Horrific euthanasia - what went wrong?

[fburton]

@M_;7888437

I am surprised by the number of responses and horror stories. I had a bad one too. Evidently a fairly common “bad one”. Vet made 2 trips back to truck for more so 3 hits. There are just too many bad ones to accept the continued use of the commonly used drugs implicated. It takes so long to die even without overt struggle. There is surely an alternative. Decades ago, were there the same issues with drugs used?

That is a good question. My impression from vets I know is that drug combinations and procedures have improved, but it would be good to know if this was actually the case.

When you say “die” do you mean when the horse loses consciousness or when the heart stops beating? There can be considerable time between these, in which a “struggle” may or may not occur, but it’s important to know - and for the vet to explain to the owner! - that the horse will not be suffering in this time.

If you mean that there is too often a long time before the horse become unconscious and “dead to the world”, then something has gone wrong with the procedure. This shouldn’t happen if a) an appropriate dose of fresh drug is given, b) into a vein that isn’t thrombosed, and c) the heart is beating normally. Then there is nothing to stop the barbiturate reaching the brain in seconds (usually less than 30 seconds) where it will end all sensation and make further suffering impossible. An animal cannot “fight” the effect of the barbiturate once it reaches the brain, assuming the dose has not been reduced through procedural error. (If the horse is very heavily sedated and the heart beat is greatly slowed, the dose of barbiturate can be increased.)

That still leaves the question of how often procedural errors occur, and whether these have become more or less frequent.

A well placed bullet is far more humane though not an option for most. I’m at a loss.

Shooting is an effective option (if done correctly!), although I would question the assertion that it is far more humane. I think if that were true, vets would be recommended / encouraged to use bullet euthanasia whenever possible.

[Jeito]

Thank you fburton (& Ghazzu). Especially for explaining this:

[QUOTE=fburton;7888440]
When you say “die” do you mean when the horse loses consciousness or when the heart stops beating? There can be considerable time between these, in which a “struggle” may or may not occur, but it’s important to know - and for the vet to explain to the owner! - that the horse will not be suffering in this time.[/QUOTE]

If you scroll down to “similar threads,” there is one that describes horrific natural deaths of horses. I’ve been lucky that I haven’t witnessed a horrific animal death (yet?), but humans I loved have died frightening, painful, ugly deaths of natural causes. I think the quote above cannot be repeated enough: we need to understand the difference between what we perceive and what our loved one is actually experiencing.

[Jeito]

Thanks, fburton, for your explanations.

[Lady_Eboshi]

Absolutely NO WAY is it “50%” of them are “bad.” IME exactly ONE out of 16 took what I considered too much time (as described earlier in this thread), and that horse was both far-gone neurological AND loaded with tumors, plus the vet later admitted that the drug might have been “a bad batch.”

PLEASE, horse owners, do not be terrified to put your horse down, thinking he will suffer horribly, based on the campfire tales on this thread. What fburton said above, once the drug gets to the brain the horse is insensible, is the truth!

[SMF11]

I agree with Lady Eboshi. Six horses have been put down on my farm, and so far 100% of them have been peaceful and exactly what you would want when making this decision.

[Justmyluck]

[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;7888572]
Absolutely NO WAY is it “50%” of them are “bad.” IME exactly ONE out of 16 took what I considered too much time (as described earlier in this thread), and that horse was both far-gone neurological AND loaded with tumors, plus the vet later admitted that the drug might have been “a bad batch.”

PLEASE, horse owners, do not be terrified to put your horse down, thinking he will suffer horribly, based on the campfire tales on this thread. What fburton said above, once the drug gets to the brain the horse is insensible, is the truth![/QUOTE]

I’ve witnessed several equine euthanasias (including my own) and several hundred small animals as an emergency technician. I can say I have seen probably two small animal euths that did not go as planned. Seeing that many and I will still opt to have my animals chemically euthanized.

