Juan Aqustin Gomez, Veterinarian
After some years of practice in the small animals clinic, it started developing in me an increasing restlessness with respect to this subject, since I had always suspected that it was necessary to have a position, a coherent attitude and fairly honest insight to a situation in which so many times I had found myself involved and acted mechanically according to the "uses and customs" socially and professionally accepted. A few years more have passed, I’ve accumulated experience, I have observed with concern and attention, I have incorporated information and at the moment I believe that I am able to express an opinion when it is required and this one is one of those opportunities.
First of all we must give a clear meaning of the word "euthanasia", in order that we can all know what we are talking about when we mention it. Personally, I think that the word is wrongly used since etymologically means "good death" or "to die well" and the dictionary well defines it as "death without suffering" and so it is not so often that whoever practices it, stops to think if they are causing any kind of suffering to their VICTIMS. Let us remember, for example, the sadly spread use of relaxing substances of the type "Paranoval" and others that simply kills by asphyxia.
In this opportunity I want to talk about an extreme situation that, in the daily practice of the small animals clinic, usually appears in the relationship between patient, owner and veterinarian, leaving aside, momentarily all the other reasons, circumstances and means by which it is decided that one, or several animals must die. It is better that way because the analysis of cultural, social and economic motivations implies an ample and deep technical knowledge of each one of those fields and it does not seem prudent to me to treat them lightly. Anyway, whatever is the starting point, the aim is the vindication of a fundamental ethical principle: the respect of life in all its forms.
Out of the mentioned relationship of three (patient, owner, veterinarian) I will try to analyze, in the first place, the diverse attitudes of two of its members, following therefore the established custom that is to do without the opinion of a third. I will leave for the end the point of view of the situation and the attitude of this third character who is, obviously, the patient.
The veterinary doctor and the owner must agree, necessarily in affirmative sense, for the fact to take place. Why does the owner decide that their animal must die?
- Because the animal is very old, deaf, almost blind and he/she walks with difficulty and "the owner cannot endure" seeing him/her in these conditions, remembering the happy moments that they spent with him/her watching him/her enjoy life when he/she was young.
- Because, although he/she is young, "they can not tolerate" seeing him/her with that horrible aspect that the disease gives to the skin, chronic and so resistant to the treatments and, on the other hand he/she produces such a disagreeable smell, “poor thing”(?)
- Because the disease is a serious one, with few chances of survival and "he/she suffers so much" thinking that, after much struggle and pain, their little animal might die, anyway.
- Because the familiar situation, derived from the concern for the disease of the animal "becomes unbearable".
- Because they truly and honestly think that there is a possibility of relieving supposedly unnecessary suffering to an animal that they really love.
- Because they usually accept the advice of the veterinary doctor.
The first four cases, whose arguments I have had to listen to so frequently, almost textually, are the result of an absolutely selfish attitude, referring all of them to the concern that the owner has for themselves, forgetting to consider those who really merit sympathy. These who have given us so many happy moments through many years deserve that, at least, we should give them a few months effort and a bit of concern to help them to walk through the last phase of their life without pain.
This one, who once made us feel so proud of his /her beauty, does not deserve to be condemned to death because he/she momentarily does not satisfy the aesthetic necessities of our own vanity. Our own pain for the patient who is suffering cannot be taken into account before the patient itself, because they are the ones who need help.
And the familiar situation! Many times the presence of children is mentioned and for them the situation would be an upsetting experience. Why don’t we take advantage of it so as to offer the children examples of love for life and solidarity with those who suffer?
The reasons expressed in cases 5 and 6 will deserve to be included in the general considerations.
However, it would be worth thinking if behind that "to relieve suffering" it is not hidden the intention of getting rid of a burden or if some advice from the professional does not turn out to be significantly appropriate to relieve us from a guilty feeling by the consummation of a fact that could not be carried out without an accomplice.
Why does the veterinary doctor decide that their patient must die?
- Because they consider their patient without cure.
- Because the few possibilities of treatment do not justify the efforts that would have to be made.
- To prevent their patient from "supposedly unnecessary" suffering.
- Because the owner requests it.
The incurability prognosis is pronounced frequently, so much, that it would be possible to question the usefulness of so many years of research made by veterinary science since, apparently, the only worthy diseases are those which are not so serious.
As a veterinarian, I must confess that to foretell incurability, especially if the diagnosis is accompanied by some complementary studies and the sentence is pronounced with academic gesture, it is an elegant excuse, that is to say:
a)
It avoids the responsibility to face a treatment with probabilities of
failures, even in very serious cases, always cause certain loss of prestige.
b) It lightens the effort and devotion that a serious patient
needs
c) In cases where euthanasia is accepted on the part of the owner (very probable thing) a “problem” is finished, leaving more "spare" time for vaccinations and cases without gravity that are the most important source of easy income.
Personally, in a very serious case when a final prognosis is required from me I answer that we can only be sure of what we know with certainty and this type of accurate knowledge is so little among men therefore we can assure that what we know is very small in relation to that which we do not know. So that nobody, absolutely nobody, can have the certainty, the security that a patient will surely die. In others words, we can only assure the incurability of a patient when this one has died. All the miracles are clear evidences of our ignorance. I still get surprised whenever I am in presence of the treatment of a case that, in agreement with the perfectly made diagnosis of clinical disease, would have to be considered lost. In the same way, I get surprised before the fatal outcome of cases that apparently were well controlled. So that we can ask ourselves: should we condemn to death an animal simply because we ignore the way to cure him?
