No abstract

BackgroundWhen companion animals become seriously ill clients may have doubts about treatment choices, if any, and turn to veterinarians for help. But how should veterinarians reply? Influence on clients’ decision-making may or may not be acceptable—depending on one’s attitude to principles such as ‘paternalism’, ‘respect for autonomy’ and ‘shared decision-making’. This study takes as a starting point a situation where the animal is chronically ill, or aged, with potentially reduced animal welfare and client quality of life, and thus where clients need to consider treatment options or euthanasia. It is assumed throughout that both veterinarians and clients have the animals’ best interest at heart. The purpose of the study was to explore the challenges these situations hold and to investigate how clients experience veterinary influence. A second aim was to reflect on the ethical implications of the role of veterinarians in these situations. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 dog owners considering treatment or euthanasia of their chronically ill or aged dogs.ResultsChallenges relating to the dog and to the client were identified. Some situations left the interviewees hesitant, e.g. if lacking a clear cut-off point, the dog appeared normal, the interviewee felt uncertain about treatments or animal welfare, or experienced conflicting concerns. Some interviewees found that veterinarians could influence their decisions. Such influence was received in different ways by the interviewees. Some interviewees wanted active involvement of the veterinarian in the decision-making process, and this may challenge a veterinarian’s wish to respect client autonomy.ConclusionsDifferent preferences are likely to exist amongst both veterinarians and clients about veterinary involvement in clients’ decision-making, and such preferences may vary according to the situation. It is suggested, that one way to handle this challenge is to include respect for client preference on veterinary involvement under a wider understanding of respect for autonomy, and to apply models of shared decision-making to veterinary practice. In any case there is a need to further explore the challenges these situations raise, and for the veterinary profession to engage in more formal and structured deliberation over the role of veterinarians in relation to clients’ decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13028-016-0211-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Studies in human medicine show that care of chronically ill family members can affect the caregiver's life in several ways and cause "caregiver burden." Companion animals are offered increasingly advanced veterinary treatments, sometimes involving home care. Owners choosing such treatments could thus face similar challenges when caring for their animals. This qualitative study uncovers impacts on an owner's life, when attending to the care of an aged or chronically ill dog and reflects on the differing roles of caregivers with animal and human patients. Twelve dog owners were selected for in-depth interviews based on the dogs' diagnoses, and the choice of treatments and care expected to affect the owner's life. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. The dog owners reported several changes in their lives due to their dog's condition: practicalities like extra care, changes in use of the home, and restrictions relating to work, social life, and finances. These were time-consuming, tough, and annoying, but could often be dealt with through planning and prioritizing. Changes in the human-dog relationship and activities caused sadness and frustration, which in turn led to feelings of guilt, and in some cases created a feeling of loss. Also, concerns about the progress of the dog's condition, it's welfare, and euthanasia brought emotional distress and many doubts. The owners did, however, respond to the changes differently and as a result experienced different effects on their own life. This study confirms that the situations of caregivers with human and animal patients are in some ways similar, yet the study also identifies and reflects on some of the differences. These include the caregiver role and the options of assistance as well as euthanasia. Veterinary staff are urged to inform owners about possible impacts on their lives when considering careconsuming treatments, and to be aware of the need for support during treatment as well as in decisions about euthanasia.

De-domestication is the deliberate establishment of a population of domesticated animals or plants in the wild. In time, the population should be able to reproduce, becoming self-sustainable and incorporating 'wild' animals. Often de-domestication is part of a larger nature restoration scheme, aimed at creating landscapes anew, or recreating former habitats. De-domestication is taken up in this paper because it both engages and raises questions about the major norms governing animals and nature. The debate here concerns whether animals undergoing de-domestication should be looked upon as wild or non-wild and the affect this has on questions about how they should be treated. It also concerns the value of nature, and the kind and degree of nature management considered appropriate. The paper first describes actual de-domestication practices and considers the character of human duties to animals in process of de-domestication. Secondly, the paper explores the implications of dedomestication for nature management, focusing on notions of naturalness and wildness. Finally,

No abstract