This document discusses euthanasia and provides guidelines for making decisions around euthanasia. It makes three distinctions: (1) euthanasia must be humane and for the animal's benefit, (2) there are different types of killing that may or may not avoid negative quality of life, and (3) euthanasia can be voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary depending on the owner's consent. It then presents three approaches to considering the value of life: (1) life/death absolutely matters, (2) life/death absolutely does not matter, (3) life/death matters if it matters to the individual animal. The document argues that the value of life for the

1. James Yeates
Euthanasia

2. 2
Euthanasia
• Very important part of clinical work
• Tough decision to make
• Personal decision that you have to make

3. 3
Lecturing on euthanasia
• Cannot tell you what to do in every
situation
• (just as for any clinical matter)
• Can give generic guidelines and advice

4. 4
This talk
• 3 Distinctions
• 3 Approaches to
Decision-making

5. 5
Distinction 1: Euthanasia vs Killing
• To be euthanasia it must be
– Humane
– For the animal’s benefit

6. 6
Distinction 2: Killing Types
Only way to
One way to
Doesn’t avoid
avoid –ve QOL
avoid –ve QOL
avoid –ve QOL
for that animal
for that animal
for that animal
ContextuallyIdeal
justified
Not
Euthanasia
Euthanasia
Euthanasia

7. 7
Distinction 3: Volition (of the owner)
• Voluntary euthanasia
– Where the owner gives valid informed consent to the killing
– You can refuse
• In-voluntary euthanasia
– Against the owner’s expressed wishes
– May need some defence
• Non-voluntary euthanasia
– When the owner’s wishes cannot be taken into account, since
the owner is unknown or uncontactable
– Should avoid over-defensiveness

8. 8
The value of life
• 3 Approaches:
1. Life/death absolutely does matter
2. Life/death absolutely does not matter
3. Life/death matter if they matter

9. Tom Regan
Approach 1. Absolutely Matters
• An “Animal Rights” view:
– absolutely wrong to deprive of life
– Anti-experimentation, Anti-hunting, Anti-farming
• Rights often linked to duties
DUTIES
RIGHTS

10. 10
But … Value for the animal…
A) An animal’s right is worth respecting if
and only if good for the animal
B) Life is good for the animal if and only if
it is “a life worth living”
C) Killing is causing death
Therefore, killing is wrong if an only if it
is prevents “life worth living”

11. 11
Approach 2. Absolutely Does Not Matter
• Classic position: death insignificant
Hence Reduction
in the 3Rs
Death is not a
welfare issue
Hence Reduction
in the 3Rs
I just said
that

12. But … Animal Welfare and Value of life
Welfare state
Welfare state
Welfare state C
Welfare state Z
Welfare state B
Welfare state Y
A
X
Overall welfare
Overall welfare
Quality-of-life
Life worth avoiding
Life worth living

13. 13
Death deprives of welfare
• Value to animal = what it prevents
• Deprives of positive or negative QOL
• I.e. cost
or
benefit

14. 14
So… Value for the animal …
• A) Causing harm is wrong
• B) To deprive of a good things is a
harm
• C) Life is a good thing if and only if it is
a “life worth living”
• D) Killing is causing death
Therefore, killing is wrong if and only if
it prevents a life worth living

15. 15
Decision-making – 1. Evaluation
• Death has value to the animal
– If Life worth living:
• Life = good
• Death = bad
– If Life worth avoiding:
• Life = bad
• Death = good

16. 16
Decision-making – 2. constraints
• Should make best decision for the animal
within constraints
– Owner + legality (+ effect on other animals)
– Resources + effect on other animals
• Using up resources on Dog A deprives other
animals
• Do should avoid using up “excessive” resources
• This limits options for Dog A
 Contextually-justified euthanasia

17. 17
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING