Factors Influencing New Zealanders’ Attitudes Towards Pet Euthanasia

1. Introduction

Euthanasia in veterinary medicine is used to humanely end an animal’s life when its quality of life is severely compromised due to various reasons, such as pain or chronic diseases [1,2]. While the procedure can alleviate suffering, it presents complex ethical, legal, and emotional challenges for both veterinarians and pet owners. Ideally, euthanasia should be considered a last resort [2,3,4].

The ethical framework guiding companion animal euthanasia is built on principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy [5,6]. These decisions should prioritise the animal’s wellbeing while considering the owner’s wishes. Veterinarians are tasked with balancing their professional duties with the emotional and practical needs of the owners [7]. They must also assess whether euthanasia requests are ethically justified and can refuse requests deemed inappropriate [4]. Established guidelines help ensure that animals do not suffer unnecessarily or are euthanised prematurely [5].

A variety of personal, cultural, and societal beliefs shape public attitudes toward animal euthanasia. Research suggests that people are generally more accepting of euthanasia for animals suffering from untreatable pain, though opinions can differ depending on the context [8]. Veterinarians often hold more nuanced views, particularly showing discomfort with “convenience euthanasia”, where healthy but aggressive animals are euthanised [9]. Public attitudes also vary between euthanasia for companion animals and population management purposes, such as in zoos and aquariums [10].

Veterinarians play a vital role in advancing animal welfare, sustainability, and ethical practices across various sectors [11]. Despite their role, there remains a gap in research on the environmental impact of euthanasia in veterinary practices, particularly in companion animal care [12]. Additionally, while veterinary students receive training in euthanasia procedures and neutering, there is insufficient focus on emotional resilience and managing compassion fatigue associated with euthanasia [13,14]. Frequent involvement in euthanasia is linked to a lower ethical burden but increases the risk of mental health challenges, including compassion fatigue and suicidal thoughts [9,15]. These concerns highlight the need for better support systems and training for veterinarians facing emotionally challenging situations.

Integrating animal welfare into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is gaining attention. While the SDGs are currently mainly focused on anthropocentric [16]. There is growing recognition of the mutually beneficial relationship between improving animal welfare and achieving the SDGs [17,18]. Strategies to reduce animal euthanasia in shelters can contribute to SDG 3 on health and wellbeing [19]. Human, animal, and environmental health interconnectedness necessitates a more integrative SDG approach [20]. Some researchers propose an 18th SDG specifically addressing animal health, welfare, and rights [11]. Collaborations between animal welfare organisations and those working on various SDGs could be beneficial [21].

In New Zealand (NZ), public attitudes toward euthanasia—both for humans and animals—are multifaceted. While most New Zealanders support euthanasia for humans with incurable diseases [22,23], opinions on animal euthanasia vary. Therefore, as part of the Furry Whānau Wellbeing research project funded by the NZ Companion Animal Trust (NZCAT), this study explores public attitudes toward the euthanasia of dogs and cats in NZ. By examining the factors shaping these attitudes, the ethical considerations involved, and how veterinarians navigate these decisions, this research aims to provide insights that can inform veterinarians, animal welfare organisations, and policymakers. Ultimately, the goal is to contribute to a more compassionate and informed approach to euthanasia that balances ethical concerns with practical realities.

2. Materials and Methods

The NZCAT Furry Whānau Wellbeing research was carried out with approval from the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT) Research and Ethics Approval Committee (REAC ref 19/53).

2.1. Participants and Data Collection

An online survey was developed and offered to New Zealanders via SurveyMonkey©. The survey was developed by EIT researchers Associate Professor Rachel Forrest and Maria Pearson in consultation with Professor Natalie Waran, EIT central veterinary staff, Patu^TM staff, Jeal Reiri (Kaitiaki Māori, Lecturer, School of Nursing), and Associate Professor Mark Farnworth. The SurveyMonkey© link was shared through email networks and distributed online via social media (particularly Facebook) and Patu^TM websites. A snowball sampling approach was used to promote the survey and recruit participants [24]. The survey remained open for approximately three months, from 8 January 2019 to 31 March 2019.

