How Would You Feel if Your Vet Performed an Autopsy on Your Deceased Pet Without Your Permission?
A debate is occurring on the NAVC Clinician’s Brief’s “For the Love of DOG Blog.” I am troubled on two levels.
First, and least important, the name of the blog may be a trademark violation. Dogster’s For the Love of Dog Blog has been around longer. I will leave it to the good folks at Dogster/Catster HQ to sort that out.
The real issue for me is the subject of the current post on the NAVC blog. The post, by Dr. Jennifer Schori, is titled “Whose Body is it Anyway?”. The blog is intended for veterinarians. Here is an excerpt:
I do know that there have been times when other vets have performed a quick [autopsy] on a pet that has died in order to try to find out what caused the pet’s deterioration or death. These were not cases in which permission was granted, but neither were they cases where permission was denied. The owners just weren’t asked. I can see how this happens since obtaining permission for [an autopsy] is a delicate matter to bring up when an owner has made the emotional decision to euthanize their pet.
Personally, I can not see how this happens. Yes, bringing up the subject of an autopsy is a delicate matter. Most clients don’t want to discuss such things during a time of intense suffering. But I can answer the question posed in the title of Dr. Schori’s post with ease. The body of a deceased pet belongs to the owner of the pet.
The owner, and the owner alone, has the right to decide what happens to their pet’s remains. If an autopsy has not been authorized, then it must not be performed.
When I lose a patient, my clients expect me to treat the body with respect. I always do. Deceased pets were beloved family members, and at my practice their bodies are handled with gentle dignity. Always.
Autopsies can provide useful information on the cause of death in mysterious cases. But they are invasive. The body is opened and organs are examined or removed.
Autopsies are required by law in some instances (for example, if rabies may have contributed to the animal’s death). But, even if required by law, I would never, ever think of performing an autopsy without first discussing the matter with the owners of the pet.
I was therefore surprised that this could be a subject for debate. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an open-and-shut case. But not all vets see it the same way. Some of them are performing autopsies on the sly.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this matter. And, if you want to, feel free to jump over to Dr. Schori’s blog and give the vets who read it a piece of your mind.
Photo: Snowmanradio. Photo license: CC.
You have questions. 
Perhaps more owners shoud realize how important necropsies can be. How their pet’s death can contribute to greater knowledge that can prevent another animal from dying from the same cause. I agree that vets should seek permission. I am surprised, though, how many owners do not give permission for necropsies to be conducted.
Actually, we are talking ethics, here! I hold the same trust in my Vet as I did with the Doctor that looked after my children. Perhaps even more as my companions are limited in the communication levels. I had better well be asked! With good reasons presented, I will allow a necropsy. However, if such is done on the sly, then the covenant is broken! No excuse can cover the hard fact that this Vet is untrustworthy! You can believe that such behavior will be broadcast far and wide. In fact, my fury would quite possibly reach the courts of law and become very public!. Neither Doc or Vet is spelled “God”!
It is not only a question of ethics, but I wonder if those vets are setting themselves up for legal trouble.
As I understand it, in most states, pets are legally viewed as “property”. The body of a deceased pet is still the owner’s “property”. The owner has certain rights and choices as to how their “property” is handled when given into the care of another.
Also, it would seem that they are shooting themselves in the foot, scientifically. I can just see the question brought up…
“And how did you reach these conclusions?”
“Well, we performed x number of necropsies”
“Really? But you only have y number of necropsies on official record. When and where did you perform those extra necropsy/autopsies?”
“… err….”
In other words, the data from these illicit procedures would be completely nonviable as scientific evidence. Not saying that knowledge might not be gleaned, but that the data would be unusable as “proof”.
My last kitty became very ill, and we spent a lot of money trying to figure out what was wrong. We took x-rays, ultrasounds, radiographs, she had surgery, but still she wasted away. When she passed, my vet asked me very kindly if he could do an autopsy. I said yes, primarily because my own curiosity got the best of me. I wanted to know what we had missed. Turns out, she had a tiny lump of cancer hidden away at the juncture of the bile valves into the stomach. It was knowledge that I knew he would be able to use in the future, as well as peace of mind for me.
