posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 01:27pm on 12/03/2009
orichalcum at 01:27pm on 12/03/2009There's a column in the NYTimes today about how frequently doctors abandon their patients at the end of life. In the comments section, this is repeatedly contrasted with the behavior of vets, who make a point being there with the pet's human family when it is put to sleep, send sympathy cards, or arrange for rides home.
This makes me wonder why veterinarians would be more present and compassionate at such a time. One possible answer is that I suspect end-of-life care forms a larger part of veterinarians' practice than most human doctors, especially since dogs and cats simply don't live as long. This may cause vets to see the death of a patient as less a "failure" on their part, to be avoided in shame and remorse, and more a natural part of their relationship to a patient.
The other thought is that, because of the nature of the patient, vets spend a lot more time interacting with their family than human doctors necessarily do. So there's always more of an awareness on the effects of the death on the patient's loved ones.
This makes me wonder why veterinarians would be more present and compassionate at such a time. One possible answer is that I suspect end-of-life care forms a larger part of veterinarians' practice than most human doctors, especially since dogs and cats simply don't live as long. This may cause vets to see the death of a patient as less a "failure" on their part, to be avoided in shame and remorse, and more a natural part of their relationship to a patient.
The other thought is that, because of the nature of the patient, vets spend a lot more time interacting with their family than human doctors necessarily do. So there's always more of an awareness on the effects of the death on the patient's loved ones.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Pets are also sometimes allowed to die for economic reasons rather than reaching the furthest possible extent of medicine, which often makes the end of life an actual decision for the family. The decision inherently requires some counseling, compassion, and non-judgment.
(no subject)
On another note, if the people of this country had a more rational attitude about compassionate end-of-life for human patients in general, this might change, but for various reasons we are nutso about it. Dogs get treated better when they are dying naturally of old age than we do--my grandmother's vet made house calls after her dog couldn't walk anymore, provided her with plenty of pain meds and monitored her apparent will to live as closely as he could. When it was time he came and put her down while lying in her mother's arms on her favorite blanket, at home. Then he took her away and handled the cremation. No doc would ever provide that service, because admitting that all you can do is wait for end of life and make someone comfortable is something docs aren't willing to do. Let alone making house calls out of pure compassion.
(no subject)
"Live" and "dead" are neat little categories, which are convenient for score-keeping. "Alive, but obviously better off dead" is harder to quantify. I suppose you can't really blame them, given the litigious nature of modern American society, and the perverse refusal of society to accept suicide (with or without help) as every individual's inalienable right.