Euth-happy vets

Re: Euth-happy vets

Emma Purnell — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:02:50 GMT

[quote user="BengalcatRVN"]

Seen it with strays too, a kitten, very sick, kept alive as they wanted to give it a chance. Died 2 days later, felt sorry for the poor thing suffering. "But at least we gave it a chance"

Yes, a chance to suffer, very good. But some people can't see it and I was called heartless. No, I'm in this job to releave suffering, through nursing care or doing the right thing. It isn't easy, but I know it is right.

[/quote]

This isn't just you, it was just a point I made at work the other day.

At what point is the border here? If that cat had, through sheer luck, made it through and became a well, happy kitten then euthanasia would have been frowned upon. How can you tell exactly which way some of these cases are going to go? If you think you can, through time and effort, allow something to get well and carry on - however hard or whatever the cost - should you still euthanase? Or is it then ok to try?

Re: Euth-happy vets

BengalcatRVN — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:45:24 GMT

Seen it with strays too, a kitten, very sick, kept alive as they wanted to give it a chance. Died 2 days later, felt sorry for the poor thing suffering. "But at least we gave it a chance"

Re: Euth-happy vets

annaschu — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:25:00 GMT

To be honest, I have much more of an issue with vets who WON'T euthanase...

and not just strays & wildlife but owned pets that very obviously aren't going to 'do'. Heartbreaking when you know that an owner cares deeply for said pet and therefore puts all their trust in the advice given by their vet, therefore unwittingly prolonging their loved ones suffering.

Re: Euth-happy vets

gobbolino — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:42:12 GMT

[quote user="Emma Kerry"]

We had the same situation, I now take on managable wildlife, rehab it in the quiet at home and release or pass on to specialist centres where needed.

While I bend over backwards to do this, I always assess the wildlife first and, if it has no chance or a very poor chance, it is euthanased. I also use my own money and time to do this - I would NOT recommend doing this

My main issue with wildlife and strays is that they can be classed as second class. We have in an RTA dog and even with no owner it is seen immediately, assessed and a treatment plan started - even if that treatment is PTS. An RTA pigeon? Put in a kennel until someone is free...

[/quote]

I totally agree Emma. I guess its a balance. There's no point trying with wildlife unless you know what you're doing as they can get so stressed out etc but no good bungong them in a cage or 'handrearing' if they end up too imprinted and would get attacked in the wild HOWEVER it really doesn't take much effort to learn a few basic wildlife rehab things . Plenty of good info out there ( eg. in rcvs wildlife manuals, tiggywinkes and other independent places) so if there is someone with an interest in the practice then it is defiantely worth proper assessmnet and treatment if release possible. If not, best polict in my opinion is that they need to be moved to a PROPER rehab ( we are lucky enough to have folly wildlife rescue in sussex and rspca mallydams about 2 hours away so if thing have been in for tratnment and are viable, they go there) but otherwise, euthanasia is better then being neglected and in pain in a cage with all the noise and stress going on.

As far as cats/ dog etc concerned assessment again should be made. A vet is not worth their salt if tey cponsider euthanasia of a perfectly healthy young animal but we have such a through fair of geriatic strays that have multiple issues 9 prob renal/hyperthyroid0 that if we didn't put them to sleep , they would just block places for younger aniamls with better prospects. This is a tough decision and I hate being involved with euthanasia of elderly animals...and it isn't ethical....BUT..what is the solution ??? Until we can educate people not to just use their animals as disposable items to 'chuck out' or ' leave behind ' when they move we will always be left to do this job.....well, til I open my sanctuary for geriatric cats that is..........maybe one day ...!!!!When I win the lottery .

As for the staffie issue, this makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall. These poor dogs... yes, we all know they can make wonderful family pets but there's so bloody many of them !!! And they are so unsuitable for certain people who don't know how to deal with their destructive tendencies and dog aggression if not properly socialised ...shoot the breeders thats what I say...and praise, praise , praise them at battersea and dogs trust etc who try their very best with limited resources.... and sometimes we have to bite the bullet and try and live with the choices we make to pts some of these animals , sometimes it is for the 'greater good'........i say with a heavy heart...

Re: Euth-happy vets

louise170388 — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:27:19 GMT

Its a difficult one to call. I think the RSPCA and other authorities who tell people to 'take them to your local vet' should really rethink this, most vets are small animal practices, and don't have the facilities to nurse/treat wildlife properly, so they'r already off to a bad start. And for the time and effort it takes, and the possible outcome being a stressed out suffering birdy thats gonna be pts anyway, I think most vets just opt for euth as it seems fairer.

Also, we all know how busy we can get with patients, ops, consults and everything else.. It can be time consuming on a busy day to deal with a stray that has no financial benefit to the practice (I think my bosses way of thinking is rubbing off on me!) and also allows less time for the patients we already have. These people should be told where there nearest wildlife centre/rescue is and take them there. Its all to easy to say 'take it to your vet' but whilst this seems like a good idea it's not really in the wildlifes best interest

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katie Mansfield — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:48:18 GMT

glad you're happier

K x

Re: Euth-happy vets

littleblue — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:41:47 GMT

It's been a while since I've posted here and I'm sorry to bump up an old thread, but I'd just like to say that I've changed practices and have seen a big improvement in the way vets here treat wildlife and strays.

Everything gets assessed fully and thoroughly (time permitting, paying patients get seen first of course...) and then it's either euthed or sent to a local wildlife rebahilitator depending on severity of injuries or disease. We have lots of wildlife rehabilitators in Australia that volunteer their time to look after sick or inured wildlife. I believe it is a noble thing to help give an animal a second chance at life.

This new practice is much better than my old one in many ways :)

Re: Euth-happy vets

A Little TLC — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:24:43 GMT

I've seen some truly appalling things sent over from vets. I just can't get in my head, how some of them can see something in serious pain and just ignore it.

One example, should have been PTS there and then, instead of left in a cage 4 hours with no treatment then brought over to us - this was an intestinal prolapse, and all because it was wild.

Another animal, bright as a button, but heaving with maggots, they refused to treat it, not one single maggot was taken off, turned up to us, we treated immediately, FULL recovery was made.

Another, a hedgehog turned up with notes from the vet, saying what it was eating, how its moving around its cage 'snuffling', just underweight, needs to be fed up. We unroll it, one seriously old compound fractured leg, fully examined? I think not. Amped leg, and it now happily running round one of our secure gardens, but why was this missed? It couldn't even bloody walk on it!

Then there are so so many put to sleep with no injuries at all, just picked up. I just cannot understand it.

If something is in pain, it should be helped, and just because something can be caught, does NOT mean its dying.

I do not see the point in killing something just because its arrived without a wallet. A lot of wildlife seems to end with this fate, regardless of its 'symptoms'.

I have honestly lost count of the number of people who have brought animals in, saying, we took it to the vet, but they said they would put it to sleep. The vast majority of which have made it successfully back to the wild. More often than not, within two days.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Sal the 1st — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:23:46 GMT

[quote user="Katherine Spear"]

I dont know if theyve started using it again, quite likely I expect as it must have been a nightmare for them not to be able to euthanaise. I believe they decided to stop using it themselves because the red tape was so extensive for them to carry/use Controlled Drugs. So the vet clinics still used it but not the inspectors I think. So they werent stopped from using it but made their own new policy.

