Euthanasia

[(unregistered]

Oh boy. A kettle of worms this became. First, we play "God" by having them in captivity to begin with. If we are going to play "God" that way, we should be willing to do it all the way. I've had a dog euthanized that was in severe pain. I've also euthanized other creatures. The ethanol method is fine, if the dose is low enough. They do swim a bit, but swim slower and then stop. Benzacaine is also seemingly a happy way to go, if any way is. There is no apparent pain involved. It's a pain killer after all.

I think the question of "Should" we euthanize or not is a personal one and nobody can really answer it until the time arrives. But, if one is going to, then the most humane methods must be employed. The same logic applies to keeping them in captivity at all. Whether or not you have an amphibian in captivity is a personal choice. But if you are going to, then do it right and humanely also.

Note that I am a member but am opting to NOT register my username in this message because I'm not exactly sure I want to go where this thread may lead.

 

[edward]

"I think the question of "Should" we euthanize or not is a personal one and nobody can really answer it until the time arrives. But, if one is going to, then the most humane methods must be employed. The same logic applies to keeping them in captivity at all. Whether or not you have an amphibian in captivity is a personal choice. But if you are going to, then do it right and humanely also."

Agreed. As I put at the bottom of the article on caudate central that it is a decision for each person to make.


"Note that I am a member but am opting to NOT register my username in this message because I'm not exactly sure I want to go where this thread may lead."

Take a stand. You haven't said anything that is reprehensible and/or offensive (unlike myself I suspect). Euthenasia is a "hot" topic because it may not be clear cut decision to each person. (However it should not be ruled out as an option simply based on a visceral or knee jerk reaction as I mentioned above.) A clear decision needs to be made based on the animal's potential quality of life and chances of recovery.
Ed

 

[jackie]

Unreg.: Agreed with Ed. Sign up. Nobody hates eachother for their own personal opinion.

It all comes down to the individuals morals.

 

[matthew_dyke]

I have been trying to avoid this depressing and disturbing thread but I just had to stick my two cents in...
No Jackie, it isn't about individual morals it is about professionals being allowed to use their training and knowledge. Clue: we have a word for them... they are called Vets.
Much of this thread - to begin with - seemed to be an abstract philsophical debate about mercy killing. This was more about what caudata posters thought about critical illness striking themselves or other human beings.
Back to caudates. The decision to end an animal's life is a serious one and should be taken in consultation with a vet. Once made, the means of ending a life should be left to a trained professional too.
I appreciate there are caudate keepers here who know more about their exotics than the vet down the road (sometimes I have asked their opinion, re my treefrogs, before then turning to a Vet; in fact I am in awe of some the knowledge offered here as well as that of the keepers I know who "lurk" here without posting) but the vet down the road can consult with expert colleagues or refer you to one. Even local animal charities have lists of expert vets they can turn to.
We should not be keeping powerful drugs next to the terrarium and posting messages about how our sick animals seem to respond when we drop them into them.
This is a fantastic Website for caudate fans but sometimes some of the things said here are dumb, dangerous and disturbing.
This kind of debate seems like an extension of previous follies, nasty thinking that may have been well-intentioned but is bang out-of-order.
Exhibit One...
Try a search under "amputate". You'll get an open invitation to concerned caudate-keepers to try a bit of home-surgery.
I have alot of time for your advice and opinions Nate but I must disagee with you. What worries me are the occasional visitors to this site, perhaps quite young, who need little encouragement to take treatment of their single much-loved axolotl into their own hands, or who read one of these posts and take a scalpel to their Salamander.
Exhibit Two...
"Pikepop" messaged this board once to ask for help with his sick newts. Kai suggested a vet, I recall. But Pikepop replied "I wish there was more I could do [try specialist help???!!!] but as in my experience with fish, sometimes it is just survival of the fittest." Nope, sorry, Darwin applies to wild animals.
In your captivity, in your care.

Care does not mean D-I-Y veterinary prescribing.
When you are sick, critically or not, you turn to a doctor. Animals need vets.
If you cannot afford one - even one funded by a charity - or think your amphibian does not merit the hassle of finding one - then don't keep the pet. That simple.
Just because they are small or slimey or not covered in fur or cheap to replace doesn't mean they should subjected to our amateurish experiments with very powerful tranquilisers. Or limb-chopping.
Down to individual morals my backside!

 

[cloth]

well said.

 

[greg]

Yes. The average user of Caudata.org probably is not a Vet or a field collector for a museum or researcher studying regeneration (etc.) something that would require knowledge of anesthetic drugs and euthanasia tools. So... yes... if the average salamander pet owner needs to explore this they should go to a vet. Now... how many vets do you think are familiar enough with amphibian physiology to know these answers?

