Behavioural euthanasia describes euthanasia where serious behavioural difficulties are a primary or significant reason for ending an animal’s life rather than an immediately life-limiting physical disease.
It can be one of the most painful decisions a pet caregiver ever has to make.
Behavioural euthanasia is particularly difficult because an animal may appear physically healthy and may be affectionate, playful and much loved for much of the time.
However, physical health is only one part of animal welfare.
Severe or chronic fear, anxiety, frustration or other behavioural difficulties can significantly affect an animal’s quality of life. Behaviour can also create a serious risk of injury to people or other animals.
Research examining behavioural euthanasia in pet dogs found that human-directed aggression was the most reported behavioural reason, followed by aggression towards other animals. Fear, anxiety and stress-related behaviours were also commonly reported.[1]
On this page
Wherever circumstances allow, significant behavioural changes should first be discussed with a veterinary surgeon.
Pain, neurological disease, endocrine disorders, cognitive change and other physical conditions can influence behaviour, so identifying and treating underlying medical problems is an important part of behavioural assessment.
Depending on the problem and the individual animal, treatment may include:
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to make an animal sufficiently well or sufficiently safe for an acceptable quality of life.
There is no simple checklist or single behaviour that automatically means an animal should be euthanised.
Instead, the whole situation needs to be considered.
An animal who spends a large proportion of their life frightened, hypervigilant, frustrated or unable to cope may have significantly compromised welfare.
The likelihood of an incident and the potential severity of injury to people or other animals both matters.
A management plan that works theoretically may not be realistic in a particular household, especially where children, vulnerable adults or other animals are involved.
Behavioural problems vary enormously in their prognosis. The duration and severity of the problem, triggers involved, previous incidents, physical health and response to previous intervention all need to be considered.
Preventing an incident at any cost is not necessarily the same as providing good welfare. If safety requires an animal to spend most of their life isolated, restricted or unable to engage in normal enjoyable activities, the welfare implications of that management also need to be considered.
The wellbeing of caregivers matters too.
Research into living with companion animals with serious behavioural problems describes considerable emotional and practical burden on caregivers.[2] People may become exhausted, isolated or frightened, alter their home and social lives dramatically, or feel that they can never relax.
Acknowledging that burden is not a failure to love the animal.
Rehoming may be appropriate in some situations, but it is not always possible, safe or kind.
A different environment may reduce a particular trigger, but changing homes does not automatically remove an established behavioural problem. For some animals, losing familiar people and moving into an unfamiliar environment may introduce additional stress.
Where there is a significant risk of injury, it is also essential to consider whether rehoming would simply transfer that risk to another person, household or organisation.
The question should therefore not simply be “Could somebody else take this animal?” but “Is there a realistic home in which this particular animal could live safely and experience a good quality of life?”
Whenever possible, behavioural euthanasia decisions should involve open discussion between the caregiver and their veterinary surgeon, with input from an appropriately qualified behaviour professional where this is available.
The animal’s physical and emotional welfare, prognosis, previous treatment, ability to manage risk safely, circumstances of the household and welfare of other people and animals should all be considered.
There will not always be a perfect option.
Sometimes families are choosing between several difficult options rather than between a clearly ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ decision.
Grief following behavioural euthanasia can be particularly complicated.
A caregiver may experience profound sadness while simultaneously feeling guilt, doubt, anger, relief or shame. Literature specifically addressing behavioural euthanasia describes this complicated mixture of emotions and the additional burden created by fear of judgement from other people.[3]
Someone may repeatedly wonder:
Did I do enough?
Should I have tried one more treatment?
Could somebody else have managed them?
What if I had done something differently?
These questions are understandable.
Research on pet bereavement more generally shows that the strength of the human–animal relationship, circumstances surrounding euthanasia, perceived social attitudes towards pet loss and support from veterinary professionals can all influence the grieving experience. [4,5]
Behavioural euthanasia can be especially difficult because other people may have known the animal only when they were relaxed or happy.
Comments such as “But they looked perfectly healthy”, “They were always lovely with me” or “Why didn’t you just rehome them?” can therefore be extremely painful.
A short interaction with an animal does not necessarily reflect the reality of living with a serious behavioural problem every day.
Behavioural euthanasia is not about punishing an animal for behaving badly.
Animals experiencing serious behavioural problems are not morally ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Behaviour occurs for a reason, even when that behaviour is dangerous or extremely difficult to live with.
In some circumstances, after careful consideration of the available options, euthanasia may be chosen because continuing life would involve unacceptable emotional suffering, unacceptable risk, or restrictions incompatible with an acceptable quality of life.
Families facing these decisions deserve support and compassion rather than judgement.
The scientific literature cited above predominantly uses the American spelling “behavior/behavioral” in article titles. The text of this resource uses the UK/Irish spelling “behaviour/behavioural”.
Written by Dr. Claire Corridan, BVMS, PhD, MRCVS
