Poster Presentation The International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ): 27th Annual Conference 2018

Dying before your pet: A legal literature review. (#212)

Monica Anne Hamilton-Bruce 1 2 3 , Victor J Krawczyk 4
  1. Neurology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital , Woodville South, SA, Australia
  2. School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  3. SAHMRI, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  4. School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia, Magill (Adelaide), SA, Australia

Introduction: Pet animals are a common feature of many households across the world, e.g., in Australia around 5.7 million of 9.2 million households are home to such animals. For many humans within these households, pets are often incorporated into their existing kinship networks. However legally pets are the personal property of their owners and there is usually a ‘primary adult’ holding (whether outright or implicitly) such responsibility. Complications can arise when the pet owner dies, be it testate or intestate, and the outcome for the pet as their property may not be what the owner wanted, or the owner may not have considered that this could be an issue.

Methodology: The method employed is a legal literature review of (a) the background of the status of animals as pets, (b) relevant issues arising and law relating to these, as well as (c) options for pet owners to consider should they pre-decease their pet(s).  Materials in English that included both primary sources of law and secondary discussion of the law were selected.

Main Findings: Arrangements for after-care of pets can be formal, involving organizational arrangements informed by the law, or informal, i.e., social arrangements. The latter can include nominating a person who is anticipated to outlive the pet(s). The outcome of such informal social arrangements can be quite problematic e.g., the pet may become seriously ill and the new owner may not have the capacity to pay for costly veterinarian treatment. A more formal approach may be considered preferable for the pet’s welfare.  Such arrangements within a will can include (a) gifting a pet and legacy to a friend or family member, (b) a legacy to an animal charity or (c) a testamentary trust.  Alternatively, although not ideal for the pet’s welfare, euthanasia is also considered to be an option by some.

Principal Conclusions and Implications for Field: After-care arrangements, whether formal or informal, may not lead to the outcome envisaged by the pet owner. Owners need to be aware of the options and resources available to optimise such decisions.