[Where_sMyWhite]

[QUOTE=fburton;7888440]
Shooting is an effective option (if done correctly!), although I would question the assertion that it is far more humane. I think if that were true, vets would be recommended / encouraged to use bullet euthanasia whenever possible.[/QUOTE]

I suspect that for many vets, the suggestion for chemical is because the bullet is less pleasant visually and less politically correct for most horse owners. I also suspect many horse owners would cringe at the thought of the bullet, opting for chemical without looking objectively at how both methods work and the associated risk of the procedure going less smoothly than planned.

My opinion only.

[caffeinated]

[QUOTE=Where’sMyWhite;7888746]
I suspect that for many vets, the suggestion for chemical is because the bullet is less pleasant visually and less politically correct for most horse owners. I also suspect many horse owners would cringe at the thought of the bullet, opting for chemical without looking objectively at how both methods work and the associated risk of the procedure going less smoothly than planned.

My opinion only.[/QUOTE]

I think you’re pretty dead on. Guns just seem loud and violent, and I think it’s hard to get away from that even though objectively, it seems the better way to go as long as you have a qualified person doing it.

The only thing that I think would bother me about that is that with the risk of ricochet and such (while this is slight), I would be unable to be at my horse’s head at that moment, which is something I feel strongly about (though this would be more about me than him, I recognize this).

[Where_sMyWhite]

[QUOTE=caffeinated;7888792]
The only thing that I think would bother me about that is that with the risk of ricochet and such (while this is slight), I would be unable to be at my horse’s head at that moment, which is something I feel strongly about (though this would be more about me than him, I recognize this).[/QUOTE]

The risk of a ricochet with a .22 is possible but slim. You, at your horse’s head, should really not be at any more risk than the person performing the euthanasia.

This shouldn’t be target practice performed from a distance. It should be up close to ensure a good and effective shot. Only reason not to do that would be either the horse is violent or the operator is incompetent.

The Bell Gun (which was used often before chemical euthanasia) requiring putting the opening of the Bell Gun on the horse’s head.

[fburton]

[QUOTE=Where’sMyWhite;7889125]
This shouldn’t be target practice performed from a distance. It should be up close to ensure a good and effective shot. Only reason not to do that would be either the horse is violent or the operator is incompetent.[/QUOTE]
Another reason would be the safety of people nearby. In the UK, regulations stipulate a certain distance must be clear of people in the direction of the shot (2 km apparently, though this seems rather a lot to me). It isn’t always possible to ensure this, e.g. at a race meeting where there may be spectators on both sides of the track in some parts of the course.

[rustbreeches]

[QUOTE=fburton;7888427]
Only an issue if other animals / wildlife are likely to consume the carcass, right? Pentobarbital isn’t so toxic.[/QUOTE]

Or if you plan on burial for disposal and care about the water supply. I wouldn’t even know where to dispose of a 1000 lb carcass full of chemicals. The local rendering house will pick up a horse’s body for $70. $30 for a cow, but only if the animal died naturally, or was shot. The driver carries a .22 and will do it for the squeamish. It is $40 to drop off a horse at the plant and let them dispatch it with a .22

[fburton]

[QUOTE=rustbreeches;7889183]
Or if you plan on burial for disposal and care about the water supply. I wouldn’t even know where to dispose of a 1000 lb carcass full of chemicals. The local rendering house will pick up a horse’s body for $70. $30 for a cow, but only if the animal died naturally, or was shot. The driver carries a .22 and will do it for the squeamish. It is $40 to drop off a horse at the plant and let them dispatch it with a .22[/QUOTE]
Even if barbiturate wasn’t used, there would be concerns about water supply contamination by pathogens from a decomposing carcass. Composting can be an acceptable option though.

I’m not against shooting as a method of euthanasia. My main concern here is that people are not unduly biased against or frightened off the option of euthanasia by injection.

[fburton]

[QUOTE=rustbreeches;7889183]
… a 1000 lb carcass full of chemicals.[/QUOTE]
I found an interesting study showing that sodium pentobarbital can persist for a long time (367 days) under some circumstances - compost piles in Oklahoma. I don’t know how much rain, and hence how much leaching/dilution, occurred in this trial. However, they suggested mixing of the compost to dilute remaining residues of pentobarbital.

http://www.extension.org/pages/67671/quantification-of-sodium-pentobarbital-residues-from-equine-mortality-compost-piles#.VIAa-Sv3vWw

Slides here (as pdf file):

http://www.extension.org/sites/default/files/14sepPPpayne.pdf

One slide caught my attention because it addresses the question of toxicity and puts the environmental risk into perspective, i.e. it’s not as horrendously toxic as some might imagine.