The survey asked the following specific questions regarding euthanasia:

Question 37. Euthanasia section. Please select the option (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) that most closely describes your feelings about the following statements. Dogs and cats should be put down if: they are strays (they are homeless pets); they are no longer wanted by their owner; they are sick, the owner cannot afford treatment; they are feral (they have become wild). Please provide further explanation if required.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Respondents were not required to answer all the questions and were given the option to skip questions as desired. For the demographic questions, where a respondent chooses “Other please specify”, if possible, the information was recoded into the appropriate category—for example, those who did not select European but identified as British were recoded as European. Various categories were collapsed as necessary for statistical analyses to maintain adequate sample sizes.

A forward stepwise binary regression was used to explore whether gender (female, male), ethnicity (Māori, NZ European, Other), age (18–24 years, 25–34 years, 35–44 years, 45–54 years, 55–64 years, 65–74 years, 75–84 years), income range (<$14,000, $14,001–$48,000, $48,001–$70,000, $70,001–$100,000, >$100,000, Would rather not say), qualification level (1–10), being brought up rurally (yes, no), currently living in a town (yes, no), the number of children and the number of adults present in the household, impacted whether or not a dog was transported safely (restrained, crated or in an animal carrier). Respondents were not required to answer all the questions, including those about demographic factors, and they were allowed to skip questions as desired. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25) software.

In response to Question 37, Please provide further explanation if required, some respondents expressed euthanasia concerns. These narrative responses were analysed thematically using an inductive approach.

3. Results

Attitudes Towards Euthanasia

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements regarding the euthanasia of dogs and cats. For each statement, there were between 2274 and 2293 responses. Table 1 shows that most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the euthanasia of strays, unwanted pets or pets of owners who could not afford treatment, with a slim majority of ageing respondents (65 and olders) strongly agreeing with sick animals being put down. The highest percentage of neutral responses were for ‘if they are sick’, ‘if they are feral’ and ‘if the owner cannot afford treatment’.

A total of 653 respondents provided a further explanation in the comments section. A basic thematic analysis of these comments is presented in Table 2. In general, euthanasia was viewed as a complex issue and as a human option that can protect the animals themselves (as well as humans and other wildlife) from distress and low quality of life. It was apparent that the respondents believed the choice to euthanise should be a considered decision made with veterinary or professional input and not just for convenience, and that animals have a right to live. It was highlighted that better regulations and resources would reduce the need for euthanasia.

The key findings for each theme identified through the analysis are as follows:

• Complex/Not Black and White: Many respondents acknowledged the complexity of euthanasia decisions, emphasising that it is not a simple “yes or no” question. They recognised the influence of various factors, such as the animal’s condition, the owner’s circumstances, and the availability of resources, in determining the most appropriate course of action. This highlights the need for careful consideration and individualised decision-making when facing euthanasia.
• Humane Last Option: Many respondents viewed euthanasia as a humane and compassionate choice in certain circumstances. They supported its use when animals are terminally ill, suffering with no hope of recovery, or posing a danger to themselves or others. This reflects a concern for animal welfare and a desire to prevent unnecessary suffering. Euthanasia is viewed as a way to provide a peaceful end to an animal’s life when other options are not viable or would result in a poor quality of life.
• Protects Welfare: Respondents also recognised the role of euthanasia in protecting animal welfare. They viewed it as a humane option when resources are limited, preventing animals from enduring neglect, abuse, or a life of suffering due to financial constraints or a lack of suitable alternatives. This emphasises humans’ responsibility to ensure animals’ wellbeing, even when it involves making difficult choices.
• Should Not Be for Convenience: A clear consensus emerged against using euthanasia for convenience. Respondents expressed strong disapproval of euthanising healthy or treatable animals simply because they are unwanted or inconvenient for the owner. This highlights the ethical responsibility of pet ownership and the importance of considering alternatives to euthanasia, such as rehoming or seeking assistance from animal welfare organisations.
• Use Only as a Last Resort: Many respondents advocated for euthanasia to be used only as a last resort after exploring all other options and seeking professional input. This perspective emphasises the value of exhausting all possibilities for treatment, rehabilitation, or rehoming before resorting to euthanasia. It also shows the importance of involving veterinarians and other experts in the decision-making process to ensure that euthanasia is considered only when it is truly the most humane and appropriate course of action.
• Right to Live: Some respondents strongly believed in the inherent right of animals to live, including feral animals. They advocated alternative approaches, such as trap-neuter-release programs, to manage feral populations and reduce their impact on wildlife. This reflects a deep respect for animal life and a commitment to finding non-lethal solutions whenever possible.

