I think it is also easy for people to get removed from just how stressful these things are for an owner and the animal. Having a cat that is urinating or pooping outside the box constantly puts a big strain on an owner and the cat isn't immune to that frustration. Animals can sense our frustrations and stress, which can further stress the animal. The constant clean up that goes on with the animal and the concern for the animal just builds. It isn't "fun" for either the owner or the pet. These aren't just simple inconveniences, they seriously impact peoples' lives and the animal's life. I think, even as vets, we can become a bit removed from just how stressful that is for an owner because we aren't dealing with it every day. But it really isn't as simple as, well it is just a bit of urine or poop, really not that hard to clean up, it is much more than that.
I'm not trying to imply that a cat with accidents is no big deal. Trust me, I can barely stand when my sister's dog comes over and has accidents, and that's only occasionally.
Bingo. The million dollar question.
(And, I totally regret mentioning my own dog. I feel like the reason I mentioned it was completely missed. Ah well.)
You mentioned it to see how I'd interpret your situation since I said I disagree with euthanizing healthy animals for pure convenience, no? You chose to use a quote of mine to which your situation doesn't even apply. You aren't in the mindset of "I don't want to deal with my dog, I'm moving. It's too much work, I don't want the dog in the car with me, etc." It seems like you're more along the lines of "My dog is going downhill, in considerable pain, and won't do well for the trip or thereafter. I don't want to cause unnecessary stress." It's not the same thing, at all. You chose to interpret my statement in a different way than what it was intended, even though context clues pointed to me referring to healthy animals. Not an ailing dog.
When one spouse loves the cat and the other spouse just wants the cat gone and doesn't want to spend any more $ or clean up cat diarrhea, you'd be surprised re: my cat from hell 😉
My point is, what if deworming doesn't fix it? Would that still be convenience euth?
Sure, I can agree with you that a person not wanting to at least deworm would get me a little grumpy. But where do you draw the line at convenience euth? Is it deworming once? How about twice? How about trying a hypoallergenic diet (after all, the kids LOVE to feed the cat french fries and BOY is that food $$$$)? Do you get what I'm saying? There's never a point where you can say "yes, this is the right thing" or "no, this is the wrong thing." Everyone's circumstances are different. And I think it's really important that we don't judge our clients for making the decisions they do, but help to guide them as their trusted professional. We have to be an advocate for both the animal and the client. I can tell you that I cried more than once during finals because I needed to clean **** out of the carpet yet again.
Re: two cats...not so easy. One cat ends up getting locked up in a room for the rest of its life (or however long it takes to work it up)...is that any fair to the cat? Now I'm concerned about welfare.
The veterinarian needs to interpret the individual situation and use his/her judgement. I think I've said that several times at this point, though. Where you wouldn't euthanize, I might, and vice-versa. Any vet would probably say "I highly recommend you do _____, but we can
try deworming and hope it works." You can't force a client to make the medically wise decision. I mean really, we have a boarder now that is urinating blood with confirmed stones. The owner won't do a cystotomy because the dog can still urinate. We can't force her to do the surgery. We can only answer the phone if/when she calls during emergency hours. What could be a cheaper cystotomy might very well turn into a several thousand dollar estimate, which might end up force the owner's hand at that point.
I know there is no "right or wrong answer." I don't think there is in nearly any euthanasia situation. I mean really, you can think a single situation is both "right and wrong." We had a dog with a severe tail abscess come in. The tail needed to be amputated, and the owners didn't have the $1000 to do so, so the dog was euthanized. However, they were aware their dog had a problem and didn't bring it in until a month or so later, when the entire tail became necrosed and they couldn't stand the smell anymore, saying that they were hoping it would go away on its own. Is it "wrong" that the dog was euthanized because they neglected to provide it care to prevent the initial problem from becoming a huge problem? Yes. Is it right that the dog was euthanized to end the suffering, even though it was a fixable, yet unaffordable, situation? Yes.
