Euthanasia

[TJ]

I was wondering if administering an overdose of a sedative like Valium or whatever's on the market these days would be an effective means of euthanasia for terminally ill newts.

Valium and all sorts of other prescription drugs are readily available "under the counter" in Bangkok and elsewhere here in Asia so accessing them would be no problem.

I was thinking in terms of crumbling the tablets into powder, then diluting the powder in water, and once the newt is "asleep" it could then be frozen.

Ed or anybody have any idea whether a newt with bloat or something that serious could be humanely "put to sleep" like this? Would a sedative have the same effect on an amphibian as it would on a mammal? Any idea what an effective dosage would be for, say, Valium?

 

[cindy]

Tim:

Not sure of your idea of the Valium, but maybe take a look at the article in Caudate Central's section: "Euthanasia For Amphibians".

 

[edward]

Hi Tim,
There is no information I could find on the effect of diazepam and the related benzodiazepines on amphibians. This class of drug is water soluble so dissolving it in water is not a problem. These drugs are also soluble in lipids so there shouldn't be any problem with uptake in through the skin but how effective they are I can't say. In amphibians some barbituates are an acceptable anesthetic but others like thorazine are not.
I hae a hard time believing that diazepam ect are cheaper than benzocaine (which is now I believ on the IUCAC listing for approved anesthetics for amphibians at 100 mg/l).
Ed

 

[TJ]

Thanks. I did read the euthanasia article, with particular interest in the benzocaine option, but was just wondering about the effectiveness of sedatives/tranquilizers as opposed to painkillers or ethanol. Valium just happens to be the only one I know by name, and it's readily and cheaply obtainable.

I'm looking for a stress-free, painless method that would be not only easy on the newt, but easy on me! I'd feel a bit less like an executioner if I were to dilute diazepam in the newt's water than if I were to, say, directly apply Orajel to its belly -- even if the end result is the same.

Up to now I've been letting terminally ill newts die a "natural" death. But inaction in itself arguably constitutes a form of cruelty, so I'm probing my options...

Ed, how does a newt initially react to being immersed in a bath of 5% ethanol or to an application of Orajel?

 

[(unregistered]

I'm not to writing to start any conflict here. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but I strongly disagree with euthanasia. We don't kill human's because they are terminally ill, so why should we kill animals for the same reason? And it would be KILLING them. It's certainly not doing them any favor! We don't kill babies born with mental retardation or down's sydrome, we don't kill people who've lost limbs in accidents, we don't kill people who develop cancer and aids. We try to cure them, and if a cure is unknown, we try to make their live's as comfortable as possible. From my viewpoint, an animal is a living creature and just like humans, they retract when they get hurt and they run from things they fear. And I bet if they knew they were about to be euthanized, they'd run from you too! When we get a pet, we take on responsibilities. Included in those responsibilities are caring for them in the event they become terminally ill. If we can't commit to that, we shouldn't take on pet ownership.

 

[edward]

Hi Tim,
I have not seen the effects of the ETOH solutions personally but my understanding is that there is some activity at the beginning that quickly subsides as the ETOH takes effect. An overdose of oral gel usually acts rapidly with little or no obvious reactions on the amphibian's part.
By the way the benzocaine dosage I gave above was for achieving a good plane of anesthesia, increasing the dosage (or duration of the bath) would probably be a good idea if the choice was for euthenasia.
Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[aaron]

Unregistered, many terminally ill patients also receive pain killers and don't have to suffer. I've had a few newts that actually had the colon/intestines come out of the anus. This is not something I need them to experience.

~Aaron

 

[kaysie]

Euthanasia stops the suffering of animals in pain, including humans. i imagine if you were in such incredible pain you couldnt live, you'd beg someone to put you out of your misery. Euthanasia is just what it is "mercy killing". MERCY.

 

[kaysie]

and frankly, if i were terminally ill and costing my family time and money, and there was no chance of recovery, i wouldnt want to prolong that. its just a waste of money if i'm going to die in the end anyway. i've faced critical illness, and i told my parents when it came to it, if there was no chance of recovery, i didnt want medications to prolong my life for no reason. animals are put to sleep all the time. cats, dogs, rabbits. we put our dog to sleep 4 years ago, and yeah, its no good for us, we still think of him, but he only had a few days left, and those days would have been filled with pain and suffering. he was vomitting blood, he couldnt eat, he was so weak he couldnt stand. would you want to live like that?