Our mission as doctors is to fight for the patient’s life, always treating to cure them, or at least to relieve them from their pain, with all means available, putting ourselves on their side and not on the disease and death’s side. All living beings have the right of being favoured by the "miracle" and we cannot deny that opportunity to them. Very frequently the consultation among professionals is forgotten and especially to resort to another type of non-conventional medicine and to the ancient methods of magicians or quacks as if the scientific dogma was more important than the patient’s life.
How can we betray those who ask for our advice and trust us? Is it that personal pride, the necessity for prestige and consideration or even the material interest are more valuable than the life and the welfare of our patient?
Deepening a little more, I affirm that men, whatever the degree of scientific, social authority or cultural knowledge reached, we do not have the right to destroy what we are incapable to create and whose deep mystery we do not know: life.
And like in the situation that I am analyzing when I speak of life I specifically talk about the patient's life.
I will analyze the condition of this "third character", to which I consider the most important one. If they could speak and we asked them their opinion, what would they say? If they could... But... they cannot? How many of us and how many times, have we stopped to listen to their voices? All the animals are able to let us know what they want, what they feel, especially if we have coexisted with them, and in the case of the ill animals this expression is preserved and still, almost obvious results are raised in some cases, that, far from the expression and the attitude, each symptom is a request for help.
It has also been observed that animals are capable of certain "willingness" in relation to their life, such is the case of those dogs that “decide” to die if their masters have died (every reader might know some of these stories). As far as it concerns me, I have been told by a close and immediate friend to the protagonist and eyewitness, a chilling episode of voluntary survival. I will try to summarize it.
A man, for working reasons must travel for some time. His dog, already old, remains at home in company of his family. In absence of its master the dog gets seriously ill and the veterinary doctor who takes care of him foretells a fatal outcome in the short term, given even to the proposal of euthanasia, to avoid what could be considered an unnecessary agony. The relatives prefer not to make a decision without the consent of the master, who after being told the news decides to return. Meanwhile the days pass, the dog is in a state of comatose sopor, does not eat or drink, he hardly breathes. Nobody, not even the veterinary doctor, can explain how he is still alive. He must have already been dead. He undergoes this situation for almost a week. Finally the master returns and the dog, that had been "unconscious" during those days, raises his head and watches him as soon as his master opened the door. The master approaches and, crying, he caresses him. At the moment he receives his master's caress, the dog dies.
How is it possible that an owner or a veterinarian can decide, sometimes so lightly, the destiny of a life like that? Somebody could say, and in fact I have heard it several times, that it is "cruel" to let the unnecessary pain "in a dog that has no hope of surviving". I have already mentioned the relativity and subjectivity of the concept of incurability, so that I will add another affirmation: I believe that there is no physical pain that can overpass the one that produces the certainty of the imminent death done with the complicity of the ones who have been loved so much.
Few people ignore that dogs perceive our attitude even though we do not do absolutely anything, so that it is evident that "they know" what we are going to do before we begin to do it. When we call our dog to go for a walk, he comes immediately, but when we do this in order to clean him (in case he does not like the bath) he hides despite our tone of voice is the same. When we take him to the veterinarian he resists passing by the place, although it is the same way that we cross to go to the square. And plenty of more examples.
How can we think therefore that he does not know that we are going to kill him?
He knows it and no physical suffering is comparable with the anguish that this fact produces on him. Whoever watched the eyes of a dog in that critical moment will never forget that glance? I will not forget it. As I will never forget the last time I practiced "euthanasia". It was the case of a she-dog with encephalitis in a depressive period, who had been in comma for 48 hours. When in complicity with the owner, convinced that it was the best thing to do, we took the ominous decision. I prepared the syringe and when I leaned towards my patient to inject it, she began to shake trying, still unconscious, to get up to escape. I am absolutely convinced that she knew what I was going to do. And if they know our intentions... how are we going to leave them exactly when they need us more? Aren’t we able to devote a few hours, days or even weeks of effort on our part, when they would have been willing to give their life for us? I am exclusively mentioning dogs, but this is due exclusively to a species that has closer (physically and emotionally) more contact with human beings and therefore, we are familiarized with them. All, absolutely all the living beings perceive death, and it is death in general and not their own death exclusively. Abundant examples of this are found in the extraordinary experiences told in the well-known book "The secret life of plants".
The only thing which we know about life is its manifestations and one of the main characteristics observed in living substance is its constant struggle for the conservation of that life. Each cell, each unicellular being, each particle of protoplasm is fighting to preserve their own lives, to have as much time as possible to reach its "biological goals". So, wouldn’t that little animal which we are planning to kill, feel happy knowing that we are by its side, in spite of the pains a disease that is defeating him, while it is fighting for its life to the last moment?
Each living being has its own time, his time to be born and his time to die.
We do not know the laws that govern the multiple circumstances that lead to the birth of a new being, of a unique being, and the multiple circumstances that determine the end of that unique life.
To kill is just that, to kill. To destroy life.
We must never accept that "death", the artificial death (so called euthanasia), the provoked death can produce any benefit. Every living being has the right to live until its last moment, to have all its time and to reach its "own aim", its natural death. And, natural death is the true euthanasia. All the others are murder.
"You shall not kill" says one of the commandments and that also means "you will not kill in your heart", that is to say, the deep and true attitude of respect to the wonderful creation in which we are included.
In other words, only love can save us.
