Feline events beyond pet ownership paradigm: An ethnographic case report on end-of-life decision-making for NONAME 6796

Abstract

Abstract Background: The human–animal bond is most often understood within the framework of the “pet ownership paradigm,” which defines a permanent relationship between an animal and their legal guardian. However, this framework is insufficient to explain the profound, yet temporary bonds formed with unowned urban animals, particularly during medical crises. This case report explores a critical incident that necessitated human intervention and challenged existing ethical frameworks in veterinary palliative care, along with the social conditions surrounding it. Methods: This study adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory approach and collects ethnographic data through participant observation. Following the discovery of a kitten with spinal cord injury in Istanbul, the researcher observed the ensuing events in the field and documented them through photographs and field notes. The data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software, with a focus on the functioning of veterinary systems, the dynamics of temporary care networks, and the experiences of human proxies in the field. Results: This encounter, conceptualized as a “feline event,” transformed ordinary bystanders into “human proxies” without any legal ownership status. Interactions with multiple veterinary clinics revealed a system structured around ownership, from administrative registration to treatment protocols. The kitten’s registration under the code “NONAME 6796” disclosed both the individuality of the feline patient and the institutional anonymity faced by animals outside the “pet ownership paradigm” when no legal guardian is present. