Guide - Veterinary Euthanasia

Unless otherwise permitted by legislation, a veterinarian may only perform euthanasia within the confines of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (“VCPR”).  

A veterinarian should take reasonable measures to ensure, where possible, that the owner of the animal or their designated authorized representative consents to euthanasia. 

Example: Mary’s daughter Elizabeth has been bringing in Mary’s cat to Dr. Singh’s clinic for many years. Mary has designated Elizabeth as an authorized representative and has indicated that Elizabeth has the authority to make all care decisions on her behalf. This information is clearly outlined in the medical record. Elizabeth has brought in Mary’s cat for an appointment. During examination, Dr. Singh discovers that Mary’s cat has developed symptoms that are resulting in undue pain and suffering. Given this, Dr. Singh believes that euthanasia is the most humane course of action. Dr. Singh discusses this diagnosis with Elizabeth and explains her options. After this discussion, Elizabeth consents to Dr. Singh performing euthanasia. 

Section 61 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act outlines the circumstances in which a veterinarian may euthanize an animal without owner consent. This exemption applies to all types of animals, regardless of ownership or oversight. The sections states that a veterinarian may euthanize an animal without consent when:  

1. the animal is suffering;  
2. the animal’s owner or custodian cannot be found promptly, or the veterinarian reasonably believes that the animal does not have an owner or custodian or has been abandoned; and  
3. in the veterinarian’s opinion, euthanization is the most humane course of action.  

Example One: Dr. Abara owns a small veterinary clinic in rural Ontario. One afternoon, an individual brings in a dog that has been hit by a car. The individual is not the owner or authorized representative  
of the dog. Dr. Abara completes an examination of the animal and determines that it is critically injured and suffering. The dog is not wearing a collar and does not have a microchip. A quick call to the local animal control authority confirms that no individual has presented themselves seeking the dog. Given the level of the dog’s injuries and the small likelihood of locating an owner or custodian in a timely manner, Dr. Abara makes the decision to euthanize the dog as it is the most humane course of action.  

Example Two: Dr. Nowak owns a large animal mobile in northern Ontario. One morning, Dr. Nowak is called out to a county road where a deer has been hit by a truck. Upon examination of the animal, Dr. Nowak determines that it is critically injured and suffering. Dr. Nowak is aware that wildlife populations do not have a specific owner or authorized representative. Given the level of the deer’s injuries, Dr. Nowak believes that euthanasia is the most humane course of action and makes the decision to euthanize the deer. 

A veterinarian retains the right to refuse to provide any veterinary service that they believe is not in the best interest of the animal or that they cannot properly perform. In these cases, a veterinarian may need to offer alternative treatments or recommend that the client seek another veterinarian.  

As in any other case, a veterinarian is expected to maintain medical records of any discussions held with a client and the reasoning behind any decision made. 

Should a veterinarian be presented with a situation in which a client refuses to provide consent to euthanasia for an animal that is unduly suffering to the point that the veterinarian believes that the animal is subject to abuse, undue physical or psychological hardship, privation or neglect, that veterinarian has a legal obligation under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to report the case to a provincial animal welfare inspector. Clients who are refusing to consent to euthanasia should be made aware of this legal obligation, and the veterinarian should strive to be clear and forthcoming. 

A veterinarian’s duty to report under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act does not conclude upon an animal’s death. Should a veterinarian be presented with an animal that they believe was subject to abuse, undue physical or psychological hardship, privation, or neglect, that veterinarian has a legal obligation to report the case to a provincial animal welfare inspector even if the animal has already been euthanized. 

When a new and/or potential client contacts a veterinarian/veterinary facility requesting euthanasia for their animal, the veterinarian/veterinary clinic may proceed with booking the appointment. As with all new clients, the veterinarian is obligated to establish a VCPR prior to providing veterinary services.  

