BackgroundEuthanasia of pets has been described by veterinarians as “the best and the worst” of the profession. The most commonly mentioned ethical dilemmas veterinarians face in small animal practice are: limited treatment options due to financial constraints, euthanizing of healthy animals and owners wishing to continue treatment of terminally ill animals. The aim of the study was to gain insight into the attitudes of Austrian veterinarians towards euthanasia of small animals. This included assessing their agreement with euthanasia in exemplified case scenarios, potentially predicted by demographic variables (e.g. gender, age, working in small animal practice, employment, working in a team, numbers of performed euthanasia). Further describing the veterinarians’ agreement with a number of different normative and descriptive statements, including coping strategies. A questionnaire with nine euthanasia scenarios, 26 normative and descriptive statements, and demographic data were sent to all members of the Austrian Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons (n = 2478).ResultsIn total, 486 veterinarians answered sufficiently completely to enable analyses. Responses were first explored descriptively before being formally analysed using linear regression and additive Bayesian networks – a multivariate regression methodology – in order to identify joint relationships between the demographic variables, the statements and each of the nine euthanasia scenarios. Mutual dependencies between the demographic variables were found, i.e. female compared to male veterinarians worked mostly in small animal practice, and working mostly in small animal practice was linked to performing more euthanasia per month.ConclusionsGender and age were found to be associated with views on euthanasia: female veterinarians and veterinarians having worked for less years were more likely to disagree with euthanasia in at least some of the convenience euthanasia scenarios. The number of veterinarians working together was found to be the variable with the highest number of links to other variables, demographic as well as ethical statements. This highlights the role of a team potentially providing support in stressful situations. The results are useful for a better understanding of coping strategies for veterinarians with moral stress due to euthanasia of small animals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12917-016-0649-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modern veterinary medicine offers numerous options for treatment and clinicians must decide on the best one to use. Interventions causing short-term harm but ultimately benefitting the animal are often justified as being in the animal’s best interest. Highly invasive clinical veterinary procedures with high morbidity and low success rates may not be in the animal’s best interest. A working party was set up by the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia to discuss the ethics of clinical veterinary practice and improve the approach to ethically challenging clinical cases. Relevant literature was reviewed. The ‘best interest principle’ was translated into norms immanent to the clinic by means of the ‘open question argument’. Clinical interventions with potential to cause harm need ethical justification, and suggest a comparable structure of ethical reflection to that used in the context of in vivo research should be applied to the clinical setting. To structure the ethical debate, pertinent questions for ethical decision-making were identified. These were incorporated into a prototype ethical tool developed to facilitate clinical ethical decision-making. The ethical question ‘Where should the line on treatment be drawn’ should be replaced by ‘How should the line be drawn?’