Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.9
2.7
Journals
Animals
Special Issues
The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals
share announcement

The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Animal Ethics".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (20 December 2022) | Viewed by 18375

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Gerald Neitzke

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School (MHH), 30625 Hannover, Germany
Interests: medical ethics; end-of-life decisions; euthanasia
Prof. Dr. Peter Kunzman

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, 30559 Hanover, Germany
Interests: medical ethics; end-of-life decisions; euthanasia

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

Euthanasia is both a technique and a moral endeavor. In this Special Issue, the question of how to kill animals is deferred to the moral question, why and under which circumstances euthanasia can be justified. The veterinarian as a moral agent faces the decision, whether, when, why and how to kill a (companion) animal. Different value judgements arise among the team and, in comparison, with the owner. To shed light on the topic, a comparison between companion animals, farm animals, animals in a zoo, shelter animals, and even humans seems promising. Marginal cases (e.g., a horse as cattle or riding horse) can be helpful as litmus test for ethical considerations. Alternatives to euthanasia, such as animal hospice, gain significance and moral weight.

We invite both empirical and analytical paper submissions on any aspect of the ethics of euthanasia of animals. Medical, philosophical, legal and related views from different countries and cultural backgrounds are welcome. Topics include (but are not limited to):

  • What ethical challenges do veterinarians face in the context of euthanasia?
  • Are veterinary students adequately prepared for end-of-life decisions?
  • Is euthanasia defined differently, depending, e.g., on the animal species or the human–animal relation at hand?
  • Might there be an alternative to the euthanasia of companion animals?
  • To what extent are different stakeholders involved in end-of-life decisions in veterinary medicine?
  • What basic assumptions regarding animal death are pivotal for euthanasia in veterinary practice?
  • What makes euthanasia different from other forms of killing animals?
  • In which cases is euthanasia justified in healthy animals?
  • Euthanasia for animals, but not for humans? Are animals treated more humanely than humans?
  • What can medical ethics learn from veterinary ethics regarding euthanasia (and vice versa)?
  • Is the quantity of life relevant to an animal when it comes to euthanasia?
  • Is quality of life relevant to an animal when it comes to euthanasia (e.g., hemiplegic animal in a wheelchair)?

Dr. Gerald Neitzke
Prof. Dr. Peter Kunzman
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • euthanasia
  • justification of killing
  • veterinary ethics
  • medical ethics
  • veterinarian
  • moral agency
  • end-of-life decisions
  • good death

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

18 pages, 1754 KiB  
Article
Killing Kira, Letting Tom Go?—An Empirical Study on Intuitions Regarding End-of-Life Decisions in Companion Animals and Humans
by Kirsten Persson, Felicitas Selter, Peter Kunzmann and Gerald Neitzke
Animals 2022, 12(19), 2494; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192494 - 20 Sep 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1749
Abstract
Veterinary and human medicine share the challenges of end-of-life decisions. While there are legal and practical differences, there might be parallels and convergences regarding decision-making criteria and reasoning patterns in the two disciplines. In this online survey, six variants of a fictitious thought [...] Read more.
Veterinary and human medicine share the challenges of end-of-life decisions. While there are legal and practical differences, there might be parallels and convergences regarding decision-making criteria and reasoning patterns in the two disciplines. In this online survey, six variants of a fictitious thought experiment aimed at pointing out crucial criteria relevant for decision-making within and across both professional fields. The six variants introduced four human and two animal patients with the same disease but differing in age, gender and, in case of the human patients, in terms of their state of consciousness. Participants could choose between four different treatment options: euthanasia, continuous sedation, a potentially curative treatment with severe side effects and no intervention. Study participants were human and veterinary medical professionals and an additional control group of lay people. Decisions and justifications for the six variants differed but the three groups of participants answered rather homogeneously. Besides the patient’s “suffering” as a main criterion, “age”, “autonomy” and, to a lesser extent, “species” were identified as important criteria for decision-making in all three groups. The unexpected convergences as well as subtle differences in argumentation patterns give rise to more in-depth research in this cross-disciplinary field. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 602 KiB  
Article
Low and No-Contact Euthanasia: Associated Ethical Challenges Experienced by Veterinary Team Members during the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic
by Anne Quain, Siobhan Mullan and Michael P. Ward
Animals 2022, 12(5), 560; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12050560 - 23 Feb 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 5444
Abstract
Background: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many veterinary practices around the world have shifted to a low or no-contact consultation model to ensure the safety of their team members and clients, and comply with public health orders, while continuing to provide veterinary care. [...] Read more.
Background: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many veterinary practices around the world have shifted to a low or no-contact consultation model to ensure the safety of their team members and clients, and comply with public health orders, while continuing to provide veterinary care. Methods: We performed reflexive thematic analysis on a subset of data collected using a mixed-methods survey of veterinary team members globally. Results: There were 540 valid responses available for analysis. Low and no-contact euthanasia we raised as a common and/or stressful ethical challenge for 22.8% of respondents. We identified five key themes: no-contact euthanasia as a unique ethical challenge; balancing veterinary team safety with the emotional needs of clients; low and no-contact protocols may cause or exacerbate fear, anxiety and distress in veterinary patients; physical distancing was more challenging during euthanasia consultations; and biosecurity measures complicated communication around euthanasia and end-of-life decision making. Recommendations: In light of concerns highlighted by respondents, we recommend the development of a toolkit of protocols that will assist veterinary team members in performing low-contact euthanasia in a range of circumstances, in alignment with their values and professional ethical codes. Professional bodies may be involved in developing, updating and disseminating this information, and ensuring a continuous supply chain of PPE. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

