Comments on the dilemma in the June issue: ‘Financially strapped owner with a suffering cat’

The dilemma in the June issue concerned a client presenting a cat at a private clinic out of hours for depression and straining to urinate (In Practice, June 2011, volume 33, pages 297–298). Evaluation of the cat revealed a blocked bladder and the signalment, history and clinical presentation together suggested urolithiasis. Unfortunately, the owner did not have the funds required to stabilise, catheterise and hospitalise her pet. It was also a difficult situation for the vet who might have had to consider euthanasia as a possible way forward. Steven McCulloch commented that suffering could be defined as a profoundly negative mental state, the cause of which had overridden the individual's ordinary physiological and behavioural coping mechanism; therefore, if that suffering could not be alleviated, it was morally justified to perform euthanasia. Hence, an animal should be euthanased first because it was suffering and secondly because the suffering could not be resolved. The animal was assumed to be in pain and suffering so the criterion for morally justified euthanasia was satisfied. However, in a medical sense, the second criterion was not satisfied because the cat could be stabilised and unblocked without significant irreversible complications, but it was satisfied in a financial sense because the owner did not have enough money for therapy. Referral to a charity clinic with no prior treatment, referral to a charity clinic with conservative treatment or treatment at reduced cost at the clinic were all options that the vet could consider as possible ways forward. The last two were preferable from the cat's point of view. However, supererogatory acts such as the last option could be criticised for encouraging irresponsible behaviour (eg, unable to afford veterinary fees, no insurance) and might also be construed as unfair to those who paid the normal fee.