"Example scenario:

• Oral lethal dose for dogs: 85 mg/kg
• Anesthetic dose for dogs: 30 mg/kg
• Liver concentration of 54 ppm; 20 kg dog
  would need to consume 32 kg to reach lethal
  dose and 10 kg for anesthetic dose.
• 20 kg dog would only ingest approx. 0.5 kg
  since dogs consume ~2.5% of body weight"

[SMF11]

[QUOTE=rustbreeches;7889183]
Or if you plan on burial for disposal and care about the water supply. I wouldn’t even know where to dispose of a 1000 lb carcass full of chemicals. The local rendering house will pick up a horse’s body for $70. $30 for a cow, but only if the animal died naturally, or was shot. The driver carries a .22 and will do it for the squeamish. It is $40 to drop off a horse at the plant and let them dispatch it with a .22[/QUOTE]

I care about the water supply, but prices are wildly different here. When I checked (about 5 years ago, so undoubtedly the prices have gone up) it would cost $750 for a renderer to collect a horse, so virtually no one does this. In fact, I have never heard of anyone ever doing this!

[exvet]

[I]I suspect that for many vets, the suggestion for chemical is because the bullet is less pleasant visually and less politically correct for most horse owners. I also suspect many horse owners would cringe at the thought of the bullet, opting for chemical without looking objectively at how both methods work and the associated risk of the procedure going less smoothly than planned.

My opinion only. [/I]

The major reasons why most vets do not opt for the bullet:

(1) I would be willing to wager that most have never even shot a gun. The first time you do you certainly don’t want it to be in the act of euthanizaing someone’s horse. I do have training in handling guns and have shot horses as the only form of euthanasia that was feasible in the given conditions. They do not teach ‘this’ subject in school. My training came about due to other circumstances.
(2) In most areas there are ordinances regarding guns. I can name a few here where you cannot discharge a gun within the city limits (and yes many of the properties have horses within the same city limits).
(3) In many areas you have to maintain a permit in order to legally carry a firearm (even if it’s in your truck). This is also true of dart guns. I know because I use to carry and use one of those too.
(4) The risk to others should something go wrong - ricochet, missing the intended target and having to repeat, a human getting in the way (don’t ask me how this is possible but it is), etc.

Again I have had a few situations where using a gun to euthanize was the ONLY option. I am not against it’s use but there are some long-reaching reasons as to why chemical means are consider in the long run to be ‘safer’ and ‘wiser’.

[FindersKeepers]

OP,

I am so sorry for your loss and so sorry for the traumatizing end. It does sound like your pony had a reaction to the Ketamine, which is typically given to induce anesthesia and lay the horse down before giving the overdose to help them pass. I have seen horses respond in the exact way you describe to that drug. It is not especially common, but also not terribly uncommon. (I have worked as a large animal tech and have seen this reaction happen maybe 3 times in over 60 cases).

When it does happen, it is horrifying. And sadly there is nothing that can be done about it, but wait until the animal succumbs to the affects.

I have worked as a large animal tech and assisted in over 20 euthanasias and probably another 20 surgeries requiring general anesthesia in the field. 3 of those cases, I witnessed the poor reaction to ketamine. 2 of the cases I mentioned above were geldings and once the dear studs gave in and lay down, they were given a little more to make sure they stay under and surgery went as planned and was perfectly executed. The third was a euthanasia and vet handled it beautifully. She calmly explained that this was a drug reaction that was sometimes seen, and while the physical reaction was very difficult to watch, the horse was not aware of what was happening. Vet suggested the owner leave until the horse was laying down and quiet. She went into the barn while we got him down and then we got the owner to come and say good bye while horse was down and peaceful before helping him pass.

