"This mystery ailment — diagnosed years later as Bartonellosis, or cat-scratch fever"
It seems perverse to me to give an example of someone who suffered from an identifiable physical illness and then write a whole article about the psychological pressures of being a vet.
Some believe that all mental illnesses are physical illnesses, but even if you don't...
Here, it's acknowledged that there was something other than nebulous psychological stresses and pressures, so the article bewilders me. If there is in fact an excess of suicide among vets, maybe the first, most obvious hypothesis would be that there's an excess of similar illnesses.
The combination of pressures is the stressor in this particular, individual case. The article cites a study which found the suicide rate among vets to be a significant multiple of the baseline populations rate. The factors that are common to vets are high emotionalal stress, caring fatigue, financial stress, time pressure and a workplace that normalises death as a means to an end of suffering and crucially, have access to restricted euthanasia drugs.
If the point of the article is that vets have access to euthanasia drugs, then I don't disagree, but I don't think it's worth writing - are we going to change that somehow, as a society? And, the article could have focused on how to control access to dangerous drugs, if that was its point.
I'm a veterinarian and became a software developer because I saw that I was going to become another number in this statistic. Low pay, long hours, abusive clients, bad working conditions and compassion burnout are all factors that combined with a predisposition for depression and anxiety (like I have), made me think several times if life was really worth it.
Fortunately I was able to start my developer career and even when it has it stresses and frustrations it is nothing compared to what happens with veterinary medicine.
Damn maybe if I'd been a vet before becoming a developer I wouldn't be so suicidal :( (not sarcasm, something I've struggled with for years and lost multiple dev jobs because of)
My own personal answer to that question is that it's never ethical to end the life of a loved one.
But in the case of animals, ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans.
Murdering a suffering pet so you don't have to see it suffer is a decision you make for some combination of easing your own emotions so that you don't have to see your pet's increasingly medically burdened life firsthand, giving in to social pressure from others who believe the "cruel to keep the suffering dog alive" line, and the practical logistical and financial burden of taking care of a needy pet.
A lot of people have the reverse line, that it's actually not cruel to euthanize a suffering person, and ought to be legal. I object to that on two grounds.
First of all, who judges whether a person's suffering meets the criteria for euthanization? I wouldn't trust potentially sticky-fingered relatives hotly anticipating the reading of the will, a medical establishment that is paid for its services, or a government bureaucracy.
Second, even simpler, I don't want to die; death has a huge negative score in my utility function, I don't think I would ever accept my own death, regardless of what it bought. If I was captured by some crazy super villain gave me a choice between (a) let me go, but the super villain would torture a million innocent people to death, or (b) kill me, but then the super villain would commit suicide and will their entire $1 billion fortune to my family (and I believed these threats / promises with no doubt). I'd have trouble deciding.
If preventing a million other people's suffering isn't reason enough to make me choose to die, why should preventing my own suffering be sufficient?
> ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans.
The rest of your reasoning notwithstanding, statements like this indicate that you don't quite understand how ethics works. Most importantly, 'ethical status' really isn't a thing and even if it was making blanket statements about how ethics goes for everyone will 100% always be wrong. Ethics is about being able to reason about what is right for you, within your moral framework. It's not something you can apply to other people (at least, not if you want to make sense).
There are some states that allow medically-assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness, my state (Oregon) being one of them. There’s actually a great documentary about it called “How to Die in Oregon”.
Personally, I think that it’s cruel to force someone to stay alive who is so tired and in pain and just wants it to be over. I watched my grandfather deteriorate and eventually he just wanted to give up. Had we had those laws in place at that time he could have died calmly with family around. Instead, he was suffocated to death by cancer. You tell me which sounds worse.
My mother worked in hospice for a few years and a patient who she had known previously who was dying of bone cancer just broke her.
Bone cancer is particularly painful, and it gets to the point where a dose of opioids strong enough to provide pain relief would completely suppress breathing.
When the patient is weeping and begging to be allowed to die, it's just too much for a compassionate human being to stand.
Are you asking how a child is different from a dog?
It’s cruel to exterminate a million humans because they annoy you, yet substitute humans for ants and suddenly it’s not cruel. The subject matters and what is cruel to animals is not necessarily cruel to humans. and vice versa. Put a chain around the neck of your child, drag it to a local field and give it snacks until it learns to roll around on command and the difference should be blatantly obvious.
I'm fine with the child and dog being considered unequal, but why isn't one a subset of the other?
It could be: cruel to euthanize either
It could be: cruel to let either one suffer an agonizing life
It could be: cruel to euthanize a child, but do whatever you want with the dog
It could be: cruel to let the suffering dog live, but do whatever you want with the child
It could be: do whatever you want with either
It's none of those. Why?
