Ad Blocker Detected
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
More than 99% of veterinarians surveyed said they’d encountered useless or non-beneficial veterinary care in their careers, according to a new Cornell-led study that documents the prevalence of futile care for the first time. The authors use a working definition of futile care as continuing treatment when relevant goals can no longer be reached.
“Before Cornell, I was in private practice in Los Angeles for 11 years. When faced with a dilemma like this, I had an obligation to advocate for what I thought was in the best interest of the pet,” said Dr. Nathan Peterson, associate clinical professor with the section of emergency and critical care and lead author of the study.
“But I also had an obligation to the owner,” Peterson said. “I couldn’t just do what I thought was right. It’s really quite distressing for the veterinarian and for the technicians and nurses who have to carry out the care.”
The study, co-authored by researchers at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics, also found that 89% of veterinarians said they had administered futile care, and 42% said it occurs frequently, more than six times per year.
The owner-centered approach, the authors write, can exacerbate moral distress for veterinarians and care teams. Previous research by co-authors showed that futile veterinary care was responsible for frequent and severe moral distress in the veterinary community, which they said occurs when a clinician believes they know the right thing to do but are prevented from doing it.
“We’re in the midst of a mental health crisis in our profession, and we’re very interested in whether futile care contributes to that, which I suspect it does,” Peterson said. “We felt that a first step is documenting that it happens. My hope for the research is that it opens conversations around futile care, and hopefully professional organizations can take a leadership role and try to provide some guidance for how to resolve these conflicts.”
The authors suggest establishing a definition for futile care in the profession – respondents were not in total consensus about what futile care means — as well as guidance around how decisions for care are made.
“I think as a profession we have focused for so long on alleviating suffering by continuing treatment and making animals healthier,” Peterson said. “And we’re not as prepared to strongly advocate for euthanasia, to have those conversations, even when we think that’s the best way to alleviate suffering.”
In future research, Peterson hopes to investigate the impact of futile care on support staff. “That feeling of powerlessness for the veterinarian is certainly magnified for the technicians who are often not involved in the decisions and who are directly responsible for providing care,” he said.
Materials provided by Cornell University. Originally written by Caitlin Hayes, courtesy of the Cornell Chronicle. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.