| dc.description.abstract | Euthanasia is defined as a “good death” with minimal pain and distress evaluated from the perspective on the animal.
Performed due to various reasons and in different situations, the contradiction between “preservation of life” and “prevention from harm” is described and discussed for more than 2500 years by numerous ethicists without an agreeing result.
Parallel to the morally discussion also the legislative action regarding the killing of animals experienced a progress from an anthropocentric to a pathocentric animal welfare so that during the time the value of an animal´s life became center of interest and their status got increased.
Indications for euthanasia include killing out of mercy having to be assessed with the aid of veterinary expertise, killing of food-producing animals for the production of meat which represents a superior legally protected interest, and legally ordered killing when a judicial decision demands the implementation of euthanasia. A common feature of all those indications is a “reasonable cause” whose existence is legally obligatory to justify the killing.
To ensure the smooth running performance of euthanasia, the involved persons should be prepared as well as possible. Veterinarians should be experienced and professional on the physical as well as on the psychological sector to help the animal keeper to cope with this uncomfortable situation and the associated grief.
The method used for euthanasia should be chosen individually for each case to meet the most suitable one regarding the species, age and situation. However no matter if an inhalational, an injectable or a physical technique is chosen, the lack of consciousness has to precede the death itself. Latter has to be ensured by an appropriate technique and followed by an ultimate physical examination to verify the indicators of death.
To prevent the emergence of infectious or toxic hazards, a safe disposal of the carcass is to ensure.
In the end of this work two borderline cases are presented, which reveal the ambiguity and grey zones, in which the ethical thinking of the veterinarian cannot be clearly brought into accordance with the legislations. | en |