 

[jennifer]

I have used the 5% ethanol for euthanasia. Much to my surprise, the newt had no reaction to being placed into it. No panic or trying to get out of it, or anything like that. I think this is a perfectly humane method of euthanasia when there is no other way to stop the animal's suffering.

 

[steve]

Hey tim: please send me (USA) some Viagra(for my male newts), Valium(help caudate members get sleep from stupid posts replys), codeine(to ease the pain from temps above 85F), perks(same only more potent for hellbenders above 85F), cocaine(for me), prozac(for me when my newts die).


thanks in advance for the shipment.

 

[TJ]

Well, I respectfully disagree with Unregistered Guest and firmly believe it's crueler to let a terminally ill animal die an unnecessarily painful and lingering death than to humanely end its suffering.
That's "responsible pet ownership" -- to me at least.

The other day, a small C.p crawled into the waterfall-type filter only to get sucked into the filter motor in a way that was impossible to free it. The poor thing was horribly chopped up but still alive. Not having the guts to put it out of its obvious misery, I'd say, demonstrated "irresponsible pet owndership" on my part.

By the way, having subsequently lost a newt juvie exactly the same way, I hereby renounce my earlier enthusaistic endorsement of the use of this kind of cartridge filter!

...except with eggs and early-stage larvae.

 

[jackie]

Originally posted by Steve L.:
"Hey tim: please send me (USA) some Viagra(for my male newts), Valium(help caudate members get sleep from stupid posts replys), codeine(to ease the pain from temps above 85F), perks(same only more potent for hellbenders above 85F), cocaine(for me), prozac(for me when my newts die)."

Thats hilarious. Hahahaha.

 

[ajfr0ggy]

I have a paranesetriton newt which i thought was a gonna (bacterial infection around eye and even beneith scull-i coulds see that!), but i decied to let it die slowly as it wasnt in any sort of apparant pain, but then a few moths after being put in a quite cooler tank it suddely started recovering and now is almost what i will call healthy! Now im so glad i let it live!

But im not really sure on your situation and if its painful and 100%terminal maybe it it the best way...?

Ajfr0ggy

 

[jackie]

I agree with Ajfr0ggy.

I think, in my opinion, that no matter how well you know your stuff about Caudates, I still think its wrong. Solely because we can know so much about illness, diseases, etc. We base all our diagnosis' upon physical attributes and change in activity. Unless you have unlimited access to proper equipment to make a diagnosis, there should be no reason for euthanasia. Ajfr0ggy gave us the perfect example; his/her newt appeared to be terminally ill, but it made a miraculous turnaround without any medicine or anything - merely a cooler tank.

I dont think it is fair for a human to play "God" and make a judgement on whether the newt/sallie can live or it. That's immoral.

It's a matter of morals/ethics, I suppose.

 

[rob]

Aren't we playing "God" by taking them from their environment, keeping them in a simulated captivity, attempting to breed them and feeding them only select varieties of food that are available to us?

By your logic then we shouldn't have the animals in the first place.

 

[edward]

Okay I'm going to look at the argument here on a case by case point so please read through to get the responses.

Solely because we can know so much about illness, diseases, etc. We base all our diagnosis' upon physical attributes and change in activity.

If you read the article on Caudate Central there is plenty of indication there that correct diagnosis of the problem is required prior to making a decision for or against euthenasia for any animal. Euthenasia is not a tool for dealing with a treatable disease unless the chances of a cure in the animal are very small and the animal will not suffer for a long period of time. For example, T. shanjing often come in with large sores on various parts of thier body including the upper and lower mandibles. While caudates have excellant powers of regeneration would it be appropriate to not euthanize an animal that had lost all of its lower mandible including almost of the boney structures? The animal was unable to feed and was in obvious pain anytime the area was treated or even when it bumped into the substrate. In this case is it more humane to allow the animal to starve to death over a period of potentially months as opposed to euthanasia.
One of the major reasons the article was written in the first place was to get people to stop placing amphibians into the freezer as a supposedly humane way to "put the animal to sleep".
All diagnosis are based on physical evidence, for example, presentation, blood and/or lymph chemistry, organ functions, bacteria in the blood stream, types and antibiotic sensitivity of the bacteria found at the site or in the blood stream. All of these pieces of information help provide the peices to the puzzle. TO take your stand is like saying I have daily recurring headaches that makes me sensitive to light so I have a migraine and there are no other possible alternatives so I don't need to get checked out.

