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…
