Ethics of Necropsies....

[katryn]

I ran across a blog the other day talking about whether it's ethical to do a necropsy on an animal after euthanasia without asking the owners permission. Just curious what everyone thinks.

Details of the issue: There's obviously a lot to learn from dead bodies. If a diagnosis was never made, one may or may not be found. If it was made, the vet gets a better idea of what gross changes there actually were due to the disease at the end stage. Additionally, if the pet is being sent off for cremation, the owner is pretty likely to never find out. On the other hand, I know I'd be blazingly furious if I found out my vet cut open my pets without asking.

Opinions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[StillDreaming]

I know at the vet school I work at, it is asked if the owner wants a necropsy done for a charge (and they get the results). If they say no, it i then asked if they want to donate their animal's body for teaching purposes, and thus a necropsy is performed (they just never see the results as the animal is technically no longer theirs).

I think if the owner says no to both of these, then it is unethical, as they clearly stated no they didn't want their pet to undergo a necropsy.

If the owner is never asked, i think it is not moral (under my standards for myself) to do a necropsy. You have the option of clearly stating to the owner the benefits to them and your education to help future pets by doing a necropsy, so you should utilize this option. If you have a desire to do a necropsy on a patient, then you usually are aware of this desire prior to you losing contact with the owner (i.e. the owner is still in your hospital with the patient, or a close phone call away), thus you should ask the owner. If you know you want to do a necropsy, but don't ask the woner, and assume that because they have cremation they will never find out, then it becomes immoral in my opinion.

I am sure there are special cases in which the above may not apply, but this is what i would do as a veterinarian.

 

[pawprints]

While I completely agree that there is a lot to be learned from necropsies, I do not believe that the veterinarian has the right to perform one without the owners permission, regardless of the fact that the owners will most likely never find out. With permission, I believe it's 100% okay and a valuable resource not only for the individual veterinairn and veterinary team, but for veterinary medicine as a whole. However, without permission, it becomes a matter of (lack of) respect (for both the animal and those that loved it), and like you, I would see only red if I found out that this happened to one of my pets...(mind you, my pets are immortal, so this won't be a problem...)

 

[sumstorm]

One of our vets has managed to get owners to agree for to a free in-house necropsy every single time she has wanted to perform one. She is really good about explaining how it will give the owners more information (possibly even answers) and how it will help improve the care of their future pets and other pets. She also assures them that she will make the body completly presentable, even if it is going for cremation (and she always sticks to her word on that.)

I agree that it would be unethical to perform one on an owned pet without prior permission. I also know that the other vet I work for routinely obtained corpses from local shelters while she was a vet student to improve her skills. At that point, the bodies were owned by the county/shelter and she had permission from that entitity to perform the necropsy.

 

[Angelo84]

I agree that a necropsy without permissison is unethical. I believe the policy here is that if an animal currently being treated dies you can get a necropsy done for free (with permission). Otherwise there is a fee. Animals can also be donated to the school in which case there is a reduced euth fee. This is how we get our cadavers for the anatomy course/wetlabs/continuing ed etc.

 

[bunnity]

What about a situation where there is suspected rabies and you have to do the sample for the health department? Hopefully this wouldn't be something one would encounter too often in owned animals, but when it did the law would have to take precedence over the owner's wishes... right? Man I can see that being an uncomfortable situation, especially since the health dept here won't take the whole dog

 

[sumstorm]

I am pretty sure even in the case of rabies the owner must be informed, but at that point I believe the right of the public health oversteps the right of the individual. Having said that, the few times we have done that, we did NOT tell the owner the details of the testing. Just that a necropsy is required.

 

[david594]

What about a situation where there is suspected rabies and you have to do the sample for the health department? Hopefully this wouldn't be something one would encounter too often in owned animals, but when it did the law would have to take precedence over the owner's wishes... right? Man I can see that being an uncomfortable situation, especially since the health dept here won't take the whole dog

I'd say its a situation I've encountered at least once monthly since I have been working at the emergency clinic.

Its not really that uncomfortable, we just tell them exactly how it is.

"Your animal bit a person within the last 10 days and we cannot legally euthanize your pet without sending it out for rabies testing. We can do that, but it will cost ~$400. If you cannot do that, then we can have animal control pickup your animal and keep it in quarantine for those 10 days. After which point it could then be euthanized. But if at any point it dies during that quarantine or it develops neurological symptoms it will be immediately euthanized and sent off for rabies testing."

 

[pyxystyx]

The way I see it, performing a necropsy on an animal without the owner's permission is pretty much illegal. (And, if it technically isn't, well then it should be.)

Think about it- Animals are property as far as the law goes, end of story. Even if you are to euthanize one, it is STILL the property of the owner.
Performing a necropsy on the animal then without their permission is obviously illegal, seeing as although you or the cremation service is in custody of the animal, you are merely performing a service, and cannot alter their property.

Just the way I think the law would see it, should someone ever get caught doing something owners didn't want them to.

 

[Bill59]

Pitting the clear benefit of a necropsy against the client's wishes is a false dichotomy. That's because there's no reason to perform a necropsy without asking the client's permission first.

 

[katryn]

lol. thank you all for indulging me with opinions! I've always loved ethics and when I ran across this I figured I'd find out what everybody thought (even thought the answer seemed pretty obvious ). I think it's a good consideration to put an option for necropsy on euthanasia forms.

 

[natalieises]

What about a situation where there is suspected rabies and you have to do the sample for the health department? Hopefully this wouldn't be something one would encounter too often in owned animals, but when it did the law would have to take precedence over the owner's wishes... right? Man I can see that being an uncomfortable situation, especially since the health dept here won't take the whole dog

I work in a pretty high volume clinic. This issue does come up more frequently than you would expect. In every case if the animal has bitten someone and then dies before a rabies observation can be done(ex. it is being euthanized), they have to cut the animal's head off and send it in. The owners have no choice because it is a threat to whomever was bitten by the animal, and you have to find out if it has rabies. It is a pretty disturbing/upsetting situation.

 

[bunnity]

I work in a pretty high volume clinic. This issue does come up more frequently than you would expect. In every case if the animal has bitten someone and then dies before a rabies observation can be done(ex. it is being euthanized), they have to cut the animal's head off and send it in. The owners have no choice because it is a threat to whomever was bitten by the animal, and you have to find out if it has rabies. It is a pretty disturbing/upsetting situation.

Yeah I figured the owner would have no choice. Thanks everyone for pointing out that it is a much more common situation than I thought - all my SA experience was shelter, not private practice, so all our rabies suspected animals were non-owned. So would you actually tell the owner that you have to cut the head off, or just that a necropsy must be done? In one sense I feel like they don't need to know that and it would be really upsetting, but if they found out how it worked some other way they might feel deceived. Thoughts?

 

[natalieises]

That's a good question, I've never been in the room with the client when this situation has occurred. I would think we would just say we had to send in a specimen or something. I work in chicago where most people have their pets cremated(not a lot of grass/yard access here ) so they would never know they only got the rest of the remains back. I can't imagine how it would be in a regular town where people bury their own pets. Do you go home with a headless dog??? Anyone have any experience with that?

As a pet owner I'd rather not know they were cutting my pet's head off, but I can see that it would be upsetting to find out that is what happened having not been told. I don't think there's a perfect solution for this kind of thing. Our number one rule at work during euth's is "Don't get bit!" If I were responsible for the whole decapitation thing I'd feel horrible.

 

[david594]

Yeah I figured the owner would have no choice. Thanks everyone for pointing out that it is a much more common situation than I thought - all my SA experience was shelter, not private practice, so all our rabies suspected animals were non-owned. So would you actually tell the owner that you have to cut the head off, or just that a necropsy must be done? In one sense I feel like they don't need to know that and it would be really upsetting, but if they found out how it worked some other way they might feel deceived. Thoughts?

If I told them a necropsy was being done I would be lying to them because thats not what rabies testing entails. Its very important that you are accurate in what you tell people or it will come back to bite you. Clients are told that the animal needs to be sent out for testing and they are not able to have its remains for home burial. I've actually found it to be pretty rare that clients ask about the details of the testing beyond that. When they do we tell them that the animals head will be cut off and sent to the state lab where a section of the brain stem is tested for the presence of rabies. Never gotten any significant reactions from the owner after I have told them though.

 

[katryn]

I've found that it's pretty safe and PC to tell owners that their animal needs to be sent off for testing and that a portion of the brain stem will be used to determine rabies diagnosis. Most people get the idea that we're going to cut the head off without having to come out and say it. We did have one client try to sneek downstairs and take her animal's body away because she didn't want her pet "mutilated in such a horrific and inhumane way..."