[/quote]

As I understood it at the time the decision to take an animal to a vet for euthanasia was brought about by this case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6115690/RSPCA-puts-down-10-German-Shepherds-with-bolt-gun.html

and a few others - and was as much about seeking professional advice prior to euthanasing an animal as it was about about the issue of carrying euth juice around

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katherine Spear — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:03:13 GMT

I totally agree with you Emma Kerry, the way that injured wildlife gets forgotten about and left in a noisy kennel room until it inevitably dies is completely terrible & so unacceptable & so unprofessional, I cant believe it when I hear that happens. Its a sad state of affairs when an injuired animal would have done better off Not being brought into the vets.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Tracy Windler RVN — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:47:44 GMT

[quote user="Katherine Spear"]I believe they decided to stop using it themselves because the red tape was so extensive for them to carry/use Controlled Drugs. So the vet clinics still used it but not the inspectors I think. So they werent stopped from using it but made their own new policy.[/quote]

Euthatal is a POM as well as a controlled drug, so Inspectors should never have been allowed to use it, surely? I was very disturbed by a programme I saw a few years ago where an inspector picked up a stray cat, looked at it, said it had cat flu and put it to sleep in the back of her van. This was before I was a nurse, but it didn't seem right to me????

Re: Euth-happy vets

Emma Purnell — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:28:56 GMT

We had the same situation, I now take on managable wildlife, rehab it in the quiet at home and release or pass on to specialist centres where needed.

Re: Euth-happy vets

shropshirelass_1987 — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:46:16 GMT

To be fair we're fairly lucky with my current practice as all our strays so far have managed to be rehomed, although we do give them up to a couple of weeks before either pts'ing them or passing them onto the dog wardens ect.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:14:23 GMT

Wildlife:

It is worth remembering that euthanasia can never cause a welfare issue. Choosing not to euthanase can.

It may seem to be the 'easiest' option to take, but it is usually the right one.

There are very few species which can be successfully rehabilitated back into the wild after serious injury. In my personal opinion, wildlife should not be caged unless they are born into/habituated to it or there are major conservation issues. Most vets do not want the responsibility of euthanasing any creature, but not dealing with it would be passing on your responsibility. I too would be curious whether the OP has a wildlife rescue locally or whether rehabilitation is going to be very difficult to provide. You can't just fix them...you have to look after them until they are fully fit for release. You cannot provide that with any wild creature in a veterinary practice.

As far as strays - there are more dogs and cats than there are homes. It is a fact. If an animal is very unlikely to be rehomed then passing it onto the dog warden or a rescue centre will have the same outcome - euthanasia. Or a life in a kennel.

Having said that, there is no reason why young healthy animals can't be looked after until a rescue centre or home is found. I'm not completely heartless!

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katherine Spear — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:34:32 GMT

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katie Mansfield — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:11:44 GMT

Out of interest - does anyone know why the RSPCA were stopped from using euthatal?

K x

Re: Euth-happy vets

Sal the 1st — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:22:38 GMT

[quote user="Katherine Spear"]

PS Bengal Cat I think the RSPCA have a new system of organising their euthanasia but it still involves going to a vets for euthatal - they just dont keep it themselves & they dont drop a brick on it or anything. Or did the inspector say they did?! Any RSPCA nurses here to clarify?!

[/quote]

havnt they been recently given access to euth juice again?

Re: Euth-happy vets

Julie-Anne Wilson — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:44:07 GMT

Yeah, I'm of the mindset that if it can be fixed with as little handling as possible and released to lead a normal life, then go for it. If it's something that's going to need too much handling in recovery and could potentially ruin the animals "fear" of human contact then it really shouldn't be done 'cos that animal isn't really going to have the same life on release.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Sal the 1st — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:37:21 GMT

[quote user="Katie Mansfield"]

Had a case in a little while ago that upset me - at first.

Unwanted Staffie - one amongst millions. Bought in for PTS cos the owners could no longer cope. Yes, she was lovely, yes we wanted to try to get the owners to re-home, but she wasn't a young dog. And, as our vet pointed out, the rescue centres near here are all fit to burst. Everywhere is full of unwanted Staffies and Staffie-types. Was it kinder to PTS this poor unwanted dog in our lovely hospital or send her to a re-homing centre (if we could have got her a place) only for her to stay kennelled for a few months, not get homed because of her breed and age and then be PTS anyway cos the centre need to make room for new arrivals?

K x

[/quote]

exactly - and each case is individual, but sometimes pts is the best option for a particular animal.