Example: The receptionist at Dr. Frederick’s veterinary clinic receives a phone call from an individual, that is not an existing client, requesting an appointment to euthanize their animal. The receptionist explains to the individual that there is an appointment available the next day in which they could meet with Dr. Frederick and discuss the formation of a VCPR. The receptionist further explains that a decision on what veterinary services may be provided is part of a discussion that will be held with the veterinarian. The individual agrees to come in the next day to discuss their animal with Dr. Frederick. 

A veterinarian is expected to use professional judgement based on the specific circumstances to determine what assessment of the animal is needed to reach at least a general or preliminary diagnosis and determine whether euthanasia is a recommended course of action. This assessment may include, for example, discussion with the client, physical examination or premise visit, and/or diagnostic testing. 

Given its highly sensitive nature, it is best practice that the informed client consent conversation related to euthanasia occur between a veterinarian and their client. Auxiliaries may aid in this discussion (e.g. aiding the client in completing paperwork), but this assistance should occur after the informed consent conversation between the veterinarian and the client has occurred. 

A veterinarian is permitted to delegate the performance of euthanasia to an auxiliary. A veterinarian is expected to use their professional judgement to determine when it is appropriate to delegate this task.  

A veterinarian should consider several factors before determining whether it is appropriate to delegate the performance of euthanasia to an auxiliary. These include, but are not limited to, the training, skills, and knowledge of the auxiliary, the level of risk of harm to the animal if euthanasia is performed by the auxiliary, and the ability for the auxiliary to properly identify and react to any adverse effects that may occur. A veterinarian should not delegate euthanasia unless they are confident that the auxiliary is able to be as safe and effective as the veterinarian in the same circumstances.  

Clients must be informed when an auxiliary will be providing any aspect of animal care. 

A veterinarian is permitted to use their professional judgement to determine the level of supervision required (immediate, direct, or indirect). The College acknowledges that currently most delegation of euthanasia occurs under immediate or direct supervision. However, while uncommon, the College recognizes that there may be specific circumstances where it is in the animal’s best interest for a veterinarian to delegate euthanasia to an auxiliary under indirect supervision. 

Example One: Dr. Gregory operates a mixed animal veterinary practice as a sole practitioner. While Dr. Gregory is out on farm calls, an existing client brings their dog into the hospital for euthanasia. The dog has been receiving palliative care by Dr. Gregory over the past month and there have been recent discussions about the dog’s declining health and the need for euthanasia. Joan, a registered veterinary technician who works for Dr. Gregory, triages the dog and notes that it is showing signs of pain and suffering. Joan calls Dr. Gregory and discusses the dog’s condition. Based on the information provided by Joan, Dr. Gregory determines that the animal is unduly suffering. Dr. Gregory is concerned that they will not be able to return to the clinic in time to alleviate the dog’s suffering before it passes. Dr. Gregory speaks to the client over the phone and explains their diagnosis and concerns. Dr. Gregory obtains informed client consent to proceed with Joan performing the euthanasia under delegation and indirect supervision.  

Example Two: Dr. Abadi operates a large animal veterinary clinic that covers a large area of Northern Ontario. Dr. Abadi attends at a dairy farm to establish a VCPR and assess the animal(s) or group of animals. While attending the farm, Dr. Abadi notices that one of the cows is showing signs of injury. Dr. Abadi examines the animal and provides on-farm treatment.  

A few days later, Michael, a registered veterinary technician who works for Dr. Abadi, attends on the farm with one of the clinic’s associated mobiles to assist with disbudding some calves. While at the farm, Michael notices that the same cow that Dr. Abadi treated a few days earlier has taken a significant turn for the worse. Michael assesses the cow and note that she is showing signs of pain and suffering. Michael calls Dr. Abadi and discusses the cow’s condition. Based on the information provided by Michael, Dr. Abadi determines that the animal is unduly suffering. Dr. Abadi is currently several hours away and is unable to attend at the farm. Dr. Abadi speaks to the client over the phone and explains their diagnosis and concerns. Dr. Abadi obtains informed client consent to proceed with Michael performing the euthanasia under delegation and indirect supervision. 

A veterinarian is permitted to confirm an animal’s death based on information provided by an auxiliary through indirect supervision.