Anatomy of a Death: Why did Icy Die?

The issue of euthanasia is fraught with controversy and passion and inevitably gets mired in personal beliefs and subjective notions on when and why an animal should die. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario (the “CVO”) recognizes to a limited extent (my emphasis) the dilemma faced by many vets and published Guidelines on Veterinary Euthanasia (the “Guidelines”) in October 2008 (on its website).

Under the Law

A spokesperson for CVO (“Fischer”) recently indicated to me in response to an email I sent with a number of questions respecting the practice of euthanasia a number of helpful links and with specific reference to vets employed by humane societies or shelters .

The unique position of a veterinarian employed by a humane society or shelter is addressed through a provision of the OSPCA Act, and more specifically in the Veterinarians Act/Loi sur les veterinaries R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1093 (the “Act”):

43(2) (4) A member may practice veterinary medicine as,

(a) …

(e) an employee of a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act if, in the course of the employment, the member provides professional services under a written contract that provides that the member is responsible for all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals;
(my emphasis)

I want to point out here the words in the proviso “health of the subject animals” – so this provision does not deal directly with the reasons for euthanasia but rather could be construed to refer to (in the CONTEXT of euthanasia), the health of the animal.

Further, the Act states in Section 43:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),

(a) …

(b) a member employed by a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or by a pound operated under the Animals for Research Act who performs a veterinary service for an animal seized by, or irrevocably surrendered to, the society or pound shall be deemed to perform the service to his or her employer. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 1093, s. 43 (3).

(4) A member may practice veterinary medicine as,

(a) …

(e) an employee of a humane society operated in accordance with the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act if, in the course of the employment, the member provides professional services under a written contract that provides that the member is responsible for all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals;
(my emphasis)

Again, to me, when exploring the rationale behind euthanizing an animal, Subsection 43(4)(e) again refers to the member being responsible for “all decisions relating to the quality and promotion of the member’s professional services and the health of the subject animals”. No doubt there are those that can read that provision as encompassing almost autonomous powers to the vet, but again, to me, it more clearly refers to “health” of the subject animals which does not rationalize the euthanasia of a healthy dog or cat!

So those provisions deal with the legalities. Specifically, it clearly states that while the shelter is the veterinarian’s employer, said employer cannot under the law interfere with the vet’s decision with respect to the health of the animal. I do NOT believe it necessarily codifies the vet`s complete and utter right to make unilateral decisions about anything OTHER than the medical condition and health of the animal. Specifically, it does not as far as I can see give any vet the unilateral right to euthanize an animal based on behavior, age (given the animal is healthy) or other factors apart from and separate from HEALTH issues.

The employer/member conflict which this law was designed to avoid is alleged to have occurred under the auspices of the previous Board and President Tim Trow. I do have to ask, if indeed that WAS the case where WAS the CVO during the MANY years Mr. Trow spearheaded the organization and ostensibly dictated to Shelter vets how do to do their job?

Medical versus Subjective Reasons for Euthanasia

But while those provisions deal with the legalities, they do NOT address specifically what set of factors determine an animal SHOULD be euthanized. Because the reality is, it is not a straightforward.

I think it inarguable that a vet can and SHOULD have the final say if there are clear cut and solid medical reasons why the animal should be euthanized. Inoperable tumors, degenerative diseases that have or are reaching a critical stage, continuing pain which cannot be alleviated, animals who have had accidents where it is impossible to provide a reasonable guarantee of quality of life.

BUT, and this is a HUGE caveat – euthanasia is not always about putting an animal out of pain or humanely assisting it to die.

The reality is that medical issues are FAR from the only reason an animal is euthanized. In actual fact, it is highly likely that in our society among the many shelters, humane societies, pounds and other organizations that deal with the sad reality of abandoned, neglected and abused pets – it is probably the LEAST likely reason in those settings.

In exploring the issue of euthanasia in a shelter setting, I continually came across well-meaning individuals who harbour an unrealistic and unsubstantiated belief that vets are vets because of their deep and enduring love of animals.

As in any profession, I think the actualities are far different. I believe some vets do take up the profession because of their love of animals; equally I believe there are as many that enter it due to the lucrative nature of the practice. Add to that the vast differences in philosophy, outlook and viewpoints among vets (who are all individuals after all) - and what is considered a “legitimate” reason for euthanasia becomes problematic and impossible to agree upon.

CVO Guidelines

I have provided a link to these Guidelines but there are a few pertinent points I want to make. As noted before, these guidelines take into account the unique relationship between a veterinarian who is employed by a humane society or shelter.

However, having noted that, the Guidelines can and do apply to that scenario as well. Under the sub-heading “Client Preparation”, the CVO clearly urges a dialogue between the shelter and/or humane society (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Client”) and the veterinarian to minimize “the chance that the owner’s values will diverge from the veterinarian’s when a decision needs to be reached regarding an animal’s situation.”

That clearly indicates that a decision on euthanasia is not a unilateral one but one that requires communication and discussion between all parties who are at law and morally, responsible for the animal in question.

Also noteworthy is the Guidelines’ advice respecting Client Support- something that was sadly and tragically absent from the Toronto Humane Society during the past several months. Animals, some of them long-term members of the THS, much beloved and cosseted by staff and volunteers were summarily executed with NO chance for goodbyes or intervention and absolutely no sympathy for the resultant agony of mind and spirit on the part of those who loved them.

But, in the context of who decides whether an animal lives or dies, the Guidelines clearly favour:

Communication between and among veterinarians and staff…. to ensure that the veterinary team is clear on its policies and procedures, so that consistent information is given to clients. Practitioners should maintain a euthanasia policy within their practices that clearly outlines the position of the practice and/or the veterinarians who work there. This policy should be developed and periodically reviewed with staff and made available to all clients at an $appropriate point in the VCPR.

Which leads us rather elegantly to the next consideration .

The THS in Flux

Under the former management of the THS, euthanasia was not only a last resort but misguided “compassion” resulted (alleged but more than likely true) in the cruel and unnecessary suffering of animals that should have been provided a dignified and kind way out of their pain and suffering. To date, under the auspices of executive director Garth Jerome, the new “THS” describes itself as “low-kill”. The current Board appears to concur, however, that a change in policy to a “no-kill” is hopefully in the offing. (I would also point out that from Mr. Jerome’s email and his willingness to work with the new Board, he appears to be open to change).

However, as things stand at the moment there is no appreciable movement toward a no-kill policy in the THS. More worrisome is the continued lack of transparency as to the policies, decisions and procedures actually implemented at the time.

In early July, two Siberian huskies – a bonded pair – were surrendered to the THS. Due to extenuating circumstances and the last minute failure of a foster home, their owner Steve N. had no choice but to surrender them – and in the full belief they would be safe – he did so to the THS. Within HOURS of their arrival, Icy was euthanized. To date there has been NO explanation as to why nor have the THS staff, Board or management owned up as to who made the decision.

I know there is a tremendous amount going on behind the scenes at the THS. The reality is that there are contracts, legalities and no doubt, a jockeying of position as individuals and groups seek to come to terms with a radically different reality within the walls of 11 River Street.

I also know that NO ONE has admitted to making the decision to kill Icy (and other animals) – yet someone DID kill her – and while no one is saying whom, it did happen.  I do not believe – and feel that most rational people would concur – that any ONE individual (or collective group of individuals such as vets, management, staff etc) has the right, the rationality, the expertise or the perspective to decide which animal lives or dies when the issue of euthanasia is NOT related to an unequivocal medical issue.

Veterinarians are medically trained. Ethically speaking, however, they are as individualistic and subjective as any other human being, with their own set of internal guidelines, morals and imperatives. Nor are veterinarians necessarily behaviouralists. Animal behaviorists are highly trained and competent in assessing behavioral issues in animals and the potential of those animals to be rehabilitated.

Ageism is another issue in many shelters, many of which operate on the premise that only young, healthy animals have the possibility of being adopted, and as such, older (even if relatively healthy) animals should be refused or if surrendered regardless, euthanized as being “unadoptable.

The reality of course is far different.

As Nathan Winograd has successfully proven again and again, there is a home for every animal.

In my three years of volunteer work with the dogs at the THS, I have been astonished, humbled and ecstatic at people and the compassion and genuine love they can show to even the oldest, most fragile – and yes, smelliest! dogs that have come in and are subsequently (often quickly) adopted out.

As I have noted before, Icy was a healthy, well-behaved if older dog that SHOULD have been given a chance to enjoy her twilight years as a cosseted and loved member of a family. What she did NOT deserve was to be labeled a “problem” or “unadoptable” (my surmise only) and summarily executed.

If the “new” THS is to find its feet, it MUST start showing the people of Toronto that in rejecting the negative aspects of the old regime, it also embraces some of the positive reasons why Tim Trow was successful in running a shelter where the public KNEW the old, the infirm, the sick, the abused, the neglected and the unwanted at least had a chance.

While there is no question that there were MANY thing wrong with the “old” THS, Icy would be alive under that regime.

Death is final. Making that decision requires more than a medical degree. It requires compassion, balance and a willingness to do whatever can be done to rehabilitate, treat (medically or otherwise), and give an animal TIME to adjust and make changes.

For decisions OTHER than clear-cut medical ones – I implicitly believe that decisions on euthanasia at the “new” THS must and should require a balance of perspective. A veterinarian, absolutely, an animal behaviourist (of which there are several on staff) as well as input from management. As a group, based on clearly delineated policies (hopefully soon to reflect the no-kill mindset), decisions can be made.

The THS has as its new Board some wonderful people with a solid background in animal rights and care - further, some excellent strategies are planned - such as this week`s brainstorming with Calgary`s very impressive Bill Bruce who has done wonders within that city for the no kill movement and the reopening of the kitten nursery.

For more 100 year, the THS represented the best in animal welfare to the people of Toronto. It has stood as the beacon for animal rights, the voice that speaks up for those who cannot speak for themselves, a haven for those rejected and abused by those who should cherish them. It has, above all, epitomized “sanctuary”.

If the THS is to survive, let them show the people of Toronto they continue to be a place where future Icy’s will find solace and safe haven. 

[UPDATE: This has been edited to remove material that might be potentially legally contentious- nothing of import is changed however]