L’euthanasie de convenance des animaux de compagnie : conceptualisation par les médecins vétérinaires de leurs responsabilités morales et professionnelles

Veterinarians similarly to other professionals, face multiple ethical dilemmas. At times, legal boundaries help veterinarians decide which action to choose. Otherwise, in cases such as convenience euthanasia, no imperative legal boundaries exist, and veterinarians face the dilemma alone. Convenience euthanasia is defined as euthanasia of a physically and psychologically healthy animal for owner-related reasons. In other words, these cases of euthanasia are performed for the pet owner’s convenience. Guidelines exist to set boundaries on the method used to induce the animal’s death. However, guidelines do not exist to help veterinarians evaluate the impact of this euthanasia on the primary actors in this dilemma: the animal, the pet owner and the veterinarian. This dilemma has been studied by philosophers and ethicists in the field of animal ethics, but little attention was given to the veterinarian’s direct perspective. Additionally, statistics on the prevalence of convenience euthanasia in veterinary practices are unavailable. To date, all authors conclude that convenience euthanasia is harmful for the profession and the animals. The veterinary profession on the other hand recognizes that convenience euthanasia is performed in most veterinary practices in Quebec. So, if convenience euthanasia is recognized as an harmful practice, why are legal boundaries not in place to allow veterinarians to refuse to perform them? How do veterinarians evaluate the situation? Finally, how do veterinarians perceive their professional and moral duties in this dilemma?  A research project was initiated to answer some of these questions. The project was done in two parts. The first was to perform a qualitative reflective analysis of the dilemma as experienced by 14 interviewed veterinarians. The second was to evaluate the dilemma on a larger scale. An online questionnaire was sent to all veterinarians within the field of companion animal practice in the province of Quebec. The prevalence of the initial conclusions (part 1) within a larger group of 185 veterinarians was then evaluated and analyzed statistically (part 2).  This research project shed light on the complexity of the dilemma and the diversity of circumstances surrounding convenience euthanasia requests. Veterinarians face double allegiance when they are requested to perform convenience euthanasia. This double allegiance is a consequence of the veterinarian’s perceived duties towards animals and towards pet owners. Veterinarians were identified as major stakeholders in this dilemma. They considered that the convenience euthanasia dilemma was the result of social loopholes. These social loopholes were described as the incapacity of pet owners to understand correctly the duties and commitment related to adopting a pet. Veterinarians raised many potential solutions to improve the situation. These suggestions could serve as a starting point to improve societal awareness of this dilemma and ultimately diminish the number of convenience euthanasia requests. Euthanasia would then remain true to its initial vocation (i.e. end patient suffering).

Keyphrases: recherche quantitative, analyse factorielle, Convenience euthanasia, Companion animal, Veterinary medicine, Veterinary ethics, Moral duties, Professional duties, Qualitative research, Quantitative research, Factorial analysis