24 pages, 858 KiB  
Review
Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses
by Mariessa Long, Christian Dürnberger, Florien Jenner, Zsófia Kelemen, Ulrike Auer and Herwig Grimm
Animals 2022, 12(14), 1822; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141822 - 17 Jul 2022
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3358
Abstract
Equine Quality of Life (QoL) is an important concern in decision making in veterinary medicine and is especially relevant for chronically ill or geriatric horses towards the end of their lives. To our knowledge, there is no currently available QoL assessment tool for [...] Read more.
Equine Quality of Life (QoL) is an important concern in decision making in veterinary medicine and is especially relevant for chronically ill or geriatric horses towards the end of their lives. To our knowledge, there is no currently available QoL assessment tool for chronically ill or geriatric horses that assesses equine QoL defined as the horse’s evaluation of their life. However, tools exist to assess equine welfare in different contexts. Hence, the aims of this study were to analyse how equine welfare, QoL, well-being and happiness assessment tools label, define and operationalise the concepts and to discuss the tools’ suitability to assess equine QoL in the context of end-of-life decisions for chronically ill or geriatric horses. Fourteen articles were found through a systematic literature search, describing ten equine welfare assessment tools and one approach to integrating equine QoL in veterinary practice that suggests QoL assessment parameters. We discuss that some welfare assessment tools have the potential to support the development of a QoL assessment tool informing decisions towards the end of horses’ lives if they are adjusted to focus on the horses’ experiences, to provide an integration into an overall QoL grade and are tailored to chronically ill or geriatric horses. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

13 pages, 268 KiB  
Commentary
Ethical and Practical Considerations Associated with Companion Animal Euthanasia
by Kathleen Cooney and Barry Kipperman
Animals 2023, 13(3), 430; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030430 - 27 Jan 2023
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 6439
Abstract
The reality that euthanasia in veterinary practice can end animal suffering but can also be used in circumstances that do not serve an animal’s interest, can be a benefit for animals, and a burden for veterinary professionals, respectively. This essay addresses ethical and [...] Read more.
The reality that euthanasia in veterinary practice can end animal suffering but can also be used in circumstances that do not serve an animal’s interest, can be a benefit for animals, and a burden for veterinary professionals, respectively. This essay addresses ethical and practical concerns associated with companion animal euthanasia, including defining euthanasia, why and when euthanasia should be performed, applying euthanasia in practice, contemporary methods, aftercare of deceased animals, and the consequences of euthanasia and dysthanasia for animals, animal owners, and veterinary professionals. We contend that an intention-based definition of euthanasia should be strictly applied in veterinary practice and that practitioners view euthanasia decisions as requests that can (and in some cases should) be declined, rather than as mandates. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ethics of Euthanasia of Companion Animals)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop