This resource was updated as part of the veterinary review process. It was originally published on April 23, 2019.
Animal sanctuaries committed to providing lifelong compassionate care must also consider what a dignified, peaceful end-of-life would look like for their residents. Although the ideal would be for all residents to peacefully pass in their sleep simply due to graceful aging, unfortunately for many animals, the end of their days does not often come without pain, struggle, and fear. At a certain point, a resident’s suffering may overwhelm their daily life to the point where it is no longer compassionate to continue managing their challenges if improvement to their condition is impossible.
For this reason, creating and committing to compassionate euthanasiaThe act of ending someone’s life to spare them from suffering or a significantly reduced quality of life that cannot be managed. policies should be a critical component of your organization’s operations. Although this may be a difficult topic for your organization to think about, having these policies in place can help guide your sanctuary through painful decisions with greater confidence and gentleness. Ultimately, what specifically goes into your sanctuary’s euthanasia policies will be a reflection of your values, mission, and philosophy of care.
Writing Your Organization’s Euthanasia Policies
When writing your sanctuary’s euthanasia policies, you should think critically about each of the following considerations, where your organization stands on the issues, and how to most effectively and clearly communicate your positions so they are actionable and comprehensive in all relevant situations, no matter how stressful they may be. When creating your sanctuary’s euthanasia policies, it’s important to consider the following questions:
Why Would Euthanasia Be Considered For A Resident?
Barring a situation in which you are legally mandated to have an individual euthanized (which we’ll discuss more below), all euthanasia decisions should center around the individual’s quality of life. When crafting your euthanasia policies, be sure to think about what specific quality-of-life concerns would lead your organization to consider euthanasia as an option for a resident. Conditions for which an organization should consider euthanasia include those that affect the basic functions of an animal’s life – eating, breathing, sleeping, defecating, or urinating. Without the ability to perform those basic functions, an individual’s quality of life is severely impacted. Situations where euthanasia should be discussed include:
- A resident has an incurable disease, condition, or injury that clearly causes significant pain or suffering that cannot be managed, or the treatment of which will cause unreasonable pain or suffering in itself, or the treatment will not bring back an acceptable quality of life
- A resident has a significant impairment to their breathing that cannot be treated or managed
- A resident is suffering from uncontrollable, unmanageable seizures that significantly reduce their quality of life
- A resident is suffering from end-stage organ failure that significantly reduces their quality of life
Whenever possible, it can be helpful for multiple team members who know the individual and have significant knowledge about their species to assess and discuss their quality of life. Although this can be tough to work through, this process can serve as valuable data to determine how comfortable or enjoyable of a life an ailing resident is truly living.
Unless you have been legally mandated to do so, there should never be any instances of mass “euthanasia” at an animal sanctuary, where a herd or flock is killed without individual consideration. To do so would strip all individuals involved of the dignity and individualized care promised to them when they were brought into a sanctuary environment. There may be tragic occasions of infectious disease outbreaks at sanctuaries where entire flocks or herds may be afflicted, but individualized care should continue to be prioritized. Rather than ever making the blanket decision to euthanize an entire flock or herd of animals based on disease risk alone, you’ll want to have a discussion with your veterinarian about the risk of disease transmission, the consequences of said disease, and what biosecurity measures can be implemented to prevent disease spread. In addition to taking your veterinarian’s recommendations into account, each individual resident should be evaluated, treated (if possible), and their quality of life observed.
Emergency Euthanasia
Although it hopefully never transpires at your sanctuary, be sure to consider what your organization would do In the event of a resident suffering from sudden extreme, unmanageable pain, injury, or distress, such as following a catastrophic accident or health emergency. While some of your policies will still apply, be sure to consider if others need additional stipulations for emergencies. For example, if a key decision-maker is unavailable, how would your team proceed?
Prohibited Euthanasia Motivators
In addition to thinking about what factors might warrant euthanasia, you should also consider what factors are not acceptable reasons to consider euthanasia. For example, we believe that the following factors are unacceptable reasons to consider euthanasia of a resident:
On The Basis Of Capacity Alone: As mentioned above, certain treatments that are necessary to improve the quality of life of a sick or injured resident may exceed your care team’s capacity, necessitating consideration of euthanasia, but an animal sanctuary should never euthanize any healthy residents due to a lack of any variable of capacity, be it a lack of space, a lack of funding, or a lack of staff bandwidth. When a sanctuary takes in a resident, they’re making a lifelong commitment to that individual. As such, sanctuaries must be careful not to exceed capacity so they can continue to honor the commitment they’ve made to each of their residents. If unforeseen circumstances arise that make continuing to care for residents impossible, for example, if a sanctuary is forced to close due to financial struggles, alternatives to euthanasia should be sought, such as rehoming residents with thoroughly vetted adopters or other sanctuaries.
On The Basis Of Age Alone: By virtue of receiving lifelong care, hopefully, a sanctuary’s residents will grow old and continue to enjoy their lives through the years. As residents age, their care needs might change, but that does not mean that their quality of life is inherently poor! Euthanasia should not be considered due to a resident’s age, but rather based on whether they are suffering due to a condition that cannot be managed.
Who Is Involved In Euthanasia Decisions At Your Sanctuary?
Part of your organization’s euthanasia policies should clearly explain who is involved (and who isn’t) with the decision to euthanize an individual, and whether any one team member has a final say in the matter. When thinking about who within your organization should be involved in euthanasia decisions, be sure to think about why they should be involved in the decision. How much knowledge do they have about animal health and animal care? What relationship do they have with the resident, and how well do they know them? How involved are they with the individual’s daily life and care? The caregiver(s) who know residents best and work most closely with them should always be part of this decision. If your organization has a Shelter Manager, they will likely be part of the decision as well. For some organizations, it may also make sense for the Executive Director, and even the board as a whole, to be part of this decision, but at other organizations, these folks may be too removed from the day-to-day care of the residents or they may not have enough animal care knowledge to weigh in.
A sanctuary must think very carefully about who is involved in the decision-making process with respect to euthanasia. Without the voice of an advocate who knows a resident’s general demeanor, personality, and preferences, as well as an understanding of their species or breed, a sanctuary risks making decisions without a full picture of the individual in question, potentially misinterpreting what they are seeing or missing subtle variables in a complex and final decision; and if someone in a management position decides upon euthanasia without input from those who work often with the resident, they risk losing the support of their staff and community.
Including multiple people in the decision promotes discussion and ensures that those involved are considering the full scope of an individual’s quality of life. Animals may behave differently around different people and at different times of day, so involving multiple people in the discussion will provide everyone with more information in order to make the most compassionate and informed decision possible. Additionally, by implementing a policy in which more than one person is involved in all euthanasia decisions, folks can share the weight of this potentially emotionally taxing decision and support each other through the process. If euthanasia is frequently left up to a single individual, steps should be taken to ensure that their mental health is given extra consideration to help protect them from compassion fatigue. Even if euthanasia is the most compassionate choice for a suffering individual, the decision is still likely to be an emotionally devastating one.
In addition to facilitating discussion and ensuring multiple perspectives, having a team of folks to work through these decisions can also help protect against the decision being unintentionally influenced by unrelated factors. Euthanasia is often a difficult, emotional decision, and it’s not surprising that those involved in the decision may be unknowingly influenced by things such as emotional trauma from a previous euthanasia decision, issues in their personal life, compassion fatigueA form of Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder that can affect anyone serving individuals who have experienced or are currently experiencing trauma., or even their relationship with the animal. We are all influenced by our past and our current situation, but having multiple people involved in these important decisions can help ensure that the individual’s needs and quality of life are thoroughly and thoughtfully assessed.
Many organizations include a stipulation that a licensed veterinarian (or multiple veterinarians), preferably one who has worked with the individual before, evaluate and sign off on the decision that euthanasia is the most compassionate course of action for an ailing individual. In situations where an individual has been living with a progressive or chronic condition, it’s a good idea to have your veterinarian assess them regularly. Not only will this give them ample opportunities to evaluate their current health and make adjustments to their care plan, but it will also allow them to monitor their quality of life. Sometimes, seeing an individual every day (as a caregiverSomeone who provides daily care, specifically for animal residents at an animal sanctuary, shelter, or rescue. does) makes it harder to recognize how an individual’s quality of life has changed if it has slowly declined. These changes may be more apparent to your veterinarian if they see the individual regularly, but not daily. Your veterinarian can also conduct diagnostics that will give you additional information about their general health (i.e., conducting blood work to monitor organ function), which can be helpful to consider in addition to their outward signs.
How Will Euthanasia Be Performed?
Part of your policies should include a section on how euthanasia is to be carried out and by whom. In the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) provides Guidelines regarding euthanasia to provide “guidance for veterinarians about how to prevent and/or relieve the pain and suffering of animals that are to be euthanized.” The Guidelines break euthanasia methods into the following categories: inhaled agents, non-inhaled agents, and physical methods. For each species covered in the Guidelines, euthanasia methods are classified as acceptable, acceptable with conditions, or unacceptable, which they define as follows (emphasis added):
- “Acceptable methods are those that consistently produce a humane death when used as the sole means of euthanasia.”
- “Methods acceptable with conditions are those techniques that may require certain conditions to be met to consistently produce humane death, may have greater potential for operator error or safety hazard, are not well documented in the scientific literature, or may require a secondary method to ensure death. Methods acceptable with conditions are equivalent to acceptable methods when all criteria for application of a method can be met.”
- “Unacceptable techniques are those methods deemed inhumane under any conditions or that the [Panel On Euthanasia] found posed a substantial risk to the human applying the technique.”
For farmed animal species, the only euthanasia method that is acceptable without conditions is the intravenous administration of injectable anesthetics such as barbiturates and barbituric acid derivatives (i.e., euthanasia solution – which falls under the non-inhaled agent category). According to the AVMA, this is one of the most rapid and reliable methods of euthanasia. The AVMA classifies certain physical methods (such as the use of a firearm or captive bolt gun) as acceptable with conditions, but at The Open Sanctuary Project, we believe individuals deserve to be euthanized using non-physical methods. More specifically, we recommend that individuals who require euthanasia be sedated or anesthetized and then euthanized using a species-appropriate euthanasia solution administered in accordance with AVMA guidance. We feel this method can best provide the gentle ending to a beloved resident’s life that we strive for in sanctuary spaces. In the U.S., laws regarding euthanasia (such as who may possess euthanasia solution and who may administer it) vary by state. Even if not legally required in your region, we recommend having a licensed veterinarian perform or directly oversee euthanasia procedures because it provides one more opportunity for the individual’s condition to be assessed and discussed.
While the well-being of the individual in need of euthanasia should be at the forefront of all euthanasia decisions, it’s also important to consider the impact a particular method might have on other residents and sanctuary humans. While euthanasia may always cause some degree of distress to others, the violence inherent in physical methods is likely to cause more significant distress (even if all conditions outlined by the AVMA have been met) than the administration of euthanasia solution. Though the process is not exactly the same in some farmed animal species as it is in cats and dogs, this method will likely feel familiar to those who have witnessed the non-physical euthanasia of a beloved cat or dog.
Talking To Veterinarians About Euthanasia
When it comes to euthanasia, there can be significant differences between what a sanctuary expects and what a veterinarian is used to with other clients. Therefore, when finding qualified veterinarians for different species under your care, it’s important that you talk to potential candidates about your euthanasia policies, and ask them upfront about whether they’d be comfortable and qualified to euthanize residents using the gentle, non-physical methods described above. It’s far better to have these discussions before a difficult, time-sensitive decision must be made because witnessing an unnecessarily painful or scary euthanasia experience is both traumatizing to human caregivers and a tragic end for the resident.
