Could you ? , Would you ?

KTRIC

The father of a friend of mine had to do something terrible just before christmas. One of his 2 cats , a male developed spinal cancer and he was deteriorating badly.

Her father is an agricultural vet and an avid hunter in his spare time. Might seem a bit of a conflict of interests but he is real pet lover. About a month ago he put down his own cat, the one with cancer. But rather than sedating the cat and administering a deadly shot of something his shot the cat.

I know people might think this sounds terrible to shoot your own pet, but seemingly it was the best course of action and it is a painless experience for the cat if done right.


I was actually put in the same situation recently myself when my cat was hit by a car, she was in a real bad state and for a second I contemplated killing her there and then but I didn't know how.

My question is could you put down you own pet if you had to ?

Hellrazer

Surely an agricultural vet would have access to the correct drugs to put down any animal.

If as you say he is an animal "lover" (which btw I take with a pinch of salt) and being a vet he should have known that shooting an animal is a lot worse than putting it down humanely although in saying that the users in the shooting forum are probably going to have a ball with this thread.

I also find it very hard to agree that it was "the best course of action" and a "painless experience".

I personally couldnt put down my own pet regardless of the circumstances and if I had a vet that decided to shoot my pet instead of doing it humanely I would question his actions.

ClareBear

I've worked as a Veterinary Nurse for a while and putting animals down as horrible as it sounds is pretty routine for me at this stage. There's not a chance in hell that I could put any of my own pets down though, no way.


What he did was painless....that cat felt nothing....though why he didn't put it down with an injection I don't understand either seeing as he's a Vet....either way the cat felt nothing but I'd rather put it down by injection than to shoot it...

koneko

I'm sure shooting it in the head is over with pretty quickly, but surely an injection would have been better? If I loved my pet, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see it splattered over the ground. Don't really understand that...

FranknFurter

Vet or not, guns are NOT meant for putting cats or dogs to sleep!
A vet and a gun owner should know better!
If its not the case that he should technically have both licences revoked or at least investigated, it should be, imo!

Makes me so angry, regardless of circumstances.

B

KTRIC

The Vet in question is in Germany. My girlfriend told me what he did when we were on our way home to Dublin, probably so I wouldn't say anything to him.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what he did. I believe he was very upset by the whole expierience and just wanted his pets agony ended.

Personally I would have gone for an injection.

doctor evil

Perhaps he didn`t the syringe or drug for the injection with him?.

If it was done properly with a gun I see no problem. Sure the cat wouldn`t have had a clue what the gun was. It doesn`t make him any less of an animal lover (which is a strange term to me).

Fortunatley I have never been in the position of whetether or not I had to put my own animal down, don`t know if I could do it.

peasant

In the Wild West scenario, me and Tonto in the desert, Tonto dying in pain, beyond help and no vet for miles / days? ...yes, I would probably shoot Tonto, if I had a gun.

With my dogs/cats at home? ...we're 10 mins drive away from a vet. I can (don't want to) imagine scenarios involving such horrific injuries/pain, that even a ten minute trip to the vet would amount to torture for the animal ...but could I kill them? I don't think so ..I don't own a gun and I just can't picture myself killing my pets with a spade or a knife or anything like that.

As for the German avid hunter and self professed "animal lover" ..he's an Arschloch. :mad:
Cancer in a cat is nothing so surprising and imminent, that it would warrant splattering the poor pets brains around with a gun ...ESPECIALLY NOT if said "animal lover" is a vet and has the knowledge and tools necessary to put the cat to sleep rather than outright kill it.

He probably bought a new gun and had an urge to try it out on something ...

Jules

If i had to do it myself, yes i would, but if there was a glimmer of a hope of a vet then no way. Now as for the shooting thats a different story, yes i know we talk about not giving animals human meds but in a serious case well i dont know what i would be pushed to if there was no other alternative. I do have an older dog at the moment i have promised myself and her that when the time comes i will give her the injection myself and let her go while she is on her on blanket in her own house. was with her from the start and ill be with her till the end!

Rovi

peasant wrote:

In the Wild West scenario, me and Tonto in the desert, Tonto dying in pain, beyond help and no vet for miles / days? ...yes, I would probably shoot Tonto, if I had a gun...