For each statement about euthanasia, cross-tabulations along with Chi-square and z-tests (α=0.05) were used to explore whether the respondents’ choices were associated with gender, ethnicity, age range, household income, qualification level, whether or not they had a child or children, whether or not they had a rural upbringing, or whether they were currently living in a town/city are reported in Table 3. The results suggest that gender, ethnicity, age range, qualification level, having a child or children, having a rural upbringing and currently living in a town or city influenced certain choice selections. No association with household income was observed.

4. Discussion

4.1. Public Attitudes Toward Euthanasia

The 2019 NZCAT Furry Whānau Wellbeing Survey suggested complex attitudes toward the euthanasia of dogs and cats, shaped by concerns for animal welfare, ethical considerations, and societal responsibilities. The survey indicates that NZ pet owners highly value animal welfare, supporting euthanasia as a humane option for animals that are terminally ill, suffering, or part of unmanageable feral populations. However, there is widespread opposition to euthanasia for reasons of convenience or financial burden. Specifically, about half of the responders (50.7%) agreed that euthanasia is acceptable for pets that are terminally ill or suffering, reflecting a broader belief in euthanasia as a compassionate way to alleviate suffering [1]. This aligned with veterinary ethical principles and broader public concern for animal welfare [25].

Conversely, 76.7% of respondents disagreed with euthanising strays, and 90.2% opposed euthanasia for pets simply because their owners no longer wanted them. This strong ethical stance suggests that alternatives such as rehoming or seeking help from animal welfare organisations should be pursued before considering euthanasia [4]. These findings align with international attitudes, where convenience euthanasia is discouraged in favour of humane alternatives like trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs for stray animals. For example, Brisbane, Australia, has adopted such programs, while Victoria still faces challenges with high stray cat euthanasia rates despite successfully reducing euthanasia rates for dogs through increased reclaim and adoption rates [26].

4.2. Complexity of Euthanasia Decisions

A recurring theme in the survey was the recognition that euthanasia decisions are context dependent. Factors such as the animal’s health, the owner’s resources, and the availability of non-lethal alternatives shape public attitudes. This nuanced perspective aligns with ethical debates in veterinary medicine, where individualised decision-making is emphasised [25].

Mixed opinions emerged regarding feral animal euthanasia. While some respondents supported euthanasia to control populations and mitigate wildlife impact, others preferred non-lethal solutions such as TNR programs. Although TNR is supported by some as humane and effective [27,28]. studies suggest it may be less effective than euthanasia in reducing cat populations, particularly when immigration occurs [27,30]. Furthermore, TNR programs may also pose risks to wildlife through predation and disease transmission [31,32].

4.3. Euthanasia as a Humane Last Option

Survey participants largely viewed euthanasia as a last resort, applicable only when other options, such as medical treatment or rehoming, had been exhausted. This sentiment was echoed by respondents who supported euthanasia primarily for cases of terminal illness or unmanageable suffering, favouring the alleviation of pain over prolonging life [33]. Notably, 35.6% of respondents supported euthanasia as a management tool for feral animals, while an almost equal number were neutral (35.5%), indicating uncertainty about how to best balance animal welfare with environmental concerns.

