Category
Written by Paul
Dr Paul Manktelow is a vet who’s worked for almost 20 years on the front line in some of the UK’s busiest veterinary hospitals. As Chief Vet in the Charity Sector, he leads a team of vets and nurses that treat thousands of pets every year. Paul also appears regularly in the media as a TV and radio presenter, writer, public speaker and podcast producer.
The debate around assisted dying is one of the most sensitive and ethically complex discussions in modern healthcare. As the UK Parliament continues to explore potential legal changes, perspectives from doctors, ethicists, and policymakers dominate the conversation. However, one professional group remains absent from the discussion: veterinary surgeons.
Vets are uniquely experienced in making end-of-life decisions. Euthanasia is a routine but deeply significant part of veterinary practice, requiring careful consideration of suffering, quality of life, and ethical decision-making. This raises an important question: should veterinary professionals have a voice in the assisted dying debate?
Understanding the Assisted Dying Bill
The Assisted Dying Bill, introduced in 2024, proposes that terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six to twelve months to live may request medical assistance to end their lives. The bill outlines strict safeguards, including assessments by two independent doctors and final approval from a High Court judge, ensuring that decisions are voluntary and informed.
Proponents argue that legalising assisted dying offers dignity and autonomy, allowing individuals to avoid prolonged suffering. However, opponents express concerns about potential coercion, the burden on doctors, and whether safeguards can ever be truly effective.
A Veterinary Perspective on End-of-Life Decisions
Unlike human medicine, where euthanasia is illegal, veterinary medicine views euthanasia as a compassionate and ethical option when an animal’s suffering outweighs its quality of life. The key difference is that human assisted dying focuses on terminal illness, whereas in veterinary practice, euthanasia considers a broader range of factors, including:
- Pain and suffering – Veterinary euthanasia prioritises quality of life rather than prognosis alone.
- Mobility and function – Many animals are euthanised due to severe mobility issues, even if they are not terminally ill.
- Emotional and financial impact on owners – While difficult, financial constraints can be a deciding factor in end-of-life decisions for pets.
This highlights a critical consideration: should human medicine also focus more on quality of life rather than just a terminal diagnosis?
What Can Human Medicine Learn from Veterinary Practice?
While veterinary and human medicine are fundamentally different, there are key insights from veterinary practice that could help inform the assisted dying debate:
1. A Broader Understanding of Suffering
Veterinary medicine assesses suffering through multiple factors, not just life expectancy. A more holistic approach in human medicine could help refine how assisted dying laws are structured.
2. The Emotional Burden of End-of-Life Decisions
Vets routinely perform euthanasia, balancing medical judgment with empathy. Assisted dying represents a major ethical shift for human medicine, placing a significant emotional burden on doctors. Could consulting vets—who regularly navigate these dilemmas—help develop better emotional support structures for medical professionals?
3. Ethical Challenges in Decision-Making
Financial and emotional considerations play a role in veterinary euthanasia, whereas human assisted dying is framed within a rights-based framework. However, ensuring true autonomy remains a challenge, particularly in cases where individuals may feel they are a burden to their families.
Should Vets Be Part of the Conversation?
Despite these parallels, the veterinary profession has not been formally consulted in discussions surrounding the Assisted Dying Bill. Some may argue that human end-of-life care is too distinct for veterinary perspectives to be relevant. However, others believe that vets—who routinely assess suffering, guide end-of-life choices, and navigate ethical complexities—can provide unique insights into this debate.
This is not about suggesting that human assisted dying should mirror veterinary euthanasia, but rather recognising that those with experience in compassionate, pragmatic decision-making at the end of life may have something valuable to contribute.
Final Thoughts
The Assisted Dying Bill will continue to be debated, as it should be. It is a deeply personal and societal issue that demands careful thought and strong safeguards. While human and veterinary medicine differ significantly, there are lessons that could enrich the conversation—particularly around suffering, quality of life, and the emotional burden placed on healthcare professionals.
As veterinary professionals, we are used to making difficult end-of-life decisions, balancing compassion with ethics. The question remains: should our experience help shape the future of human end-of-life care?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Should the veterinary profession be part of this discussion? What can we learn from each other? Let’s continue the conversation.
🎧 Want to hear more? Listen to my podcast episode: Should Vets Have a Voice in the Assisted Dying Debate? where I discuss these ethical challenges and share my experiences in veterinary end-of-life care.
