FINAL WORD:
 
If you carefully read the post on euthanasia, necropsy, donations, or
burials and cremations, you would notice that although I mentioned my
personal preferences and guidelines, I--in no way--attempted to SET
guidelines.  The reason is simple: I have no right to do so.  These
sorts of questions are relative to the individual, and believe me, as an
archaeologist who deals with bones, that personal relativity is never out
of my mind.  For example, I have two close friends, one who is horrified
that I would "collect for macabre purposes" animal skeletons and "disturb
their eternal rest" for study, while the other is visibly stimulated by
learning how a study of taphonomic changes to the bone can prove
butchery, scavenging, disease, or even domestication.  Which one is
right?
 
Between being raised as a Quaker and being trained as an anthropologist,
I have to assume both friends are correct from their individual
perspectives.  I can accept their positions without having to force
my own upon either one of them.  Likewise the FML is composed of a
tremendous number of people with an extremely wide range of beliefs;
about the only thing some of us have in common with the other is a love
of animals and a love of ferrets as pets.  Mutual respect must afford us
the ability to ignore such issues as necropsy, donation, or burial,
allowing people to decide the issue on their own.  While a respectful
discussion of the issues is in order, judgments are not.
 
As for euthanasia, providing we have assurances that the decision is one
made under ethical and moral standards, we should keep our tongue silent
on that as well.  I think we have a right to express outrage should we
discover unwarranted and unjustified killing of ferrets, but individual
decisions based on health history are unique tot e situation and we must
respect them.  For example, if a shelter has a no-kill policy, yet
because a ferret was obviously suffering during an irreversible slide
into death a judgment was made for euthanasia, that decision shouldn't
be questioned or double-guessed.
 
Implementing euthanasia under adverse situations, or late at night when a
vet is unavailable, can be difficult.  Even if a vet could prescribe an
euthanasia agent to a client (state and federal laws apply), because of
the effect of emotions, a ferret caregiver may not be able to accurately
administer the drug and may end up prolonging a situation, or even
causing more pain and suffering.  Even if the agent is properly
administered, can the ferret caregiver do so without remorse or guilt
clouding their judgment?
 
Perhaps the best solution is the one I use.  I have had extensive
discussion of the issue with my vets, and since they know I have an open
door policy for ferrets (I do not run a shelter per se, but I take in a
lot of ferrets), and often an injured ferret requires emergency treatment
or a sick ferret requires more, they have made arraignments that I can
contact them after hours for bona fide emergencies.  This relationship is
built on trust and mutual respect, and I DO NOT abuse it with late-night
questions that can wait until office hours.  In the few cases where I've
been forced to call the vet (a ferret with distemper dropped off at my
door, a ferret crushed by dog bite, a ferret dying of sepsis, one of my
ferrets with uncontrollable seizures), they have met me at the office
without complaint.  The keys to this sort of license are communication
and trust, based on mutual respect and lack of abuse of privilege.
 
Talk to your vet.  Show them your hospital cage and ask their advice.
If your hospital cage is better than the one used by your vet, get a
group together to improve it because, in a sense, you are helping your
own ferret.  Build a bridge of communication and mutual respect, and
many of these questions will resolve themselves.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4415]