Personally, I am involved with ectotherm euthanasia and serve on several committees involving it. I can tell you, there are a lot of differing opinions even among those who understand amphibian physiology. The details of which drug works best really are not relevant to this discussion group as the really good drugs are completely regulated and the unregulated ones are still dangerous and have no business being in the average salamander keeper's home let alone next to the newt-chow.

Probably a more productive line of discussion at this point would be exploring how to get a vet that knows amphibians well enough to even tell if one is critically ill, let alone how best to euthanize it.

Greg

PS the post from 19 March is mine.

 

[cloth]

To which I refer you back to Matthews post ,quote "but the vet down the road can consult with expert colleagues or refer you to one"
I have questioned my vet about amphibian drugs/diseases and theyre usage and he has asked colleagues and used veterinary journals to come up with an answer,so therefore a veterinary surgeon should always be your first port of call.

 

[matthew_dyke]

Big cheers Cloth...

Also Greg, I think another place to start (not sure what the US equivalent would be... if that's where you are... also not sure how to interpret your email address)is often a local exotic pet society / club.

For instance, I have a local Reptile and Amphibian society. I think it wouldn't be too discourteous to say they are geared more towards lizards and snakes (especially!) but they do have a list of specialist vets. These vets may have an interest in "herps" or a qualification in "zoo medicine".

Maybe we amphibian keepers have something to learn from the average python or gecko afficionado; many of these 'hardcore' reptile fans would think little of turning to a specialist vet...?

Maybe your local Reptile / Amphibian society might not just hold a list but also know of vets that offer a discount to club / society members (mine has done a tie-in deal!)?

 

[TJ]

Excuse me, but my gag reflex is really starting to kick in here...

Nobody is advocating stocking vials of anthrax next to the newt tank and nobody is saying newts showing the first signs of illness should be summarily executed. When treatment fails and a newt grossly bloats to over twice it's normal size, or when a newt gets chopped up in a filter, it doesn't take a trip to the vet to determine that it's a terminal case and that the animal is needlessly suffering.

Ed made perfectly clear he is not advocating euthanasia for dealing with treatable disease. His opinion was sought because he's a professional. After dispensing his advise/opinion, he almost invariably recommends seeking a vet's advice and having tests done.

This started out as a discussion on the most humane means of euthanasia for evidently terminal cases...but the topic has since been sadly twisted, and now we're getting somewhat sanctimonious lectures about responsible pet ownership and the perils of DIY treatment...

 

[edward]

twisted, and now we're getting somewhat sanctimonious lectures about responsible pet ownership and the perils of DIY treatment...

Hi Tim,
At least here in the USA these topics are not as far apart as you may think. To reiterate a couple of the comments I made above
1) the article was actually written in response to the common practice of freezing reptiles and amphibians under the mistaken belief that this is a humane way to euthanise the animals in question. (For those who have not read the article, please read it before responding) and
2)there is a very strong idea of the disposable pet in the way the cost to cure the animal is taken in relationship of replacing the animal. Many people treat the animal in the same manner as they would a toaster or other appliance. I still occasionally run into this attitude at work when the person on the phone is informed that the animal needs to be taken to a vet and DIY treatments will not help the animal then states "oh well it'll just die than I can get another one for less than a vet visit". (for some of my thought on DIY treatments look at the bloat article on Caudate Central).
(Also for what its worth, it usually is not the "hard core" person that does not use the vet it is the average person that does not use the vet).
Some more thoughts
Ed

 

[matthew_dyke]

Sorry to make you gag Tim and sorry if you find my posts sanctimonious. I love your photos and will always enjoy reading your posts. Maybe we should just agree to disagree and end this literally poisonous thread. That's why I hesitated to enter it. Anyway, on the basis that you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, I'll have another go.

1) You say "when a newt gets chopped up in a filter, it doesn't take a trip to the vet to determine that it's a terminal case and that the animal is needlessly suffering". Shame the right filter couldn't have just been used in the first place (making a choice of mercy-killing method unnecessary) because that is where the problem lies. You say it yourself in one of your posts: "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"... don't make a lethal mistake - sorry, mistakes - don't need to apply euthanasia.

