euthanasia for their pets.
Why would someone spend an entire lifetime caring for a pet and then insist that the same animal be euthanized upon the death of the owner?
An excellent reference source that we often use is the website of the Michigan State College of Law, Animal Legal and Historical center.
They provide the following insight into this question:
"Just as there are instances of wills that stipulate that animals are to be cared for in the event that their owner dies, there are also instances of wills that stipulate that the animal is to be euthanized in the event that their owner dies. Although it seems ironic, the evidence indicates that these people are motivated by good intentions. In each and every case, the testimony revealed that the testator truly loved their pets. However, they believed that no one would take care of their pets and this was the only way to save them from inhumane treatment. In hindsight, their beliefs turned out to be false because once the public was made aware that the animals were to be destroyed, numerous people stepped forward to take them. In fact, usually there were so many people who wanted the animals, an agency had to be appointed to determine who would be the best caretaker among the candidates..."
You can read more here, at their website.
Please reconsider the use of a euthanasia clause in your estate planning.
When Is the Right Time to Let Your Pet Go?
Both online and in daily life, I have a lot of regular contact and interaction with various attorneys throughout the United States.
I do not know why, but it never ceases to amaze me on the number of professionals that are also pet owners and lovers.
Although the focus of our writing usually is to provide for the planning for your pets after your demise, many times, unfortunately they will die before us.
A recent post from a fellow attorney outlined his agony over the impending death of his long time companion and he questioned as to when and how he would know the correct time to let his pet move on.
The responses were both informative and supportive of his unenviable position.
I thought I would share some of them with you, as many of us will ultimately face these same decisions.
"Are we causing him pain (he does not show pain) and discomfort by keeping him with us? Are we keeping him alive for us (it is very hard to let these darn little creatures go) and am hurting him in the process. He, like all living things, want to live, chase squirrels and play... but has a finite time among us. As set in the comment, he is not showing pain but is very lethargic. The vet said we will not get a "bright shining light from heaven" to tell us it is time. I feel that, as long as he can get up, eat, eliminate, enjoy short (veryshort) walks he stays, but are there other thoughts…"
Art
"I'm with the "keep him with us until he's in pain" camp. Contrary to what the vet said, I believe you WILL get a sign that it's time."
Marilou
"If there is no quality of life for the animal, then frankly I think it's unfair to simply prolong its life so you don't have to do something as painful as euthanizing him. Trust your gut...you'll know when the time is right both for you and him. Don't wait too long though. It's not fair to either of you. I hope this helps. My thoughts are with you."
Scott...
"You'll know when the joy is gone and the pain is in control. Not a bright shining light, just one morning you'll know. Listen to your heart. My only advice: stock up on a pain prescription, so that you can ease the pain at the end if your vet is not readily available."
Rebecca
"I agree with Marilou. Having lost many dogs over many years, they each told me when life just wasn't fun anymore. I never even had a doubt - they spoke eloquently in their silent appeal to stop the pain. They each went to sleep with their heads in my lap as I stroked them. It is a dog lover's final act of love to let them go. Even though you cry a river every single time."
Sharon
"I know believe that I will always know when it is time. You, as the owner and companion, will know. There is a connection between you and your loved pet and he will let you know."
Sheila
I have no conclusions to offer with this.
No clear cut rules to follow.
I only provide some suggestions from other pet owners on how to approach this difficult time of indecision and pain in your life.
Euthanasia Battle for Pets Heats Up
The story focuses on the difference in philosophical beliefs of major animal rights groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Humane Society of the United States (Humane Society) and smaller, but vocal groups regarding euthanasia for pets, particularly at major shelters.
Some municipalities have enacted legislation for immediate or future no-kill goals for public and private shelters.
While this debate is not going to be quickly or easily resolved, we found some of the comments to the story to be very interesting and wanted to share some of them with you (the identification of the comments are self proclaimed and the comments are verbatim).
Tina Clark: Comment: “Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy (sic) sick nor hopelessy (sic) injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.”
RottieRuckus: Comment: “My area shelter, in a small city in New Hampshire, is a no-kill shelter. What that means for people looking to surrender less than desirable breeds of dogs (Pitts and Rotties, for instance) or older, big dogs is that the shelter refuses to take them. Until all the elements are assembled--readily available, affordable spay/neuter programs, buying only from COE breeders, or acquiring a dog from breed rescue groups or shelters, no-kill is a beautiful (sic) theory that fails in practicality.”
SharedThought: Comment: “One way to reduce animal euthenasia, (sic) would be to require that animals can only be sold to households licensed to buy them. Only households in which at least one adult member of the household has successfully completed a course about the proper care of animals, could be licensed. And, licensed households that fail to deal with animals responsibly, (sic) could lose both their animals and their license.”
CVHumane: Comment: “The final issue not talked about in this article, is the meshing of the "No Kill" with the spay/neuter emphasis. In addition to the ramping up of a volunteer corps and outreach programs, spay/neuter is very much a major component of the No Kill movement just as it is for PETA and the Humane Society of the United States. There should be no conflict in this. It is not either/or, it is both controlling births and finding loving homes for homeless companion animals.” C.Vreeland, President, Humane Society of Greater Kansas City
Interesting, emotional thoughts on this issue…
Where do you stand? Let us know…