I'm sure Tonto would be delighted to hear that if a vet wasn't available, you'd be prepared to shoot him; I'd say the race relations people and the police would be looking to have a chat with you afterwards though.

Or was it the Lone Ranger's horse, Silver, you were thinking of?

Jules

tehe tehe!!!

peasant

ooops

I'm sure Tonto would be delighted to hear that if a vet wasn't available, you'd be prepared to shoot him; I'd say the race relations people and the police would be looking to have a chat with you afterwards though.

Or was it the Lone Ranger's horse, Silver, you were thinking of?

eth0_

That man is no animal lover. If he was, he'd have used lethal injection. It's not like he was in the middle of nowhere and had just run over the animal, I could understand putting it out of it's misery if he didn't have any drugs with him to do it.

The only human way to put down an animal using a gun is when a professional uses a bolt gun, and even then only large animals like horses and cows, it's not for pets. If done correctly, death is instantaneous. Otherwise, the animal is in horrendous pain.

artieanna

I'm sure it was over quickly for the cat....personally I would prefer other means of putting the cat to sleep though....

But look at all the situations that arise and people do nothing to ease pain or suffering.....

Animals (fox's, badgers, hares, rabbits, birds) maimed on the roads people drive on (mostly)

what would you do if you hit a cat, fox, bird, and they are dying/suffering would you put it to sleep as quickly as possible, or drive a few miles to a vet leaving the animal suffering or possibly dead by the time you get there?

I have been in the above situation on a sunday and no vet was available so early, so I had to take the responsiblilty into my own hands, The animal was dying (hit by someone elses car) It was horrific to have to do it (no details are necessary) but it was the best possible action at the time!....

in the ideal situation the vet is definitly the best option every time....

KTRIC

artieanna wrote:

in the ideal situation the vet is definitly the best option every time....

The guy I spoke about in my original post was a vet !!! Now that I have time to think about it I think he should have his licence taken off him.

I'm going to find it hard to look him in the eye the next time we meet.:mad:

FranknFurter

Personally, Id have no problem reporting him to the relevant authorties, whoever is responsible for vetinary liciencing (sp?) and firearms liciencing.

B

rediguana

Don't report him! So he shot it instead of injecting it. As someone else already pointed out, the hapless creature wouldn't have felt anything either way.

I had hamsters when I was a kid and I drowned two of them (with parental supervision) when they were more dead than alive near the end. Thank God the pet police weren't around back then.

Not making a decision is still a decision. He did what he thought was right. DID he aim to be cruel? Probably not. DID the cat suffer unduly? Almost certainly not.

Using a gun WAS a tad dramatic. Don't prolong the farce by reporting the man.

artieanna

rediguana wrote:

Not making a decision is still a decision. He did what he thought was right. DID he aim to be cruel? Probably not. DID the cat suffer unduly? Almost certainly not.

Using a gun WAS a tad dramatic. Don't prolong the farce by reporting the man.

have to say I agree:( .....

Rb

I couldn't and certainly wouldn't.

fits

In this situation, a cat with cancer, using the shotgun wasnt really necessary or at all ideal... I wouldnt do it myself but I doubt the cat suffered much more for it. I've actually heard from someone recently that the lethal injection for animals is actually quite painful, but I dont know whether to believe him or not.. Can anyone shed any light on this?
I've recently had to despatch a young pheasant and a red squirrel. The immediate solution was infinitely preferable to bringing them to a vet imo... But I was very upset, particularly by the red squirrel. I've also come across deer injured in rtas and called someone with a gun to put them out of their pain.

Hellrazer

rediguana wrote:

As someone else already pointed out, the hapless creature wouldn't have felt anything either way.

Did he aim to be cruel? Probably not. DID the cat suffer unduly? Almost certainly not.

If he was a vet and decided to use a gun and not the correct injection then YES he probably did aim to be a "small" bit cruel.

And how does anyone know that the cat didnt feel anything--Have any of you lot been shot with a shot gun.

