Coincidence?

As I mentioned two days ago in my post, I have been pondering how to salvage my Barbaro research with regard to my Master's thesis. I talked about exploring the burden that pushing the limits of veterinary medicine plays on human owners who are forced to make all sorts of decisions for their pets that they may not be equipped to make.

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I read in one of my favorite blogs, Dolittler, a post on the very same topic. It seems that the vet who writes the blog (a Penn grad ironically), was in the process of treating an eleven month old black lab who had been hit by a car and was essentially fatally wounded. The owners brought the dog in and told the vet to do whatever it took to save the animal. The dog was in a drug induced coma and the vet was pondering the limits of her profession, in the face of owners who were willing to spare no expense.

Sound familiar? She actually compares the situation to Barbaro's and ponders whether or not there should be some sort of framework in place for animals, like there is for humans, to help owners make end of life decisions. And yet, who should establish these parameters and who should enforce them?

Sound like a veterinary ethics dilemma and one that seems to be making more and more vets think. It's reassuring to know that I am not crazy for exploring the topic and yet it is also eerie that as much as I want to move on from my Barbaro experience, it doesn't seem to want to let me go.