Hi everyone,
I really need some lab board opinions. I have been asked to be on a city council committee to help improve the conditions at our local animal control facility. Right now the conditions are atrocious. We have one animal control officer and one small facility that is in shambles.
I have been asked to give a statement to the city council in regards to the method of euthanization currently being used. Right now the animal control officers only option is to tranqualize first, then inject the euthanasia solution directly into the heart of the dog/cat.
In your opinion, what do you think is more humane? 1) the euthansia solution being injected directly into the vein (intravenously) or 2) tranqualization then euthansia solution injected directly in the heart (intracardial).
Of all the dang subjects we're speaking to the council about they chose ME to give a statement on euthanization....this is going to be extremly hard for me to do...and I have yet to form an opinion on which I would consider more humane...thats why I'm hoping someone who has worked at a shelter or is more familiar with the topic can help me out!
Thanks everyone...I will be out of town for the weekend so I won't be able to respond back to my post until Sunday.
Oh, and unfortunately the method of euthanization is really not the issue we're bringing forth to the city council. We are really a lot more concerned about the conditions the animals are being kept in during their short stay at the facility.

Thanks again!!
Bri

Hi Bri,

You are right; the topic is difficult, but it also is real. :( Here is one statement I found.

Humane Soceity of United States (HSUS) Statement on Euthanasia Methods for Dogs and Cats (http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/policies_and_guidelines/statement_on_euthanasia.html)

The article gives a detailed statement about preferred methods and drugs. I would suggest you read it because of the detail. Basically, though, HSUS favors sodium pentobarbital administered IV, IP only when IV is impractical (e.g., very tiny kittens and pups), and IC only if the animal is verified unconcious using a two step procedure outlined in the article. I found several shelters in various states cited the HSUS statement as being the shelters' practices as well.

Susan

I asked a rescuer friend Gabe (who has worked on this issue with pounds in Ohio) to respond--and this is his answer:

First, your city council should be congratulated for taking an interest in the humane treatment of animals! I am not a veterinarian, but I've worked with other shelters on euthanasia reform issues so I know just enough to get me in trouble :-)

Most shelters that use injection for dogs use one or more of three main methods (cats are a slightly different story):

1. Intravenous injection preceded by a sedative.
2. Intravenous injection with no sedative.
3. Intracardiac injection with a sedative.

Each of these methods, if performed properly by a compassionate, well-trained technician, will bring about a peaceful death most of the time. Intracardiac injection gets a bad rep because it's not pleasant to think about. Also, some shelters omit the sedative or don't administer enough sedative prior to the injection. Without proper sedation, intracardiac injection is cruel and inhumane. (and possibly illegal in some places). But if done properly, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. For some animals (such as those with really bad veins), intracardiac injection is kept as a fallback method. But, if you have any concerns that the euthanasia technicians at your shelter are undertrained, carelesss, or lack compassion or skills, intracardiac injection can pose problems.

For the majority of dogs, intravenous injection without a sedative is fast and painless. Death usually comes within seconds. However, with vicious dogs or dogs that are difficult to control, the pre-euthanasia sedative makes things easier and safer for everyone. A quick injection of sedative will render the dog unconscious, making it much easier to the IV injection. Ditto for dogs where finding a good vein might take a little while. But I've never met anyone who believes that pre-euthanasia sedation is necessary for every dog. Some shelters use a pre-euth sedative for all dogs. Perhaps it's easier on the staff this way - the dog is already unconscious when it comes time to administer the lethal shot. Many shelters use sedatives for some dogs, but not others. I guess it's a matter for preference.

There are some other issues involving sedation - cost, state licensing rules, etc.

Of course, all of this is moot unless you have properly trained, compassionate staff who have the right equipment. That makes all the difference in the world.

You might want to take a look at the HSUS euthanasia training manual - it's very helpful.

You might also look at it from the perspective of the Animal Control officer. It's easier to do an IV injection. Getting at the heart involves wrestling with the animal unless they are very tiny. The sedative may not have time to take full effect. Morale of the humans involved is key. They have to work there day after day. Conditions of the animals often improve when the conditions of the caretakers involved improve. It's a hard job, there's no way around it. While sedative may cost more, and IV may require more training, it may improve conditions drastically.