Id imagine that the last thing that the poor creature felt was a lot of pain.At least with injection its supposed to be like going asleep and not waking up.

peasant

From the German law for the protection of animals:

"Tierschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 18. Mai 2006 (BGBl. I S. 1206, 1313), geändert durch Artikel 4 des Gesetzes vom 21. Dezember 2006 (BGBl. I S. 3294)"




Dritter Abschnitt
Töten von Tieren

§ 4
(1) 1 Ein Wirbeltier darf nur unter Betäubung oder sonst, soweit nach den gegebenen Umständen zumutbar, nur unter Vermeidung von Schmerzen getötet werden.
2 Ist die Tötung eines Wirbeltieres ohne Betäubung im Rahmen weidgerechter Ausübung der Jagd oder auf Grund anderer Rechtsvorschriften zulässig oder erfolgt sie im Rahmen zulässiger Schädlingsbekämpfungsmaßnahmen, so darf die Tötung nur vorgenommen werden, wenn hierbei nicht mehr als unvermeidbare Schmerzen entstehen.
3 Ein Wirbeltier töten darf nur, wer die dazu notwendigen Kenntnisse und Fähigkeiten hat.

loose translation:

A vertebrate (sp?) animal may be killed under sedation only, or else, in as far as circumstances reasonably allow, it must be killed under avoidance of pain.

In case of legal hunting or legal pest control, the animal has to be killed causing no more pain than absolutely unavoidable.

A vertebrate(sp?) animal may only be killed by persons possessing the necessary knowledge and abilities to do so.

Legal texts being legal texts ...I still think your man could possibly be prosecuted for not sedating the cat ...especially as he had the means to kill it under sedation.

rediguana

Hellrazer wrote:

If he was a vet and decided to use a gun and not the correct injection then YES he probably did aim to be a "small" bit cruel.

And how does anyone know that the cat didnt feel anything--Have any of you lot been shot with a shot gun.

Id imagine that the last thing that the poor creature felt was a lot of pain.At least with injection its supposed to be like going asleep and not waking up.

You maintain the guy was trying to be cruel. I disagree. Neither of us know him personally, so it's all just idle speculation. As for the cat (not) feeling pain, no, I haven't personally been shot with a gun, as I'm sure you haven't so, again, it looks like our opinions on the matter aren't worth expressing.

I'm not trying to argue that the situation was ideal. I personally would opt for an injection, most people would. I'm just not sure what reporting the guy will accomplish. It won't raise the cat from the dead. Maybe it'll send a clear message to all those other sadists who shoot cats, who knows.

The cat was on the way out, the defendant hastened its exit from this world, using unconventional means, admittedly.

Let sleeping cats lie, that's still my position.

peasant

small cruelty or large cruelty ...by shooting the cat instead of euthanizing it he showed a clear lack of professionalism and professional ethics.

As a vet he MUST know the law, which he chose to disregard or to dileberately misenterpret (depending on which way you want to bend the usual rubbery legalese text)

If I was in Germany and to hear of this case I would report him, not only to whatever official body governs vets, but also to that which governs hunting, which also happens to be highly regulated in Germany.

If the story is true, he would probably be in danger of loosing both licenses ...as a vet and as a hunter , because he transgressed the law on both occasions.

rediguana

peasant wrote:

small cruelty or large cruelty ...by shooting the cat instead of euthanizing it he showed a clear lack of professionalism and professional ethics.

As a vet he MUST know the law, which he chose to disregard or to dileberately misenterpret (depending on which way you want to bend the usual rubbery legalese text)

If I was in Germany and to hear of this case I would report him, not only to whatever official body governs vets, but also to that which governs hunting, which also happens to be highly regulated in Germany.

If the story is true, he would probably be in danger of loosing both licenses ...as a vet and as a hunter , because he transgressed the law on both occasions.

I'm not familiar with the relevant laws in this case. But it seems he broke TWO??? We can argue all day over the morality of the man but he must be a bit dumb to do what he did, considering the laws, of which he presumably was aware.

peasant

rediguana wrote:

I'm not familiar with the relevant laws in this case. But it seems he broke TWO??? We can argue all day over the morality of the man but he must be a bit dumb to do what he did, considering the laws, of which he presumably was aware.