I think many owners, if approached gently, might actually give permission for an autopsy on their pet. Maybe not a high percentage of owners, but enough for a vet to at least stay “in the clear”.
There’s no excuse for violating a person’s “property” rights.
Im a Vet Tech student and we recently covered this topic in class. The way the information was presented is that the client’s (owner) permission must be obtained. And as a pet owner I agree. I also feel that while the question should be aproached with respect, the owner should be asked when there is a good reason to preform the necropsy. If the cause of death is obvious the need isnt there and I see no reason to bother an already upset owner. However, if there is any question of why the pet has died or there’s any thing to be learned which may save another animals life permission should be sought. I would be more than agreeable if my pet even in death could help to save the life of another. But I feel the same way about humans and that has inspired me to be an organ donor.
Dyg, I agree that unauthorized autopsies could be illegal. They also could be a source of civil lawsuits.
Even if unauthorized autopsies are legal, vets who perform them are asking for trouble in my opinion. State licensing boards may look upon them very unfavorably. Vets who engage in this activity could be at risk of reprimand from their boards. The board also might view an unauthorized autopsy as grounds to revoke a veterinary license.
I agree with you Dr. Barchas, There is no Question of what to be done. Permission must be asked!!!! Many folks Feel that pets are truly members of the family(I do).
You would never just perform an autopsy on A human patient without first obtaining permision from the next of kin. In the case of a legally required autopsy where it is demanded by law the family is still notified prior to the procedure.
I can not imagine the pain of having a family member,’s body violated in such a manner, furry or not!!! For many folks Beliefs and customs the body must enter into the next existence whole and unviolated. For many folks they’re religous beliefs extend to they’re furry family mambers as well. This is why many have they’re pets blessed or prayed over while still living and sometimes in death as well. It is also why there is a booming industry in pet cemetaries and creamatoriums. People want to believe that they’re furry family members will be with them when they pass on.
Anyone who does not get this is truly not a caring person. They don’t care for the pet or for the human client. Science is not an excuse to be callous to others feelings, or to others rights!!!
That being said there are valid reasons to perform a necropsy.
Knowlege can be gained, but not at the expense of a grieving family.
JUST ASK !!!!!!
Actually, I would have to respectfully disagree that this is an “open and shut” topic….as a veterinarian as well as a doting pet mom myself. I am glad to see the discussion and would like to offer another viewpoint. (I have not participated in the other discussion referenced here.)
From a strictly legal standpoint, unless permission has been specifically denied, we are taught throughout school that it is our responsibility as Doctors of Veterinary Medicine to perform a necropsy on any patient who dies or must be euthanized while under our medical care. Further (again, from a legal standpoint), most euthanasia forms state that the owner is releasing the body to the DVM for disposal (not to be insensitive with that word, but that IS what is done) as deemed appropriate by the DVM…..thereby transferring ownership of the body to the DVM from the owner at that time.
I do agree that even though it is a sensitive and delicate subject to broach with a grieving owner, it *should* be discussed. I have rarely had anyone say no when I have asked for permission to perform a necropsy on a puzzling case, even when they are still distraught over losing their precious pet. Most people readily accept that even though we can no longer help THAT particular pet, the knowledge we obtain from even a “quick” necropsy is often of tremendous value in helping other pets in the future that have the same problem, thereby (hopefully) preventing another owner from suffering the same anguish. They are by and large very grateful for that opportunity. Most people don’t want others to go through that same pain if it’s possible to help prevent it, and I always perform cosmetic necropsies (at no charge) whenever the owner wishes it be done that way. I am willing to do that because the knowledge obtained can be so valuable. It also often brings the owner peace of mind (and closure) if we find something that couldn’t have been fixed, knowing that they didn’t make the wrong choice to euthanize….that they/we did everything we could have possibly done. And regardless of “how” the necropsy is performed, it is always with the utmost respect to the patient. ALWAYS.
I can clearly see both sides of the issue, and would never perform a necropsy if the owner specifically said they *didn’t* want it done. I always totally respect that. But unless that is specified, I believe that veterinarians are both legally and ethically entitled (many say obligated, in fact) to perform a necropsy on any patient who dies or must be euthanized while under our care.
Y’know, Dr. Deb, you almost had me with the legal transfer of ownership point.
However, your argument for “silence equals consent” is a typical lawyer’s loophole that has a 50/50 chance of holding up in court.
Then you used the word “entitled” in your final sentence.
I’m sorry, but “entitlement” is just another word for “arrogance” in my book. I don’t believe that you or any other vet is “entitled” or “obligated” to perform postmortem procedures unless, as you state early on, the ownership of the “property” has actually been transferred to you in writing.
But really, why is asking permission such a difficult concept to grasp? “Entitled”, indeed.
i work at a vet clinic and there have been a few cases where the animal has gotten so sick from something internal, that the difficult decision to euthanize was made. curious staff would get permission from the head vet (the owner) to open the animal to find out the cause of illness, but the owners have never been consulted. most of the time, it is a vet tech hacking away at the poor creature in search of some glory moment. i, personally, feel the deceased should be treated with respect out of the owner’s love for the animal. yes, we know it’s dead….but it’s for these same reasons we don’t abuse the corpses of our passed on relatives, either!
I have mixed feelings and think it also depends on the paperwork done at Euthanization, as far as who the body belongs to. When my Taz was put to sleep, I did not ask for ashes back. I gave her body over for cremation. I never thought about it then, but thinking about it now, when I signed that paper at that moment I feel I gave up ownership of her body. I signed her body over to them to dispose of and deal with. If I wanted to retain ownership I should buried her myself or asked for the ashes back.
Yes I still expected her body to be treated with dignity, but I do not see a necropsy as treating her (or any body) with indignity. If the necropsy is done in a professional way I have no issue with it.
Also if her being necropsied could provide answers to make my future pets or someone else’s pets lives longer, healthier or better….how could that be wrong?????????
I guess in a way it all comes down somewhat to your beliefs about what remains when life ends. I feel when Tazzer went to sleep that last time, what was left was not her. It was a body and that is all. A container. What made it Taz was gone. So I wouldnt have seen a necropsy as being done on Taz…she was no longer there.
Quite frankly I am shocked and appalled that anyone would consider doing anything to my beloved pet without my permission, consent or knowledge. Regardless of whether she is dead or alive she is my pet and therefore my property to make final decisions about. I am further shocked to see several other Vet’s make comments in such a way that this is starting to sound like an entirely common practice. I wonder who you people think you are that you can go behind the backs of the pet owner and simply decide it was too delicate of a question to ask so skip the question but still move forward with doing the necropsy to curb your curiosity. Simply because they are animals does not negate the fact that they and their owners have certain rights. Not just legal rights but where are your morals? Where are your ethics? If you want to perform any kind of a procedure on someone’s pet you had better ask. In this day an age why would you risk getting yourself in trouble in acting in such a fool hardy way? Stop and think how you would feel if that was your child and consider that many of us who would be “too difficult” to speak to regarding doing a necropsy consider our pets to be like children. Doing something like this is acting irresponsibly, inappropriately and is a violation of moral and ethical codes.
I can see this from different viewpoints. First off I would have to be asked. If my baby died from unknown causes and never could be diagnosed what was wrong I may feel it would be okay. I just don’t know. I would still want to take her/his ashes home with me. On the other hand my now baby girl has many medical conditions and I would never give permission since I pretty much know what her fate will be in the end. I guess I don’t know until I am there. But, as stated above permission is a must for me. I love her no less than my human daughter and husband.
I couldn’t express my feelings any better than Juli did… I agree with every word. If you want my permission, ask for it.
Because I rescue a lot of older pets, I have been through the heartbreak many times… and only once was I asked to have a necropsy done. There were other times that I didn’t know the true reason my beloved pet was dying, but it honestly never occurred to me to ask for a necropsy. It isn’t usually a thinking clearly time. And the one time I really wanted to know exactly what killed her, I was already $4,000 into vet bills and couldn’t afford additional expense. The vets who think it’s okay to do necropsies without consent are obviously doing it at no charge… maybe if necropsies were at no cost to the owner unless specifically requested, medical science would be better served and everyone could maintain their ethics.
