We are pleased to announce that we have published our updated guidelines for the euthanasia of insured horses, modernising the longstanding resource first produced in 1996 and last revised in 2009. The updates reflect advances in veterinary science, clearer clinical protocols, and evolving expectations around equine welfare.
Why the guidelines needed updating
As Ian Beamish, who led the working group, explained during our recent BEVApod Focus conversation,
"The guidelines were first created in 1996… and then revised in 2009… This time round, we are now 17 years since that revision in 2009, and realistically, societal attitudes towards welfare have changed as well as the concepts of what is acceptable suffering.”
He also noted that previous iterations could be difficult to interpret in practice: "We also wanted to make them a lot clearer. I think they were a little bit opaque last time."
Clarity through a new decision-making structure
A major change is the introduction of three clearly defined categories: definite grounds, suspected grounds and no grounds for emergency euthanasia. As Ian put it: "
Realistically, there are only three scenarios… the horse that justifies emergency euthanasia there and then; horses that do not require euthanasia; and those that occupy that middle ground where you may think it justifies emergency euthanasia but you’re not sure.”
The aim, he says, was to replace ambiguity with a usable, evidence-based process: "
We’ve really tried to make it… at least a fairly uniform grey section that we can get people to work through so they can come to their conclusion.”
Welfare first regardless of insurance status
A consistent theme throughout the review is that welfare should always be the vet's primary concern. As Ian emphasised: "
The veterinary surgeon’s primary responsibility is undoubtedly to ensure the welfare of the horse, regardless of whether the horse is insured.”
He reinforced the message in the podcast:
“At its heart, this is a welfare document first and foremost… The fact that that is an insured or not insured animal shouldn’t affect how you make that decision.”
Insurance considerations and documentation
Whilst insurance must not influence clinical decisions, it does affect how cases should be recorded:
“Whether the horse is insured or not insured shouldn’t affect the making of that decision. But what it will affect is how you document and evidence that decision, because it’s highly likely to be scrutinised at some point.”
Ian shared practical reassurance for vets in the field:
“One thing that has changed in the last 17 years is the availability of smartphones… It’s easy to get hold of someone for a second opinion… and to document the case before you.”
Chronic cases and clinical judgement
Chronic conditions were a key reason for the review, with members expressing uncertainity around cases that do not neatly fit emergency criteria. Ian noted:
“A laminitic case is a classic example… clearly suffering, uncomfortable, but doesn’t necessarily meet the grounds for emergency euthanasia… There are some common themes such as persistent raised pulses, persistent discomfort and pain, and weight loss.”
Working with insurers
The new guidelines were produced in consultation with the insurance industry to ensure they are robust and practical. As stated in the press release: "
We are grateful to the vets and insurance industry representatives who contributed… Their input has been invaluable in helping to create a modern, practical, welfare-focused resource.”
Ian echoed this sentiment:
“There’s no point in us coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets… unless [insurers] were involved and are willing to accept them… The document’s better for having those insurers’ opinions.”
Key takeaway for members
Ian closed the podcast with a clear message for all practitioners:
“Welfare is the most critical part of all of this… If there’s any question or if you have any doubts, get a second opinion… That reassurance helps me sleep at night.”