 

[No Imagination]

No one has actually said WHY they seem to think that doing an unauthorized necropsy is some sort of violation?

Plenty of people seem to be on the side of "Dont do it", "It's wrong", "It's illegal"...

Performing a necropsy on the animal then without their permission is obviously illegal, seeing as although you or the cremation service is in custody of the animal, you are merely performing a service, and cannot alter their property.

Why? You all may be 100% right here, but as this is an ethic thread, not a single person (except Pyxystyx) has made an argument for your stance?

Personally, I can continue with pyxystyx's argument and say,

"I notice a tick on a dogs ear while performing a routine procedure, but I do not remove it, because it would be "altering" the animal in some way, and the animal is property, and they did not ask for my exoparasitic removal service..."


Now, I put Fluffy down, Fluffy was dying from an unknown illness. Fluffy's owners want cremation. I could still do the necropsy without interfering with my commitment for crematory services.

To me, the possibility of diagnosing a potential dangerous/contagious disease, without any risk the the "property" is a win/win; and no different then removing the tick from the dogs ear.

Whats the logic behind barring me from doing it?

(I am sure someone is going to say, don't remove the tick )

 

[chris03333]

No one has actually said WHY they seem to think that doing an unauthorized necropsy is some sort of violation?

Plenty of people seem to be on the side of "Dont do it", "It's wrong", "It's illegal"...



Why? You all may be 100% right here, but as this is an ethic thread, not a single person (except Pyxystyx) has made an argument for your stance?

Personally, I can continue with pyxystyx's argument and say,

"I notice a tick on a dogs ear while performing a routine procedure, but I do not remove it, because it would be "altering" the animal in some way, and the animal is property, and they did not ask for my exoparasitic removal service..."


Now, I put Fluffy down, Fluffy was dying from an unknown illness. Fluffy's owners want cremation. I could still do the necropsy without interfering with my commitment for crematory services.

To me, the possibility of diagnosing a potential dangerous/contagious disease, without any risk the the "property" is a win/win; and no different then removing the tick from the dogs ear.

Whats the logic behind barring me from doing it?

(I am sure someone is going to say, don't remove the tick )

It would be highly unusual that your gross necropsy will tell you the answer anyway, and if you find the answer you cannot tell anyone so why put yourself in that position?

 

[No Imagination]

It would be highly unusual that your gross necropsy will tell you the answer anyway

/agree

and if you find the answer you cannot tell anyone so why put yourself in that position?

Why not? What "rule" did you break? I am not arguing that there "is no" rule. I just don't know what that rule is, so I am legitimately asking, what rule prevents doing it?

 

[DVMorBust]

To me, the possibility of diagnosing a potential dangerous/contagious disease, without any risk the the "property" is a win/win; and no different then removing the tick from the dogs ear.

I think there's a big difference between 'dangerous/contagious disease' and 'hm, I think I'd like to do a necropsy tonight!' In the latter, you can ask but if the owner says 'no' (and would be well within their rights to do so), you've got no business messing with their property aside from whatever they're paying you to do.

If there is something suspicious that genuinely brings up a worrisome condition, then it's a different story. The minute the animal's illness affects other animals or humans, it stops being just about that owner's wishes.

Of course, I would hope that it wouldn't be done without the owner's knowledge, but knowledge and permission are two different things. Example, rabies testing. Doesn't matter what the owner wants, it's going to happen...and they should know about it, if not approve of it.

 

[littlehooves]

Hey everyone, I read most of the posts and while I agree with what pretty much everyone else has said (its not ethical to do a necroscopy without permission, granted it was euth. not under circumstances of it biting someone).

But what if you were in a situation...where you did experience a veterinarian doing a necroscopy, without the owners consent or knowledge, on a euthanized pet that was to be cremated? (In the circumstance that this is a small animal hospital, and the dog had on going illness, and was euthanized.) What would you do, if anything?

 

[katryn]

I support asking before doing mainly for the point of honesty. Some owners, however silly it seems, simply do not want their dog/cat/pet "violated" by some of the procedures that necropsy require (mainly cutting open the rib cage, this seems to be the biggest point of discontent). Although it may not technically be illegal, I would not be surprised to find that being sued for doing a necropsy without consent holds up in the court of law.