2) Surprisingly, I now find myself agreeing with Ed.
There really is an attitude that amphibians (for which read **newts** almost always, it seems) are another cheap, disposable commodity and not worth professional medical assessment and treament. I have heard and seen it in the UK. Ed has seen it in the US. Anyone can see it on this site from time to time (why I mentioned Pikepop's survival-of-the-fittest approach). Now ask yourself Tim - have a good long think about this one - will threads about what type of lethal solution caudate keepers can use either
a)increase that attitude;
b)decrease that attitude?

3)"Nobody is advocating stocking vials of anthrax next to the newt tank". Maybe there is a bit cultural divide here. "Valium just happens to be the only one I know by name, and it's readily and cheaply obtainable," you write. [I can't recall where you are based - is it the Far East?] Valium is much less readily available ***for people*** here than it used to be (on doctor's prescription) for quite understandable reasons. I handle the "minor" benzodiazepines such as chlordiazepoixide and diazepam everyday at work - these are still potent compounds. YOU might be capable of storing and adminstering these drugs for the "evidently terminal" but, puttting aside the glib remark about vials of anthrax, can't you see that you are opening a Pandora's box of DIY treatments with these pharmaceuticals. People are going to get the dose wrong. There are other risks once they get stored next to the newt tank...

I said there are inexperienced - young! - caudate keepers who pass through here and would previously have found postings inviting them to slice and dice damaged limbs. Not everyone is as sophisticated as you Timmy... now they know mummy and daddy's tablets have another application for that floating axy they have been posting about...

Be careful what you preach.

Two contributors to this thread mentioned animals presenting as 'obviously terminal' although they were not.
Now if someone with such an animal... or someone with the attitude to seeking a Vet Ed was talking about... maybe somone who "just happens" to know where to get some tranqs from, maybe "the only one" they know... but they have read here they can crumble these tablets into a solution... now do you really think you have added to the net balance of pet welfare by publicising such methods... or... maybe...just maybe... get that gag reflex ready Tim... you are opening up a major avenue of potential abuse for the lazy and the inexperienced? There's enough neglect out there already without people using caudata.org to learn lethal dosages of Valium for the animal that in their clinial opinion is beyond hope. Or as it will be most often - isn't worth the hassle of treament.

You might think your post got twisted.
I think your question slipped down its own slippery slope.

Ed wrote: "A clear decision needs to be made based on the animal's potential quality of life and chances of recovery." To which I'd add BY A VET.

You wrote "When treatment fails [which treament is that then???] and a newt grossly bloats to over twice it's normal size...it doesn't take a trip to the vet to determine that it's a terminal case and that the animal is needlessly suffering." Nope it doesn't but why don't you go to the Vet anyway, to get help or euthanasia. You would for your dog or cat surely?
Wouldn't you???

If you can get Valium freely where you live, lucky you. But best save the tranqs for the human's medicine cabinet, eh, until you see that Vet...

 

[jennifer]

I'm going to take Greg's suggestion regarding where this discussion should be going...

I want to point out a useful web site where you can find opinions of specific veterinarians all over the world and their treatment of reptiles and amphibians:
http://www.herpvetconnection.com/
I would also encourage anyone that has used a vet to contribute their experience to that site.

 

[edward]

Hi Matt,
A clear decision needs to be made based on the animal's potential quality of life and chances of recovery." To which I'd add BY A VET.

I actually prefer my wording for the following reason. If you take your animal to the Vet and are presented all of the information as to the condition, quality of life, chances of recovery of the animal it is YOUR decision as to whether or not to euthanise the animal regardless of what the Vet says. The Vet cannot proceed without your permission or your relinquishing the rights to the animal. This is why some animals are euthanised due to minor readily cured animals as the owner either cannot or will not spend the money on the animal and tell the Vet to euthanise the animal.
This is why I phrased the statement the way I did in the earlier post.
Ed

 

[matthew_dyke]

Fair point Ed - the owner calls the shots (unless the animal is signed over).

But the animal deserves a professional opinion to guide the owner, for the decision to be an informed one.

That's why I have emphasised the clinician's role.

Anyway, I suspect I may have put the backs up of a lot of regular contributors here, for whom I have quite a lot of respect, so I'll keep it uncharacteristically brief...

You said what you needed to in your main, first reply to the question: "There is no information I could find on the effect of diazepam and the related benzodiazepines on amphibians."

And I've said what urgently needed to be said by someone: SO DON'T.

 

[kaysie]

"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... "

survive as long as possible? when the filter has chopped off its pelvis? i know when i'm in pain (i have cancer and frequent recurring severe migraines (for no apparent reason (have had catscans n such))) sometimes i really wish i'd die, just to finish the pain. its QUALITY of life, not QUANTITY. if an animal is in obvious pain, you dont just let it die slowly, thats CRUEL. when your dog gets hit by a car, you dont just let it lay there, you rush it straight to the vet. so when your caudate is in obvious discomfort, you take it to the vet, find out whats wrong. if the animal is obviously terminal, you dont let it die slowly and painfully. only a barbarian would be so dense. some days i've actually seriously thought about putting myself out of my misery. i couldnt imagine a poor animal with no "higher level thinking" trying to go through pain like that. i had a dog, and he had pancreatic cancer. and the vet didnt notice. we had tests upon tests run on him to see what was wrong, and when he went in for surgery to see what they could find, he was obviously deep into the cancer. he had maybe a week at the most.... i could have let him live this week, but he was in blatant distress. he was weak, couldnt eat, couldnt move. he looked at me with his big puppy eyes, and i knew i couldnt let him suffer. it wouldnt be humane.

my two cents

 

[matthew_dyke]

I think there have been two different arguments here Kaysie.
A debate about "mercy killing" of animals - which inevitably made people think about serious illness in humans.
The other debate was about DIY euthanasia of caudates with tranquilisers.
That second debate seems to have got us all onto the subject of accessing vets for amphibians which is good news for our animals.
But I really wanted to say something about your experiences, of which you write so movingly. Sometimes "the hand that kills considerately" is one of the kindest things you can do for what is obviously one of the family. Your post reminded me of a friend who recently had to have his dog "put to sleep" under similar circumstances.
I could not agree more with you... please know you did the right thing... it is tough love but nevertheless an act of love.

 

[greg]

here's a new can of worms. Do they "Know" they are alive? What poetry plays in that little brain? do they have abstract thoughts?

if not do they have "wants" or just reflexes? Do their little hearts have desires? do they form plans for the future.

I'm actually getting at something beyond anthropomorphism here. I'm wondering what studies have been done on caudate neurology that would help reveal just how smart they are. They surely seem smarter (to me at least) than most fish. But most fish are barely smarter than the water they are in.

(teasing about that... but fishies have little to no short term memory at least, though they can learn).

I'm sure caudates can learn. The question is, Do they think? Not everything that learns needs to think to do it . Any neuro-type folks or psyche people care to tackle this?

Greg

 

[edward]

Hi Greg,
A quick read over the section on the brains of amphibians in Biology of Amphibians and Herpetology An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles doesn't give much hope for thinking salamanders. The brain of an amphibian just doesn't have the space or structures for thought.
While a amphibian may be able to "know" itself thorough the use of territorial marks there just isn't that awareness that gets credited to them on occasion (or to fish).
Ed

 

[matthew_dyke]

Your question may seem biological / psychological but it is actually a major one in academic phiolosphy. Join a class in philosphy or open a library book on the "philophy of mind" and you will see people arguing about questions like: do animals have "intentionality" (hopes, beliefs, wishes); can animals use concepts; and how does animal consciousness differ from ours?

I see Ed mentions the theme of awareness and - crucially self-awareness (identity).

(Anthropomorphism often occurs in the subject of this original thread I guess... people do talk about their animals (helpfully or unhelpfully, truely or falsely) as obviously fighting illness or giving up the will to live.)

The point at which learning does involve thinking is also a very interesting one.

I was very moved by an article in a fishkeeping magazine (sorry for brief non-caudate topic)recently. Will try to find URL for it. Someone got into keeping octopuses - if that's a plural. He was amazed by the intelligence, the problem-solving, the relationship he formed with it, the "personality"... and was personally troubled by their short lifespan. It really made me think about our attitudes to aquatic life, even invertebrates.

A final point regarding not the status of animal "thinking" (smart vs reflexive; higher vs lower order thinking) but the character or nature of it...

Sometime ago an American philosophy professor wrote a paper called "What is it like to be a bat?" He deliberately chose an animal that was very different to us in regard to neurological / sensory structures. His argument was that although scientists will (correctly???) tell you life is just a question of mechanics (rather than having "souls"), there is a special something that only by being that animal (ie being on the end of that arrangement of nerve cells, being those cells) can you know "what it is like". So there is a particular sensory experience, world view that a newt has - a particular form of consciousness - that scientific description will never be able to describe. Basically, we might know exactly how a newt is built and works but we will never be able to see through a newts eyes (except for generalisations about the nature of its senses). Sounds obvious but there is something miraculous and humbling about this I think.

 

[matthew_dyke]

(PS
Sorry for terrible spelling above. "Philosophy" not phiolosphy or philosphy... and certainly not philophy!)