The true blame here is not on veterinary technique but on poor people skills and lack of compassionate know-how. They can see the situation very clinical, and forget the human emotion side of what is occurring. Then when they notice the owner reaction, they panic and try to end the awkward situation as quickly as possible, often unintentionally giving the impression that something has gone wrong. I can assure you that the pony’s body was far more active than his mind. Also, the fact that the vet left you with a difficult mess to clean up speaks to their lack of compassion and people skills. The vet I worked for always stayed and thoroughly cleaned the neck where the catheter was and waited until the bleeding had stopped before walking away. She was also always willing to be the one to meet the operator of the tractor or backhoe and assist with getting the animal into a better location. That was never left to the owner if they did not have a quick and easy solution.

I can also promise that in time, the horrifying image in your mind will blur and you will be able to heal.

[Lynnwood]

[QUOTE=fburton;7888440]
That is a good question. My impression from vets I know is that drug combinations and procedures have improved, but it would be good to know if this was actually the case.

When you say “die” do you mean when the horse loses consciousness or when the heart stops beating? There can be considerable time between these, in which a “struggle” may or may not occur, but it’s important to know - and for the vet to explain to the owner! - that the horse will not be suffering in this time.

If you mean that there is too often a long time before the horse become unconscious and “dead to the world”, then something has gone wrong with the procedure. This shouldn’t happen if a) an appropriate dose of fresh drug is given, b) into a vein that isn’t thrombosed, and c) the heart is beating normally. Then there is nothing to stop the barbiturate reaching the brain in seconds (usually less than 30 seconds) where it will end all sensation and make further suffering impossible. An animal cannot “fight” the effect of the barbiturate once it reaches the brain, assuming the dose has not been reduced through procedural error. (If the horse is very heavily sedated and the heart beat is greatly slowed, the dose of barbiturate can be increased.)

That still leaves the question of how often procedural errors occur, and whether these have become more or less frequent.

Shooting is an effective option (if done correctly!), although I would question the assertion that it is far more humane. I think if that were true, vets would be recommended / encouraged to use bullet euthanasia whenever possible.[/QUOTE]

From what I think I “remember” Euthasol is less concentrated then it used to be because of idiot human junkies stealing it and shooting up…

When I first started teching there was a much stronger /brand /concentration used then what is in most clinics and on vet trucks.

[meaty_ogre]

Alice, I’m very sorry for your loss. I know it’s no consolation, but the few moments of thrashing was still a kinder end than a long and drawn out wasting death.

Metabolisms are different, in animals and people. There have been several stories in the news lately involving deaths of patients after sedation dentistry, because the patients didn’t metabolize the drugs given in the typical way. Lots of variables, and no way for the vet to predict. I’m thankful that my vet was pro-active in preparing me for what I might see. I was not allowed to hold the lead, which I admit bothered me a little initially, but I did appreciate being prepared ahead of time for what could happen.

Also, vets are people too (most of them! HA!) and they are entitled to deal with something as emotional as death and euthanasia in their own way. The first euthanasia I witnessed included the vet plucking the eye of my best friend’s beloved mare to ensure she was gone. Both my friend and I were incensed at the time. now, I realize she was doing it to make sure that the mare was truly deceased and that sufficient solution had been administered. It can’t be easy to wield such authority and to witness so many endings, so we as customers should not begrudge our vets if they choose to be gruff, distant or completely clinical in their dealing with it. Compassion is always appreciated, but who knows what the vet has had to deal with that day/week, or how they are feeling at the time.

[oliverreed]

You are right, MO. GOd Bless my (now retired, dammit) small animal vet, who felt about as bad as I did when he had to euthanise three of my cats (not all at the same time.) Not every vet can be like that.

[HappyTalk]

[QUOTE=meaty ogre;7891373]

The first euthanasia I witnessed included the vet plucking the eye of my best friend’s beloved mare to ensure she was gone. Both my friend and I were incensed at the time. now, I realize she was doing it to make sure that the mare was truly deceased and that sufficient solution had been administered.[/QUOTE]

Plucking the eye? Do you mean touching the eye looking for a corneal reflex?