As promised, this is the post on ethics.  I wanted a while for all to post
their opinions, and might say I recieved quite a few by e-mail (47).  More
than 20 asked to keep their names out of it, presumably because it is a
private matter that many feel uncomfortable discussing in the open.  I have
decided to keep out all names except my own.
 
The vast majority of responders, both on and off the FML, stated that they
would have a difficult time ethically forcing treatments on terminally ill
or geriatric ferrets.  Most indicated a willingness to put the ferret to
sleep, provided the ferret was in obvious pain, or in a hopeless situation.
In a like vein, all indicated that while veterinary treatments are
expensive, the cost had little or no influence on their decision to
euthanize a pet in a hopeless situation.
 
At least one of the responders advocates the same type of grief support for
the death of a ferret (or other pet) as given for human losses.  (In fact,
the person sent materials to me when I suddenly lost Gus).  At least a
kernal of this idea was mentioned by at least ten other people.
 
One e-mail suggested that if it was unethical to end a human life, even if
the quality was extremely poor and the situation hopeless, then it was also
unethical to end a pet's life.  This was balanced by a single e-mail that
suggested since pets don't have souls, it was ok to euthanize when the
quality of life was reduced and the animal was no longer able "to be what
they are meant to be."
 
I discussed this matter with a person at the MU vet school who occasionally
instructs vet students on the ethics of treatinf the terminal pet.  The
opinion expressed to me, and confirmed as being taught by several vet
students I also questioned, was that the sustained treatment of the hopeless
was unethical, but the vet must take into consideration the feelings of the
owner.  This puts the vet into the extremely difficult position of
advocating the rights of the patient over the rights of the owner.  Also,
the law does not recognize pets as people; by law they are property, and the
owner has complete (and in most states) and absolute authority over them.
As a result, most vets will only make suggestions, and allow the owner to
decide the extent of the intervention.  There has only been a few cases
reported to me of vets refusing to prolong a terminally ill or injured pet's
life.
 
That's the long and the short of it. Now for my opinion, and, yes, this is
just an opinion.  No facts, just feelings.
 
I believe that owners are in a caretaker role for the pet, not an ownership
role.  As such, I must try to make the best decision for my pets I can, but
also must take their point of view into consideration when making that
decision.  As an example, it is a genetic behavioral trait for ferrets to
dig; asking them to stop is as unfair as asking a human child not to make
noise, so any decision I make regarding digging behaviors must take that
into account.  But digging behavior is not the same as facing a
life-threatening illness.  I have been around animals all my life, and I'll
tell you the truth; I have never seen one go willingly into the dark without
putting up a struggle.  But when it is clear that the situation is
absolutely hopeless, I have seen many of them lay down, relax, and accept
the inevitable.  I believe that there is a self-awareness of the
inevitability of death, regardless of species.  (Well, at least in the
higher vertebrates where I have experienced such occurences.)
 
One thing frequently spoken of or alluded to was the degree of discomfort
experienced by pets during life-prolonging treatments.  It is virtually a
literal truth that ferrets are not medicated for post-surgical pain, even if
the procedure was extensive or prolonged.  There is this thing among human
doctors --shared by many vets I'm afraid-- that if the recipient of the pain
does not verbally complain, then the pain is not severe.  So many human
babies are tied down for "minor" surgical procedures (like circumcisions or
stitches), with the words, "they won't remember it," "the pain shots hurt
worse," or "they don't feel pain as we do..." The same attitude is almost
universal towards animals.
 
What is forgotten is most animals that show pain or disease are abandoned,
cast out, or killed by their peers or predators.  There are exceptions,
especially within primates and other social animals, but for the most part
showing pain is a death sentence.  So animals have evolved mechanisms for
hiding pain; they withdraw or become very quiet.  Some animals can be
suffering from serious injury, even amputation or crushing injuries, and
show little effect.  The presumption is made that because nothing shows,
nothing is felt.  I cannot make such a presumption without proof.  Yes, I
medicate my ferrets after surgery or injury; I believe it makes them heal
faster, and fear the vet less.
 
By the same token, I cannot allow a surgical or chemical treatment of my pet
that increases their level of discomfort or pain, unless a long-term benefit
is clearly apparent.  With today's veterinary care, lifespans can be
increased, perhaps by weeks or months, without any change in the prognosis.
It only puts off the inevitable.  I have no quarrel if those procedures are
relatively painless, or increases the quality of life for that period, but
if they do not, then I feel it is unethical to force such treatments on
defenseless pets.
 
The question of treating a terminal ferret with an experiemntal procedure or
drug was never mentioned.  This is SOP in humans, because of the difficulty
and liability of human testing.  Animals are routinely tested, not just for
human medicines and surgical procedures, but also for their own.  And just
like in human medicine, most vets are too busy with day-to-day activities to
write reports or summit papers.  So, like with human doctors, vets will
offer nothing, or send you to someone else.  Again like so many human
doctors, many or most vets have a very hard time accepting their personal
limitations, and take it very badly when it is suggested they talk to an
expert (Human doctors take this a bit better I think, because of medical
liability and big buck settlements).
 
I think it appropriate to allow experimental procedures when it is clear
that the treatments will stop if they adversely effect the ferret, and if
there is a clear understanding that the information will be reported in a
public forum so other vets can learn from the experience.
 
A final aspect, brought up by a single e-mail, was the final disposition of
the ferret's body.  There are two basic choices; the vet can dispose of the
remains, or you can.  In many cities/counties, it is no longer as easy as
flushing the goldfish down the toliet; some places it is illegal to bury
pets without permits.  Personally, I think the way you deal with the remains
of the ferret can often help you deal with the loss.  The act of burial,
with whatever personal customs you have associated with it, helps to
finalize the death, helping you through the grief process better.  I have
found making the remains available for scientific study to be quite
effective myself; I find quite a bit of solice in knowing someone is
learning something from my pet.  (I typically donate remains to vet schools
or comparative anatomy labs when possible; saves the killing of animals for
learning purposes, and allows student the chance to learn anatomy from
something other that a cat or dog.)
 
The bottom line is, not one of these decisions can be made by the vet;
regardless if your attitude is that of an owner or a caretaker, the
responsibilty is yours.  I think vets can and should have input into the
final choice, but it is never a decision that is theirs to make.
 
I strongly encourage replies and debate on this subject.  Perhaps someone
would be willing to take eveyones thoughts and condense them down to a
single post (3rd person) that can be printed and distributed to ferret
owners and vets.  I want to thank all involved for their input.
 
Mo' Bob and 18 Mo' Sofa Sharks
[Posted in FML issue 1840]