Something I have never got my head around are the people who object to zoos and proclaim to all who will listen how cruel they are but often the self same people will support wildlife centres which often have animals that have no chance of rehab because they are too damaged to survive in the wild but have them on show to the public or rescue centres that have dogs in runs sometimes for years waiting for the new home that never happens - to me that is just as cruel.

And before anybody starts thinking I kill everything on sight - all but 2 of my cats have been 'recycled' and I ran the local raptor rescue in the past. I will give anything a chance but sometimes you have to call it a day.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Julie-Anne Wilson — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:18:25 GMT

I agree with bengalcat, if you're not equipped to deal with wildlife, you're going to do more harm than good. We're lucky enough to be really close to Hessilhead Wildlife centre, so if we get anything in that CAN be fixed, we'll send it to them. If the vet feels it's unfixable we'll PTS.

As for strays, our vets don't like to PTS just because it's a stray. We had a cat in that got signed over to us, had him for almost a month on urinary diet, cystaid and hypovase. In those cases, I can see why PTS, it does cost the practice a lot of money. That particular cat was on 3 and the Vet felt bad about putting him down so I ended up taking him home and he got PTS after 10 days anyway. It was very sad, but we at least gave him a chance.

We had another cat brought in as a stray that we kept for a month then finally sent him to CPL since it was their screw up that made him a stray in the first place. They'd chipped him then hadn't changed the details when the owner took him, also hadn't kept a note of the chip number anywhere so they couldn't even contact his new owners for us.

I can see it from both sides but luckily I work for a practice that aren't too euth happy.

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katie Mansfield — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:15:16 GMT

Had a case in a little while ago that upset me - at first.

K x

Re: Euth-happy vets

Gemma Burden RVN — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:11:32 GMT

I have to say I do agree wtih Bengal Cat and Sal the 1st, often with wildlife it just isn't fair on them to do carry out a lot of treatment. I generally feel that, with the exception of hedgehogs and other animals that don't move particularly fast, that if you can catch them then there is usually something seriously wrong (even if its not obvious) or they would do everything that they could to avoid being caught. We are luckly where I work, we have a local lady that takes on any "healthy" wildlife for us, but even with all the work she puts in a lot of the animals we pass on to her either die or have to be put to sleep. Just being hospitalised in a normal clinic is too stressful for most wildlife species. Then there is the issue of re-releasing species that are classed as vermin.

I do feel differently about strays as unless they are suffering and need to be euthinased on humane grounds they you do need to either get to them to a shelter or allow time for an owner to come forward, and in general, if you can't find an owner we find that if you put up a poster in reception or run a story in the local paper then it doesn't take long to get a new owner for them

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katherine Spear — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:52:00 GMT

Re: Euth-happy vets

Katherine Spear — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:47:23 GMT

I agree with you 'A Little TLC'! Easily treatable wildlife & strays certainly should be treated & defo see it as our professional obligation to treat them. Sometimes wildlife just needs time to get over shock, sometimes more, but they should certainly be treated if they can be rather than euthaniased without examinaton, or ignored - they may only need good nursing & can be relseased. Certainly Vets & Nurses Ive worked with go above and beyond to help wildlife (- within reason of course, im not saying keep everything alive on the chance it may recover - if its untreatable its a very different matter). Part of being professional is to be professional all the time, not just to the patients that will make money. If its a money issue that stops a clinic treating wildlife then why not have a donation box on reception & actively encourage people (especially those who bring in endless numbers of seagulls, rabbits....etc) to donate to their treatment or something?

Re: Euth-happy vets

Sal the 1st — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:51:36 GMT

I agree with Bengalcat - you have to be realistic about that animals chances of surviving hospitalisation and its long term chances in the case of wildlife. Stray cats and dogs - if you can get them into a shelter asap then great but if you cant then what do you do? Its alright saying vets should be doing this and vets should be doing that and most vets I have worked for will do what they can , but there is only so much you can do with the resources you have and whatever is done should be in the best interests of the animal which may not always fit in with everybodys expectations.