On the topic of ownership, if a standard euthanasia form indicates that owner is releasing the body to the DVM for disposal and it’s believed at that point that the DVM becomes the owner, why does the “former” owner have to pay the disposal of the body? And why would the remains be given back to the owner for burial or after cremation? That makes no sense.
If I sign over my live pet and the DVM is owner at that point, then I should no longer be responsible for any costs associated with “disposal” and the remains would no longer belong to me. That’s not how this works. You can’t have it both ways. Either the DVM owns the pet, can do the necropsy wthout authorization and is therefore responsible for all associated costs or they don’t actually “own” the pet and are simply charged with the task of euthanasia and handling of the remains as requested and expected by the rightful owner which means they cannot do the necropsy without permission. It really is open and shut.
No necropsy without permission.
The legal issues surrounding unauthorized necropsies seem quite hazy indeed.
However, the ethics are crystal clear to me. Unauthorized necropsies are a breach of trust, regardless of who “owns” the body.
For the record, no vet I know ever has confessed to performing an unauthorized necropsy. I think that the vast majority of vets see things the way I do.
That’s why I was so surprised to find out that this could be a subject of debate. I was stunned to find out that there are any vets who think it’s OK to violate client trust in this manner.
My comments are posted on the other blog about this topic – bottom line, permission must be asked. My pets are also my family. After going through the heart breaking experience of taking our little Shih Tzu, Micky, for his final ride 5 years ago, we assumed his body was handled with dignity to be cremated and returned to us. It never crossed my mind that there could have been an autopsy without our permission.
I can’t believe this is a topic of debate either. Shame on the vets who assume this is ok. It’s not.
Let us try analogies here, as some people cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of the matter:
Would you perform an unauthorized autopsy on a child?
Would you want someone to “take a quick peek” into a deceased relative without your knowledge?
Or, from a breach of trust standpoint-
Would you be ok if someone you hired opened up an appliance (say an iPhone) without your permission?
How about if a coworker “took a quick peek” inside your purse without your knowledge?
Those are only an objects, with no life, no emotions. What more about pets, who are family?
So yes, it is an open-and-shut case.
I am horrified that there are vets out there who think they are “entitled” to do what they wish with the body of a beloved pet who has passed.
I would think it would be “very” obvious that unless they have asked and received clear “permission” from the owner, they are not to touch the body in any unessesary way.
This has opened my eyes, and sadly brought more mistrust opon those who doctor to my own animals.
The next time a beloved family member passes, I will not wait to be asked, but say right off that the body is not to be touched. “Unless” it was a death of suspitious nature, then I would like to understand and learn from the death, and would give permission……
But if it is something tthat is obvious, like (god forbid!) a car accident, there is no reason in my mind why the body needs to be tampered with. It is my choice, not the vet’s or anyone else’s.
Who actually reads those euthanasia forms? Your pet is suffering and you just want to end his pain. It’s unethical for the vets not to tell you if they’ll be performing a necropsy, even if it is in the fine print.
I wanted an autopsy done on my cat, but I didn’t want to pay for it. We had to go in through the emergency room, so they didn’t have a vested interest in his case. Maybe if our real vet had been there, she would have asked my permission and we might have gotten some answers.
I agree that the vet should ask permission. That is an ethical issue and it’s the same as asking for permission to do an autopsy on a dead child. But, seeing you asked for opinions, it would not concern me if a doctor or vet carried out an autopsy on a dead child of mine or a dead dog without my permission. If a child or dog is dead, in my mind he or she is dead and gone. What happens to his or her body (provided there is some modicum of respect) is of little concern, and an autopsy might be of benefit to others. At a time of great grief, this sort of issue matters little. But, obviously, I understand most may think differently.
