Abstract
Standard views of good death in human and veterinary medicine considerably differ from one another. Whereas the good death ideal in palliative medicine emphasizes the positive aspects of non-induced dying, veterinarians typically promote a quick and painless killing with the aim to end suffering. Recent developments suggest a convergence of both professions and professional attitudes, however. Palliative physicians are confronted with patients wishing to be ‘put to sleep’, while veterinarians have begun to integrate principles and practices from hospice care. We will argue that the discourses on good human and animal deaths are not distinct, but that they interact and influence each other. On the one hand, veterinary medicine adapts techniques like chemotherapy or sedation from palliative end-of-life care. On the other hand, philosophers, veterinarians, pet owners, patients and the general public alike make certain assumptions about the (dis)analogy of human and animal dying or killing. Unfortunately, these interactions have only scarcely been reflected normatively, especially on the part of human medicine. Conflicts and misattributions with potential serious negative consequences for the (animal and human) patients’ wellbeing are provoked. For these reasons, palliative physicians and veterinarians are invited to engage in the debate around human and animal end-of-life care.
Highlights
In many Western countries, most humans and companion animals1 today die in medical institutions and nursing homes (Klinkhammer 2012; Ohr 2019)
We find the pet entirely immersed in its pain and afflictions
These remarks can both be read as a criticism against the rising animal hospice movement as well as a clear positioning in favor of euthanasia for human patients
Summary
In many Western countries, most humans and companion animals today die in medical institutions and nursing homes (Klinkhammer 2012; Ohr 2019). Some clients might want their pet to die naturally rather than to be euthanized for non-religious reasons as well, (for an example, see Pierce 2011b) These developments indicate a good death ideal within the animal hospice movement that is modelled very closely on the palliative good death ideal in human medicine, due to their similar understandings of non-hastened dying as a meaningful and possibly necessary element of a good death. Some animal hospice advocates argue for the potentially transformative character of death in terms of animals, as we have seen They represent an extremely minor position until now, but objections to euthanasia could be expected to become more frequent, especially if pet owners had positive experiences with palliative human medicine in the past. Both human as well as veterinary medical ethicists would be welladvised to engage in a thorough analysis of the dissimilarities and similarities of their patients and their respective experiences at the end of their lives
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