Who Will Be Present For The Euthanasia?
Though it may be different in each situation, it’s important to think about which humans will be present for euthanasia and how this decision is made. Whenever possible, we recommend having someone from your sanctuary present for every resident euthanasia (the exception here might be if an individual has been hospitalized and the current situation is so urgent that there is not enough time for someone to get to the hospital). This person should be familiar with your sanctuary’s euthanasia policies and, for on-site euthanasia, this person should also be able to assist your veterinarian if necessary. If you have multiple people who meet these criteria, it might be helpful to have a discussion ahead of time about who would like to be present and who would not.
Besides these essential folks, you may have additional personnel who would like to be present or who would like to spend time with the resident beforehand. Though it’s important to make space for sanctuary humans to grieve and process this impending loss, the individual resident’s psychological needs must be prioritized when determining if and how much human attention is appropriate. If the resident is demonstrating that they welcome human attention, it may be best to arrange for folks to spend time with the individual before the veterinarian arrives and then ask them to leave until the individual is fully sedated. If an individual is demonstrating that they do not currently want any kind of human attention (e.g., presence, touching, talking), it’s important to keep it to a minimum as much as possible until they are anesthetized. Though euthanasia is probably the most serious decision we can make for a resident, it is imperative that folks continue to support their agency and respect their preferences and needs throughout the entire process.
We recommend having ongoing discussions with sanctuary personnel about resident agency (including how to support your residents’ agency, and how to decide if and when it’s appropriate to override it), but it may be helpful to bring up the topic again and remind folks of the importance of consent-based interactions when you are preparing to say goodbye to a resident. In some cases, you may want to provide some guidelines regarding what types of non-verbal cues folks should be looking for when interacting with a resident that would indicate that their presence is not appreciated, or worse, is causing distress (this is especially important if the individual is immobilized due to disease or injury). In some cases, it may be best to have an experienced caregiver present so they can gently step in if the individual is showing signs that they need a little bit of space or want to be left alone.
Once the individual is fully anesthetized, you may decide that any sanctuary personnel who wish to be present for the euthanasia can be. It’s a good idea to discuss this with your veterinarian ahead of time, so you’re both on the same page. Make sure everyone present knows that they must follow your veterinarian’s instructions with regard to noise level, physical touching of the individual, etc., to prevent stimulation which could counteract sedation.
Post-Euthanasia Considerations
There are a lot of decisions to make and regulations to consider at the conclusion of a resident’s life. Check out our resource about other end-of-life considerations here.
To Publicize Or Not To Publicize
Few animal sanctuaries make their euthanasia policies public. Although it is commendable to provide such high transparency to the community, the difficult decision to end a resident’s life can cause significant controversy among a public that may not have as full a picture as your organization does, and releasing your euthanasia policies to the public might not send the message of thoughtful care in the way you had hoped it would. Ultimately, although having euthanasia policies on hand is crucial, it is up to a sanctuary to decide whether this is something they want the public to have detailed knowledge about.
Keeping Record Of End-Of-Life Events
In order to help sanctuaries track end-of-life care at their organizations, we’ve developed a free downloadable form just for this purpose. We encourage all sanctuaries to either use our free form or develop one that suits their specific needs!
SOURCES:
AVMA Guidelines For The Euthanasia Of Animals: 2020 Edition | American Veterinary Medical Association (Non-Compassionate Source)
Euthanasia Reference Manual | The Humane Society Of The United StatesA nonprofit organization based in the United States that promotes animal welfare. The Humane Society does not operate any animal shelters, but they do promote best practices for them. Local Humane Society shelters are unrelated to the national organization. (Non-Compassionate Source)
State Animal Euthanasia Laws | American Veterinary Medical Association (Non-Compassionate Source)