If I can (and must) keep my child alive despite an agonizing and fatal illness, why can't I do the same for a dog? Why do I risk going to prison just for treating a dog like a child? Why am I required to have the dog killed?
Do veterinarians always perform the actual euthanasia? Can't they tell their clients : "I'll give you the seringe, I'll show you how to do it, but you will do it" ?
If not, considering that indeed veterinarians probably chose that line of work because they love animals, making them kill animals on a regular basis has to be kind of a death by a thousand cuts.
17 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 46.1 ms ] threadIt seems perverse to me to give an example of someone who suffered from an identifiable physical illness and then write a whole article about the psychological pressures of being a vet.
Some believe that all mental illnesses are physical illnesses, but even if you don't...
Here, it's acknowledged that there was something other than nebulous psychological stresses and pressures, so the article bewilders me. If there is in fact an excess of suicide among vets, maybe the first, most obvious hypothesis would be that there's an excess of similar illnesses.
The combination of pressures is the stressor in this particular, individual case. The article cites a study which found the suicide rate among vets to be a significant multiple of the baseline populations rate. The factors that are common to vets are high emotionalal stress, caring fatigue, financial stress, time pressure and a workplace that normalises death as a means to an end of suffering and crucially, have access to restricted euthanasia drugs.
Fortunately I was able to start my developer career and even when it has it stresses and frustrations it is nothing compared to what happens with veterinary medicine.
1. cruel to keep the suffering dog alive
2. cruel to euthanize the suffering grandma or child
???
In either case, refusing to follow that norm can get you a prison cell.
But in the case of animals, ultimately they are lower ethical status than humans.
Murdering a suffering pet so you don't have to see it suffer is a decision you make for some combination of easing your own emotions so that you don't have to see your pet's increasingly medically burdened life firsthand, giving in to social pressure from others who believe the "cruel to keep the suffering dog alive" line, and the practical logistical and financial burden of taking care of a needy pet.
A lot of people have the reverse line, that it's actually not cruel to euthanize a suffering person, and ought to be legal. I object to that on two grounds.
First of all, who judges whether a person's suffering meets the criteria for euthanization? I wouldn't trust potentially sticky-fingered relatives hotly anticipating the reading of the will, a medical establishment that is paid for its services, or a government bureaucracy.
Second, even simpler, I don't want to die; death has a huge negative score in my utility function, I don't think I would ever accept my own death, regardless of what it bought. If I was captured by some crazy super villain gave me a choice between (a) let me go, but the super villain would torture a million innocent people to death, or (b) kill me, but then the super villain would commit suicide and will their entire $1 billion fortune to my family (and I believed these threats / promises with no doubt). I'd have trouble deciding.
If preventing a million other people's suffering isn't reason enough to make me choose to die, why should preventing my own suffering be sufficient?
You might consider volunteering at a hospice.
The rest of your reasoning notwithstanding, statements like this indicate that you don't quite understand how ethics works. Most importantly, 'ethical status' really isn't a thing and even if it was making blanket statements about how ethics goes for everyone will 100% always be wrong. Ethics is about being able to reason about what is right for you, within your moral framework. It's not something you can apply to other people (at least, not if you want to make sense).
Personally, I think that it’s cruel to force someone to stay alive who is so tired and in pain and just wants it to be over. I watched my grandfather deteriorate and eventually he just wanted to give up. Had we had those laws in place at that time he could have died calmly with family around. Instead, he was suffocated to death by cancer. You tell me which sounds worse.
Bone cancer is particularly painful, and it gets to the point where a dose of opioids strong enough to provide pain relief would completely suppress breathing.
When the patient is weeping and begging to be allowed to die, it's just too much for a compassionate human being to stand.
It’s cruel to exterminate a million humans because they annoy you, yet substitute humans for ants and suddenly it’s not cruel. The subject matters and what is cruel to animals is not necessarily cruel to humans. and vice versa. Put a chain around the neck of your child, drag it to a local field and give it snacks until it learns to roll around on command and the difference should be blatantly obvious.
It could be: cruel to euthanize either
It could be: cruel to let either one suffer an agonizing life
It could be: cruel to euthanize a child, but do whatever you want with the dog
It could be: cruel to let the suffering dog live, but do whatever you want with the child
It could be: do whatever you want with either
It's none of those. Why?
If I can (and must) keep my child alive despite an agonizing and fatal illness, why can't I do the same for a dog? Why do I risk going to prison just for treating a dog like a child? Why am I required to have the dog killed?
Taking the power to directly save life and using it on the pets of the rich.
Perhaps this weighs on them.
If not, considering that indeed veterinarians probably chose that line of work because they love animals, making them kill animals on a regular basis has to be kind of a death by a thousand cuts.