What it boils down to, is that some people hold their pets in higher esteem than "property" and what an owner chooses for a pet after death should be respected the same way that a person's choice for a family member is respected. Although pets are NOT people, the people who own them are; and the respect shown for human burial is in truth shown for the people doing the burying, not the one buried. I feel the same should hold true for pets.

 

[chris03333]

/agree



Why not? What "rule" did you break? I am not arguing that there "is no" rule. I just don't know what that rule is, so I am legitimately asking, what rule prevents doing it?

Your state practice act

 

[Bill59]

No one has actually said WHY they seem to think that doing an unauthorized necropsy is some sort of violation?

Here's why. The client has entrusted you to care for their animal's remains. In an ethical sense, and probably a legal sense, you have entered into a contract with the client to handle the disposition of the body. To perform a procedure such as a necropsy without the client's consent is a violation of that contract and that trust.

And if that trust is not enough reason for you (and it should be) just imagine the fecal storm that would rain down on your head if a client discovered you did something like that without their permission. "I'm sorry doc, but I've changed my mind and would like to bring Fluffy home to bury her."

 

[No Imagination]

Hmm.... I guess mentally, when the animal is dead, I don't have any emotional feelings towards it and feel my contract with the owner is over and done with. (guess that is not the case however)

For the most part, I feel the same way about people - Dead is dead. But I realize that is not a general consensus and for some people emotional attachments linger, and I can understand that... i guess.

 

[aretoo]

Its very important that you are accurate in what you tell people or it will come back to bite you. Clients are told that the animal needs to be sent out for testing and they are not able to have its remains for home burial.

100% agree - I've observed a situation where this was not done and the whole situation just went from bad to worse - owner asked to see body, etc, etc, you get the picture. Lesson learned: honesty is the BEST policy.


Littlehooves - depending on the laws in your area (not sure what they are for ON) and the situation, I would either keep my mouth shut or make a complaint to CVO (governing body for Ontario, for non-Canadians).

 

[dyachei]

Just remember what happened a few years ago with the cremation/burial scandals. People take it seriously.

 

[No Imagination]

Just remember what happened a few years ago with the cremation/burial scandals. People take it seriously.

See, I took that as more of a fraud issue. People were paying for something and they were not getting what they paid for. But you are certainly right about people taking it seriously!

 

[dyachei]

See, I took that as more of a fraud issue. People were paying for something and they were not getting what they paid for. But you are certainly right about people taking it seriously!

But how is that different from what you're suggesting? People are paying for a service like cremation and you're possibly disfiguring their animal. They didn't ask you to or necessarily want you to necropsy their animal. It's fraud in its own right.

 

[No Imagination]

But how is that different from what you're suggesting? People are paying for a service like cremation and you're possibly disfiguring their animal. They didn't ask you to or necessarily want you to necropsy their animal. It's fraud in its own right.

I draw your attention back to the "Removing a Tick while performing another procedure" (leaving tick would have no effect of the paid for procedure)). Most people would not think twice about removing a tick without asking the clients permission...

I do not see the connection, that performing the necropsy before the cremation is fraud.

That said, I do now see that it is wrong (based on Bill's "Trust/Relationship of the deceased animal" (regardless of how absurd it may be to me) and Chriss's "Practice Act" responses).

 

[dyachei]

I draw your attention back to the "Removing a Tick while performing another procedure" (leaving tick would have no effect of the paid for procedure)). Most people would not think twice about removing a tick without asking the clients permission...

I do not see the connection, that performing the necropsy before the cremation is fraud.

That said, I do now see that it is wrong (based on Bill's "Trust/Relationship of the deceased animal" (regardless of how absurd it may be to me) and Chriss's "Practice Act" responses).

Fraud is intentional deception. You are defrauding the client because they believe that you are going to cremate their animal and you, for no gain of the client's, necropsy the animal. The only person that gains anything is you. At least in the case of the tick, the animal's health is promoted. In this necropsy case it does nothing for the property owner.

 

[pyxystyx]

Fraud is intentional deception. You are defrauding the client because they believe that you are going to cremate their animal and you, for no gain of the client's, necropsy the animal. The only person that gains anything is you. At least in the case of the tick, the animal's health is promoted. In this necropsy case it does nothing for the property owner.

Ditto. You've just been Lawyered. (Sorry I couldn't resist.)