The animal protection law is quoted above and in hunting regulations it says that pets like dogs or cats may not be shot unless they are found straying/hunting in the actual designated hunting grounds (which his own back yard clearly isn't)

So yes, he broke two laws. Personally I wouln't think that he's "dumb" ...probably one of those self professed "hard men" who couldn't care less what the law does or doesn't say.

Not my vet of choice, anyway:D

Carcharodon

I always seem to go against the grain on topics like this, dont mean to be confrontational but I think that people are making too much out of this issue and saying that they would report the vet seems a bit extreme to say the least.

Firstly I would not be able to shoot my dogs unless it was a last resort but that is just me and most people on here seem to have the same view, this is mainly due to the society we live in today and the image we have of ourselves as being a sophisticated society that does not engage in violent or savagery type behaviour. I think people are wrong to assume that lethal injection is automaticaly the right and only option and to assume that shooting the animal is wrong just because it is written down somewhere that it should not be done does not make it an automatic sin.

If you look at things logicaly you will see that what he was doing had the best intentions, just because he's method differs from some peoples views does not make him a monster or even wrong in my opinion.
As long as death was instantaneous then there is no problem here.

People seem to be making wild assumptions about the man and the situation he was in, yet we really know little about it all, a story can often be told differently when passed on through people. This man could of valued he,s pet alot and thought this was the best option available to him.

I understand peoples love for their pets and the view that shooting them is cruel but at the end of the day, shooting or injecting, the animal will be dead and not in pain if done correctly, the end result is always the same. Shooting has an image of unneeded violence but its not like he was using the cat as target practice.
For any person to report this man and try and lose him his job, then that person is very bitter and sad.

rediguana

[

Not my vet of choice, anyway:D[/QUOTE]


Nor mine

prospect

Shooting an animal is THE MOST humane way of putting it down i.m.o.

The animal would be dead before it would even hear the bang.

peasant

prospect wrote:

Shooting an animal is THE MOST humane way of putting it down i.m.o.

The animal would be dead before it would even hear the bang.

That would very much depend on what the animal was shot with and how.

Bullet through the back of the neck kind of thing would probably do it cleanly and quickly (unless of course you get the angle wrong and the bullet just grazes past the brain, resulting in a twitching, panicked, half-dead mess).
Shotgun at close quarters will give you mince meat ...but whether that mince meat is dead instantly or will keep on twitching and crying in pain for another while is another question.

With the injections on the other hand ...first you sedate your pet, you can hold it and calm/reassure it while it fades into unconciousness and then when you're sure it won't feel anything, you can give it the lethal dose.

Now, tell me again ...which one exactly is the "THE MOST" humane way of putting down the animal?

And which one would you choose for a life long friend, that gave you nothing but love and affection all its short life long?

Hmm??

fits

prospect wrote:

Shooting an animal is THE MOST humane way of putting it down i.m.o.

The animal would be dead before it would even hear the bang.

Depends on the animal and the shooter. Peasant's method would obviously be better for a domesticated pet. Shooting is kinder for a wild animal.

prospect

peasant wrote:

That would very much depend on what the animal was shot with and how.

Bullet through the back of the neck kind of thing would probably do it cleanly and quickly (unless of course you get the angle wrong and the bullet just grazes past the brain, resulting in a twitching, panicked, half-dead mess).
Shotgun at close quarters will give you mince meat ...but whether that mince meat is dead instantly or will keep on twitching and crying in pain for another while is another question.

With the injections on the other hand ...first you sedate your pet, you can hold it and calm/reassure it while it fades into unconciousness and then when you're sure it won't feel anything, you can give it the lethal dose.

Now, tell me again ...which one exactly is the "THE MOST" humane way of putting down the animal?

And which one would you choose for a life long friend, that gave you nothing but love and affection all its short life long?

Hmm??

As I said, IMO - In MY Opinion.

By the same rationale, an injection administered incorrectly, or using the wrong substance can be equally in-humane. So I think it is fairly obvious I meant that the animal was shot in the correct, swift manner.

Also, in the situation of farmers needing to terminate an animal. Is it more humane to leave the animla suffer until a VET can be contacted, or to shoot them there and then?

So, IMO, an animal shot 'correctly' (that sounds weird) is the most humane way of putting it down.