While I think permission should be asked by the vet to perform a quick or not so quick autopsy on a pet. I can understand a vets desire to look further even after the patient has passed. Unless the owner has requested the body back so they can bury the animal in their backyard, what does it hurt them? When I worked in a vet practice about 15% of euthanasias went home with the family to be buried in the yard. 70% went to group cremation, the other 15% had ashes returned.
As far as a tech just hacking on the body though, yes, that would offend me greatly. I feel the autopsy should be done with as much respect and consideration as possible.
As an owner, if the vet could learn something that could help a future animal, or even give her peace of mind that they had done all they could, it would make me feel a little better about my pets death.
The decision should be left up to the owner. The vet should not decide that. Some people would be greatly offened if their beloved pet was cut open with out their permission. An autopsy is not a bad idea it could help future pets. I myself might be a little upset if an autopsy was done on my pet. The thought of it makes me sick. I can understand why a vet would want to do it, but it still should be left up to the owner.
First of all, I must agree that consent is absolutely mandatory.
Beyond that, though, I would wonder how often the clients have wondered what a necropsy would show, and would have been quite willing to consent, but were never asked. Or even if they inquired about it themselves, were quickly told how much it would cost them.
Personally, my beliefs are such that once that pet’s life is gone, the body is meaningless to me. I have no interest in dealing with corpses or ashes. That’s just me, and I completely respect others’ beliefs that differ. But based on that as well as my support for the ethical advancement of science and knowledge, I can’t imagine that I would ever deny consent and would in fact encourage a necropsy if the opportunity were offered… if it were not presented as just yet another veterinary fee.
I would never hold the vet responsible for wanting to perform an autopsy on my pets.
After all, there is much info that could possibly be used, either for my other pets, or for other dog/cat owners.
How absurd to deny such a thing.
I would expect that any decent vet WOULD do this whether he/she has my permission or not.
XOXO
Anna
Medical sciences, whether veterinarian or human, would be so much more advanced if people wouldn’t be so possessive of the people and pets they love. They are then left to wonder? (That doesn’t make ANY sense at all).
Good grief. Those people and pets have no more ‘need’ for their bodies after death.
As a tech who has been in the midst of this debate, I have one additional issue to add to the debate. We recently lost a patient (somewhat violently) to an unknown cause while in our care. Due to financial constraints, we were unable to do much except stabilize for two days while we grew increasingly concerned at his steep decline and at the likelihood of an infectious agent (and its implications for contamination of our hospital as the size of the patient meant we were unable to properly contain them in isolation).
When the patient died and the owner was unable to afford a necropsy (and we were not equipped to do so ourselves on that day), it became an issue of debate. At what point does the hospital demand an answer for the sake of safety? (ie – if we just lost a patient to Rabies or Distemper, we need to know. At what point does the overall health of our patients as a whole outweigh the limitations of the individual patient?).
Just thought I’d throw a little gas on the fire…
I would definately need to be asked!…and I would give my permission but why wouldn’t the vet just ask? I value the hour after my first dog’s death because I was able to hold his body close to me and whisper into his ear how much I loved him. If the vet had cut into him before I could hold him I would have lost that. I wish they had offered an autopsy I would have gladly handed him back to be 100% on the cause of his strange and unexpected death. How does the vet answer to an owner when he hands them back their gutted pet?!
I have and will always stay with my pet during euthanasia and take their bodies’ home to be buried. However, if a vet asked to do a necropsy to find out the cause of death, I would give them permission to do so.
When Specks was PTS he was very ill and dying and we never found out the cause although the vet thought he must have cancer somewhere from his symptoms. I would have been appreciative if the vet had wanted to find out the actual cause, but if he did it without asking I would be very angry.
When Rakki-chan died after surgery on her bladder (she had a nasty case of UTI, 9 stones removed from her tiny bladder); I phoned up the vet in the early hours of the morning. He made mention then of an autopsy… But then he cut himself off in midspeech. Stating that “at this point it’d be kind of useless”. Because we know what killed her. The strain from the illness and the surgery. It is the choice of the owner. And it’s the choice of a family member in the situation of a humanoid too, if you ask me. Why should animals get all the rights?? What ever happened to humans getting the choice of not getting sliced and diced after they died? O.o