Unless you have unlimited access to proper equipment to make a diagnosis, there should be no reason for euthanasia. Ajfr0ggy gave us the perfect example; his/her newt appeared to be terminally ill, but it made a miraculous turnaround without any medicine or anything - merely a cooler tank.

You do not need "unlimited" access to the proper equipment. Often a simple bacterial culture and antibiotic resistance check is all that would have been needed and could have been provided by almost any Vet. If the Vet is not used to treating "exotics" then they can almost always get good advice from the nearest larger Zoo that has amphibians and reptiles in the collection (I make the distinction as the larger Zoos almost always have one or more vets on staff).
The problem here (in general as I do not know Ajfr0ggy's cirumstance)is one that runs rampent through the world of pet keepers. Frequently the owner of a pet will decide for various reasons that the cost of self-treating an animal for a problem is cheaper or easier than getting a treatment or advice on the animal from a Vet. (See comment above about vets who may not have any experience with "exotics".) The mentality often prevails that it is cheaper to replace the animal than to take it to a vet (which is another reason that many vets do not have experience in these animals), because for example a new hamster costs 5.99 but the vet visit is 69.99 (made up example) to walk in the door the decision is often made to let the pet die.
The first line of questioning is often the local pet store that will happily sell you an antibiotic that is probably ineffective for multiple reasons (inability to achieve theraputic dosage levels, bacterial resistance, and/or targets the wrong class of bacteria (gram positive vs gram negative). These medications are no longer used in people as they have lost most of thier effectiveness (no longer first choice).
In the example above the eye "infection" the person made the decision that the disease was terminal but never recieved a diagnosis as to the cause and effect. For example the symptoms coulc have been caused by trauma allowing a localized infection to set up which was self limiting. This is very different than a systemic infection that is running rampant through the system causing multiple hemmorages and organ death. (think difference between infected hangnail and a sytemic gangrenous infection (abdominal cavity)for a simplified example). This is why the eye example used above is not a "perfect" example of the reasons to not euthanize.
The second line of questioning is often various online lists where the problem is again a failure to be able to accurately either describe the symptoms or the diagnosis of people who often parrot the information provided at the local pet store (see above for the issues that causes).
When you talk about moral/ethical decisions you need to take into consideration all of the issues not just the visceral or knee jerk ones. Otherwise you can condem an animal to a long period of extreme pain and suffering for no real purpose other than you can.
Ed

 

[ajfr0ggy]

The hardest thing to think about with euthanasia with animals is wether they actually want to die. With all animals they always would try to survive for as long as possible... its a advantage to the specie to have the will to survive.
The problem is its imossible to know what the animal really wants... But then what do we do?
This is a very complicated issue to which there will never be an answer

 

[jackie]

"Aren't we playing "God" by taking them from their environment, keeping them in a simulated captivity, attempting to breed them and feeding them only select varieties of food that are available to us?

By your logic then we shouldn't have the animals in the first place."

Sure, but I dont have them to breed them, to sell them, and to make a profit. To begin with, I bought mine solely to save them from the terrible pet shop and its conditions. Since then, I have developed a love for newts. I hate to hear about animals being taken out of their natural habitat for human "pleasure" or to collect them. I guess that's just the world we live in. Too bad.

Any animal's will to survive is ALWAYS stronger than any human's.

 

[edward]

. To begin with, I bought mine solely to save them from the terrible pet shop and its conditions. Since then, I have developed a love for newts. I hate to hear about animals being taken out of their natural habitat for human "pleasure" or to collect them. I guess that's just the world we live in. Too bad.

Yet you helped perpetuate the cycle you admit you abhore. By purchasing the newts you demonstrate that there is a demand for them causing the store to order more of the newts causing more of the newts to be removed from the wild.

Any animal's will to survive is ALWAYS stronger than any human's.

How did you come to this conclusion? I would not say that animals have a stronger will for survival than a human's will to survive.
(I'll keep the discussion on amphibians here to stay on topic.)What you are implying is that amphibians have an understanding of thier own mortality and thus choose to try and survive under more adverse conditions than a human would in a comparable situation. This is a little beyond the mental abilities of an amphibian. When a behavioral response is hardwired into an animal it doesn't have a will to respond to the stimuli no matter what motives the observer chooses to apply to the situation.
Ed