Dear Lawyer,

A friend of mine recently moved to a nursing home. Her son told me she had instructed that her dog Freckles be put to sleep by a veterinarian rather than go to a shelter, even though the dog is 8 years old and very healthy. I persuaded him to let me adopt Freckles and bring him to visit the nursing home. My question is, can a veterinarian really put a healthy animal to sleep? Is it ethical? Is it legal? –Shocked in Rio Rancho

Dear Shocked,

I’m afraid that some veterinarians can and do euthanize healthy companion animals at the request of their owners. This practice is called “convenience euthanasia.” While a growing number of veterinarians rightly view it to be unethical, many continue the practice.

                Most of us could not imagine a reason to give up our beloved pets, but there are far too many people who do so without much justification. They consider it too difficult to care for a pet that becomes incontinent, develops arthritis, needs surgery, loses eyesight, or develops a degenerative medical condition. Further down the ethical ladder are those who want their animals euthanized because they are moving, have a new baby, do not want to pay for a fence, or have simply lost interest.

                Current laws put few, if any, limits on convenience euthanasia. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s Guidelines on Euthanasia do not even address the issue, although the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights states: “Veterinarians should refuse on principle to be the instrument of death of non-human animals for reasons other than those of mercy.” (The group does exempt veterinarians who work at animal-control facilities.)

                I believe our laws need to be updated to reflect our growing understanding of, and respect for, the lives of companion animals. And it appears we may be moving slowly in that direction. Not long ago, a person could write a will instructing that a pet be euthanized after the owner’s death. Probate courts now universally invalidate such intestate requests as being “against public policy.”

                Delaware classifies intentional destruction of companion animals as a violation of state law prohibiting “unnecessarily killing” of such animals (though the principle has not been applied to veterinarians). Nebraska enacted a statute that specifies that a dog or cat be euthanized only for “humane purposes,” which one could argue do not include an owner’s convenience. Most state and local anti-cruelty statutes have vague language that limits humane destruction of a companion animal to cases of illness or injury, but veterinarians are almost always excepted. Such laws clearly need to be amended. If all veterinarians were banned from, or refused to engage in convenience euthanasia, pet owners would be forced to bring their animals to rescue groups or public shelters, where they would at least have a chance at being adopted. Veterinarians might also contact animal rescue groups when a convenience euthanasia request was made—and I believe that in such cases the owner’s legal claim to the animal would be considered extinguished once the animal was turned over to the veterinarian.

                As companion animals are afforded greater dignity and respect, it is likely that laws increasingly will limit euthanasia to cases where it is medically justifiable. The trend in American society is toward spaying and neutering, closing puppy mills, encouraging adoption of homeless animals, and support for rescue, sanctuary, and hospice programs. The law, which evolves with social mores, will hopefully not be far behind.

Ed Goodman worked for more than two decades as a trial lawyer in Massachusetts. A painter, screenwriter, and novelist, he lives in Corrales with partner Ennio Garcia-Miera and their six dogs, four turkeys, four chickens, and a parrot.