Euthanasia of XL bully dogs ‘tragic and pointless endeavour’

Almost three-quarters of vets and nurses say they would refuse to perform or assist in the euthanasia of a healthy XL bully for no other reason than its breed.

Following the Government announcement that the controversial dogs are to be outlawed, concerns have been growing at all levels of the veterinary profession about the number of XL bullies being taken to vet practices to be euthanised before the ban comes into force.

The new law does contain provisions for the dogs to be kept on as pets, including owners keeping them muzzled and on a lead at all times, as well as having their dogs neutered and registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs by 1 February 2024.

‘Scrappage scheme’

However, by offering a £200 incentive for owners to euthanise their pets instead, the Government has been accused of creating a ‘scrappage scheme’, thereby adding to the number of healthy dogs being killed.

To gauge the level of impact this is having within the veterinary professions, Vet Times ran a poll which showed that 60% of vets and 85% of nurses would refuse to comply with an owner’s wish to euthanise a healthy XL bully with no behavioural issues.

Of the 732 vets and nurses who responded to our Vetfile poll, 63% of vets and 85% of nurses also stated they were opposed to all forms of breed-specific legislation.

‘Unique challenges’

Commenting on the findings, group head of animal welfare at IVC Evidensia David Martin said: “We recognise the impact this change in legislation could have on our colleagues in practice and our clients.

“The XL bully ban presents unique challenges – particularly in situations where vets may be called upon to euthanise an otherwise healthy XL bully-type dog in certain circumstances, and we’re concerned about the emotional toll of this on our people.

“Under RCVS guidance, vets cannot be compelled to euthanise a healthy animal, and all vets have the right to refuse to conduct a euthanasia in those circumstances if they choose.

“All our vets and vet nurses are always supported in their decision-making for each individual situation.”

To help support its vets and nurses, IVC Evidensia is providing ongoing support, including issuing a list of clinical guidelines, and plans to introduce reflective debriefing sessions for clinicians to discuss difficult cases.

Dr Martin voiced his opposition to the ban when giving evidence to a parliamentary hearing in October before details were finalised, but now feels the focus should be on supporting clinical teams dealing with the fallout.

He added: “Any of our colleagues who feel concerned about the possibility of being asked to euthanise a healthy animal as a direct result of this legislation, or for any other reason, are encouraged to seek support from their peers in our network, our Employee Assistance Programme or Vetlife.”

Impact on professionals

The BVNA has also spoken out about the impact of the ban on clinicians in practice, while the RSPCA raised concerns around its efficacy and practicality, with chief vet Caroline Allen describing Vet Times’ findings as “no surprise”.

Dr Allen continued: “Vets and RVNs understand that breed-specific legislation doesn’t work and that the killing of dogs solely on the basis of how they look is a tragic and pointless endeavour. Being forced to act in this way, if going against one’s personal ethics, is a risk factor for moral injury, itself a factor in burnout.

“Sadly, the Government has left us with no choice, and so it is important that vets and charities are supporting each other during this difficult time.”

One of the key organisations providing that support is Vetlife, where volunteers will be on hand to help veterinary professionals deal with the fallout of moral injury.

Complexity

Consulting manager for Vetlife Helpline Rosie Allister said: “This survey is finding that many vets and RVNs respondents don’t agree with breed-specific legislation, and that many vets would not want to euthanise a dog based solely on its breed reflects some of the moral and ethical complexity veterinary professionals can face at work.

“We know that sometimes there can be psychological distress for professionals when circumstances we are faced with at work, and our actions (or lack of them), violate our moral or ethical codes.

“This psychological distress is known as moral injury and this can contribute to negative feelings about yourself or others, and may contribute to developing mental health problems.

“It’s important anyone feeling distressed has access to support and isn’t alone with it. Vetlife Helpline is available 24 hours a day, every day. Vetlife Helpline calls and emails are responded to by volunteers who understand the pressures facing the veterinary community.”

Vetlife Helpline is available by telephoning 0303 040 2551 or via anonymous email; visit vetlife.org.uk