Justifying Euthanasia: A Qualitative Study of Veterinarians’ Ethical Boundary Work of “Good” Killing

SIMPLE SUMMARY: (1) This study focuses on the ethical challenges veterinarians face when euthanizing animals, the act of ending an animal’s life to relieve its suffering. Unlike other healthcare professionals, veterinarians are often required to perform euthanasia as part of their work. How veterinarians determine what constitutes a “good” killing, in a normative sense, needs to be explored. (2) 17 interviews with veterinarians were conducted and analyzed in detail. (3) The study found that veterinarians have different perspectives on what they consider ethically acceptable regarding euthanasia. They distinguish between farm animals and companion animals. Economic and emotional factors also influence their decisions. Ethical boundary work describes how veterinarians define what they consider normatively legitimate in these areas of veterinary medicine. (4) In conclusion, this study shows that veterinarians face difficult decisions and use ethical boundary work to meet these challenges. They must balance sometimes conflicting interests and adapt to multiple situations. By understanding the complexity of ethical boundary work, we can better understand the moral aspects of veterinary practice. This knowledge can improve veterinary care and help veterinarians make ethical decisions that benefit both animals and society. ABSTRACT: (1) Veterinarians are regularly required to euthanize their “objects of care” as part of their work, which distinguishes them from other healthcare professionals. This paper examines how veterinarians navigate the ethical tensions inherent in euthanasia, particularly the collision between the routine practice of killing animals within their profession and the broader social and moral implications. (2) Using the sociological concept of ethical boundary work as a theoretical framework, this research observes how veterinarians draw boundaries by positioning their euthanasia practices on the ethical “good” spectrum. A grounded theory study of 17 qualitative interviews with veterinarians was conducted. (3) The findings highlight differences in ethical boundary work within veterinary medicine, particularly in the distinction between farm animals and companion animals. Economic and emotional reasoning play differing roles in explanation and justification. Ethical boundary work is a tool for distinguishing normative frameworks in different areas of veterinary medicine. (4) In conclusion, veterinarians grapple with the realities of an imperfect world and often rely on boundary work to assert diverse interests and navigate multiple contexts. By exploring the complexities of ethical boundary work, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the moral landscape within veterinary practice.