Avlivning av sällskapsdjur, utförd av annan än veterinär
ett djurskyddsproblem?
We know that more than 2/3 of insured dogs in Sweden are put to death by a veterinarian, which means that almost one third are killed in trauma, lost or die in some other way. An unknown number of these are killed by their owner with no veterinarian involved. This graduate thesis contains a specification of the laws that control euthanasia of dogs and cats in Sweden, and the veterinary medical basics on how to perform euthanasia. The objective is also to give understanding on how pet owners choose to put their animal to death and why, and to discuss whether that is an animal welfare problem.
It is legal to kill dogs and cats by shooting, using a sporting gun, provided that it is done according to laws and regulations. The review of verdicts in the thesis shows that those who shoot their pet do not always know how to do it properly, and that some choose other less appropriate measures of putting their animal to death. Strangling, knifing, drowning and hitting them in the head occur but is not legal. In several verdicts the perpetrator was mainly convicted for not verifying that the animal was dead before disposing of the body. Two interviews with persons having euthanised a number of pet animals give their perspective, and tell some of the reasons why not applying to a veterinarian.
The conclusions in the thesis are that the law provides clear information on what is permitted, but the prosecution, evidence and written statements could be better prepared. The prosecution should in all applicable cases bear upon battery (djurplågeri) or secondly violation of the animal protection act (djurskyddslagen), and veterinary statements could be based on more complete information about the alleged crime. Pet animals are totally dependent on public insight in peoples own homes, and social workers and police are important factors of discovery. Because animals cannot tell us what happened, we need to be more ambitious about witness statements and evidence. Autopsy can be of great importance.
A partially misleading idea of how euthanasia is performed at the veterinary clinic makes the pet owner choose to solve the problem himself. The veterinary service of euthanasia also could be improved, with a higher accommodation to the animals and to the demands of pet owners. We as veterinarians could communicate to the public a different picture of how it is done at our clinic.