4.4. Perspectives from Veterinarians and Stakeholders

Research on attitudes toward animal euthanasia reveals complex perspectives among veterinarians and the public. Veterinarians generally support passive euthanasia but are less accepting of active and non-voluntary euthanasia [34]. Educational interventions can enhance veterinarians’ knowledge and attitudes toward animal welfare and euthanasia [35]. Interestingly, attitudes toward animal euthanasia do not correlate with acceptance of human euthanasia or suicide [36]. Factors influencing preferences include demographics, wildlife value orientations, and experiences with feral cats [37]. Cat colony caretakers and bird conservation professionals often hold polarised views on management strategies [38]. Public education about the impacts of feral cats and the implications of their management is recommended to address misconceptions [39]. Ethical considerations in wildlife management suggest adopting a knowledge-based approach within an adaptive management framework [40]. The emotional impact of euthanasia on wildlife researchers is also noted, highlighting the need for organisational support and training [41]. Overall, balancing animal welfare with environmental concerns remains a challenge, necessitating further research and education [42].

4.5. Ethical Dilemmas of Convenience Euthanasia

The issue of convenience euthanasia presents an ethical dilemma for veterinarians worldwide. Although studies show that veterinarians generally have a negative attitude toward convenience euthanasia, this may shift over time, with increasing tolerance in later years of practice [36]. Decisions regarding convenience euthanasia are often based on the veterinarian’s subjective evaluation of the owner-animal bond, with considerations primarily focused on the interests of the veterinarian and owner rather than the animal [43].

In NZ, despite claims of leading in animal welfare, systemic welfare compromises persist in farming systems [44]. While some argue that euthanasia is a valid treatment choice and the right of the owner [45], others emphasise the need for ethical decision-making tools to avoid convenient euthanasia [46].

4.6. The Right to Live and Alternatives to Euthanasia

A notable number of respondents expressed strong opinions regarding the inherent right of animals to live, especially among those opposing euthanasia for feral animals. They advocated for alternatives, such as rehoming or TNR programs, which have shown effectiveness in controlling feral animal populations while avoiding the ethical concerns associated with euthanasia [28]. The debate on animal euthanasia and the right to live encompasses ethical, legal, and philosophical dimensions. While some argue that animals have a right to life based on their autonomy and consciousness [47], others contend that painless killing may be morally acceptable [48]. The decision to euthanise companion animals is complex, involving the animal’s welfare, the owner’s wishes, and the veterinarian’s ethical considerations [7,49,50].

Legally, perspectives vary, with some countries legalising human euthanasia while opposing animal euthanasia [51]. The historical context reveals humans’ enduring claim to a “right of death” over animals [52]. Recent shifts in societal attitudes have led to decreased animal euthanasia rates and increased recognition of animal welfare [53]. The debate extends to human euthanasia, with legal and ethical considerations surrounding the right to die [54]. Overall, the issue remains contentious, balancing animal welfare, human interests, and ethical principles.

In NZ, the debate on animal euthanasia reflects both human and animal perspectives. While human euthanasia is contentious, with arguments based on autonomy and quality of life [55,56], animal euthanasia raises complex ethical questions about the value of animal life [57].Some advocate for recognising animals as subjects with perspectives on death [50], while others question the existence of an animal’s right to life [48]. New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999, which introduced the concept of “duty of care”, is internationally recognised for its progress [44,58]. However, systemic welfare issues, particularly in farming, persist [44]. Continued policy reform and increased resources are necessary to further improve animal welfare in NZ [44,59].

4.7. Demographic and Cultural Influences

Demographic variables—including gender, age, ethnicity, education, and upbringing—were significantly associated with attitudes toward euthanasia. For instance, older adults were more likely to support euthanasia for sick animals, while younger respondents were more likely to oppose it. Women consistently expressed stronger opposition to euthanasia across all categories.

Respondents with rural backgrounds showed greater acceptance of euthanasia, particularly in the context of feral or stray animals. These findings suggest that lived experiences, cultural norms, and exposure to animal management practices shape ethical perspectives. Differences between Māori and NZ European respondents, particularly in their levels of neutrality or disagreement, may reflect diverse worldviews about human-animal relationships [60].

These patterns underline the importance of culturally responsive public education and veterinary communication. Strategies to promote responsible pet ownership and humane decision-making must be adapted to reflect the values and concerns of different communities [61].

4.8. Broader Contexts: Sustainable Development Goals and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The intersection of companion animal euthanasia with global frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adds further complexity. Although animal welfare is not explicitly included in the SDGs, progress in animal welfare is compatible with several goals, such as health and well-being, reduced inequalities, and responsible consumption [17,18]. Critics argue that the current anthropocentric framing of the SDGs neglects non-human interests, prompting calls to reinterpret them through an animal welfare len [16].

Euthanasia of companion animals is an issue with emotional, social, and ethical implications [62]. The practice of euthanasia in veterinary medicine differs from human euthanasia and raises questions about interspecies relationships and communication [63]. To address global animal protection, including euthanasia practices, proposals such as the United Nations Convention on Animal Health and Protection (UNCAHP) have been suggested [64]. Research on companion animal population dynamics and control practices, including euthanasia, is extensive and growing [65].

The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted euthanasia decisions. Economic hardship increased pre-surgical euthanasia for treatable conditions like gastric dilatation-volvulus [66]. Low and no-contact euthanasia protocols created ethical challenges for veterinary teams [67]. Despite grief, most owners felt confident in their decisions [68]. Caregiver burden and income were predictors of euthanasia consideration [69].Community-based sheltering practices gained prominence, aiming to keep pets with their families [70]. Pet owners' concern for their animals even influenced their own health decisions [71], and companion animals helped people cope with stress during lockdowns [72].

4.9. Study Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into public attitudes toward companion animal euthanasia in NZ, several limitations must be acknowledged. The voluntary, online survey design introduces self-selection bias, resulting in a non-representative sample. Females and individuals of NZ European descent were overrepresented, limiting generalisability to the broader NZ population, including Māori and other ethnic groups.

Additionally, the survey was conducted in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, findings may not reflect more recent shifts in public opinion or animal management practices. Nonetheless, the data offer a valuable pre-pandemic baseline for future studies examining evolving public attitudes in the face of societal change.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the complexity and depth of public attitudes toward companion animal euthanasia in Aotearoa NZ. While euthanasia is broadly accepted as a compassionate and ethical choice for animals suffering from terminal illness or poor quality of life, there is strong public resistance to its use for reasons of convenience, unwantedness, or financial constraint. These findings reflect a widespread commitment to animal welfare and a growing expectation that euthanasia be used only as a last resort.

Demographic factors—such as age, gender, cultural identity, education, and rural upbringing—significantly influence these attitudes. This underscores the importance of culturally sensitive communication and targeted public education to support ethical decision-making, responsible pet ownership, and end-of-life care. The qualitative responses in particular reveal a desire for greater support for alternative solutions, including rehoming, financial assistance, and community-based management strategies such as trap-neuter-release.

The findings also resonate with wider global goals. Companion animal welfare intersects meaningfully with the SDGs, especially Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Promoting humane and sustainable euthanasia practices not only benefits animals but also supports human mental health, environmental protection, and social justice.

As public discourse around animal rights, ecological responsibility, and veterinary ethics continues to evolve, it is essential that policymakers, veterinary professionals, and welfare organisations collaborate to address the ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia. This includes investing in veterinary training, public education, animal shelter resources, and mental health support for practitioners involved in end-of-life care.

Future research should explore how public attitudes shift in response to social and economic changes, such as those seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how policies can evolve to reflect changing societal values. By fostering informed, ethical, and compassionate approaches to euthanasia, we can better safeguard the wellbeing of both animals and the people who care for them