Veterinary Practice Management Ethical Dilemma: An animal is surrendered to your clinic for euthanasia - Essay Example

In this scenario, an animal has been surrendered for euthanasia. A member of the staff, however, has requested for the adoption of the pet. The core ethical scenario involved in this case regards whether the animal should die or live. The euthanasia exists on one realm of the ethical scenario as it entails killing the animal. On the other hand, adopting the animal exists on another the realm of the ethical scenario as it involves letting the animal live. The key choice exists in either letting the animal live or killing the animal as depending on the prevailing circumstances.

In this case, the ethical dilemma will involve examining the animal’s welfare. In this sense, the clinics examines whether the animal is better off dead or alive. In addition, it examines the concerns of the individual who admits the pet for euthanasia. In this case, the clinic ethical team evaluates the individual’s welfare in terms of the animal’s condition. This involves examination of costs and benefits that the pet grants to the owner. It also evaluates the responsibility of the individual over the animal.

In this case, it is essential to determine whether the individual who has admitted the animal has a direct responsibility over the animal. There are notable ways of tackling this issue. The most pertinent question regards asking whether death harms the animal. In its true state, pain is an element that involves harm. In this perspective, it raises ethical questions. It is crucial, however, to ask whether killing an animal with minimal pain, though prematurely, comprise harm. In a traditional biological view, it is agreeable that animals do not possess the cognitive ability of grasping the concept of death and life (Guillen, 2013).

However, there are schools of thought that attribute this perception to animals’ limitations of language. This means that animals could still have their own sense of life and death. It becomes difficult to imagine, bearing this concept, that animals value life. In turn, an animal cannot have the rational capacity of trading current suffering for possible future pleasures. On the other hand, it is arguable that killing of animal constitutes harm in spite of the painless procedures that practitioners may involve in the process.

This is because it involves cutting off possible future pleasures of the animal (Regan, 2004). This informs the moral institution that the painless killing of animal compromises on the welfare of the given animal. By stating this position, ethical thought system proposes that the animal could have enjoyed a pleasurable future. It is essential to highlight that this position is subject to medical examination. When medical examination proves that there are limited chances of an animal living a prospective future, as regards present health conditions, it nullifies the ethical proposition that euthanasia limits the welfare of animal.

There are several stakeholders in this case. To begin with, the animal is a core party in the decisions. This is because it bears the direct impact of harm that euthanasia inflicts. When the animal lives, it bears the consequences’ of living in pain. In this sense, it might either heal or eventually die out of its condition. On the other hand, it may die thereby cutting off chances of living. The death is also beneficial towards eliminating pain. The individual who admits the