Perhaps you have experienced a similar situation: there is a down cow that lingers longer than it should, or a calf that continues to decline despite repeated reassessment, and eventually it becomes clear the issue was not a lack of effort, but a delay in acting when the outcome was already decided. These cases tend to stick with you because they reveal something deeper about how decisions actually unfold on the farm.
As Dr. Mariana Guerra-Maupomé, professional services veterinarian with TELUS Agriculture, puts it, “The main problem is not the lack of guidance. We have plenty of standards and guidelines. The main problem is the failure to turn concern into timely action.”
Most farms are not struggling because they lack knowledge, but because their systems do not consistently support acting at the right time, even when the need is recognized.
Beyond the Euthanasia Method
Euthanasia discussions often center on technique, and that makes sense. Proper execution is important. However, when you step back and look at where things break down, the issue is rarely how euthanasia is performed. More often, it is when the decision is made and how long it takes to move from recognition to action.
This is where the two-clock model becomes especially useful for veterinarians trying to diagnose system failures on farm.
“Clock 1 starts when a compromised animal is identified to when the decision is made, the decision to euthanize. Clock 2 starts when the decision to euthanize is followed by the procedure of euthanasia and the confirmation of that,” Guerra-Maupomé says.
In practical terms, the model separates euthanasia into two distinct types of delay:
- Clock 1: Recognition-to-decision delay
Where uncertainty, unclear thresholds or hesitation slow downs the decision itself - Clock 2: Decision-to-action delay
Where logistics, training or equipment affects how quickly euthanasia is carried out
Most farms have invested effort in improving Clock 2, ensuring once a decision is made the procedure is performed correctly and efficiently. The larger and more persistent challenge lies in Clock 1, where unclear expectations or hesitation can delay decisions by hours or even days.
This distinction matters, because it shifts the focus from refining technique to understanding why action is not happening sooner.
Delay Is More Than a Welfare Problem
It is easy to frame delayed euthanasia strictly in terms of animal welfare. But in a production setting, the consequences extend well beyond that. Delayed decisions affect not just the animal, but the broader operation.
“Late euthanasia creates three types of risk: clinical risk, animal welfare risk and business or compliance risk. With euthanasia being delayed, there’s non-compliance to audit, reputational risk for the industry and supply risk for the industry as well,” Guerra-Maupomé says.
Positioning euthanasia within this broader context often resonates more strongly with producers, because it connects timely decision making to efficiency, compliance and long-term sustainability, rather than isolating it as a standalone welfare issue.
Where Systems Tend to Break Down
When delayed cases are reviewed, the same patterns tend to emerge reflecting a lack of clarity in how decisions are structured and communicated. One of the most consistent issues is vague guidance around reassessment. Without clear expectations, cases drift and repeated evaluation replaces decisive action.
“Stop using vague language like ‘Let’s monitor or recheck later.’ Define exactly when you are going to check. The decision trees suggest checking in less than 24 hours, but I would encourage you that you can even check in six to 12 depending on the severity,” Guerra-Maupomé says.
This is where Clock 1 quietly ticks on. Each undefined “recheck later” adds time. Without a clear endpoint, the system defaults to waiting rather than progressing toward a decision.
Role Clarity Keeps the Clocks Moving
Even when the clinical picture is clear, delays can still occur if roles are not well defined. When responsibility is ambiguous, decisions are often deferred, and cases stall despite obvious need. Strong systems prevent that by establishing a clear flow of responsibility.
“The caretaker identifies a compromised animal and escalates. The supervisor makes a decision to euthanize the animal. Next, a trained operator executes the procedure promptly, and then the operator or supervisor confirms that and documents,” Guerra-Maupomé explains.
This structure helps keep both clocks moving, ensuring once a problem is identified, it progresses steadily toward action without unnecessary delay.
The Veterinarian’s Role in Euthanasia Decisions
This type of structure also changes how veterinarians fit into the process. In many operations, euthanasia decisions still depend heavily on veterinary input, which can unintentionally slow things down, particularly when access is limited or communication is delayed.
A more effective approach positions the veterinarian as a system designer and reviewer.
As Guerra Malcome explains: “The veterinarian should never be the bottleneck for a case. The veterinarian is there to help train, audit and review the system. A veterinarian has an oversight role and can help at every single step.”
When farms operate this way, decisions can be made promptly on site while still benefiting from veterinary guidance, training and ongoing oversight.
The Human Side of Delay
It is also important to recognize not all delays are structural. Some are human, and those factors can be just as influential.
These challenges tend to show up in predictable ways on the farm:
- Hesitation in clear-cut cases, even when prognosis is poor
- Repeated reassessment without escalation, particularly in borderline animals
- Avoidance of decision-making, especially among less experienced staff
This is where system design intersects with human behavior.
“A clearer and more structured system does not just improve decisions. It also lifts a weight off the staff. By providing clear protocols and structured support, we reduce ambiguity, delay and the staff burden,” Guerra-Maupomé says.
Reducing ambiguity helps reduce hesitation, which in turn shortens Clock 1 and improves outcomes.
Insight Into Action
Improving euthanasia outcomes does not require complex interventions, but it does require intentional system design and follow through. A few focused changes can make a meaningful difference:
- Define clear, time-based reassessment points so Clock 1 does not drift
- Assign primary and secondary decision makers to prevent hesitation
- Ensure trained personnel are available to carry out euthanasia promptly
- Review both clocks regularly to identify where delays are occurring
These steps help create a system where decisions are made and acted on consistently, rather than reactively or inconsistently.
A Process, Not a Moment
Euthanasia is often thought of as a single act, but in practice, it is a process shaped by how quickly problems are recognized, how clearly decisions are made and how reliably systems support follow-through.
The two-clock model makes that process visible. One clock measures how long it takes to decide, and the other measures how long it takes to act. Both matter, but in many cases, it is the first clock that ultimately determines the outcome.
For veterinarians, the opportunity is to influence both. Because in the end, the difference between a good outcome and a poor one is rarely about knowing what to do, and far more often about whether the system supports doing it at the right time.
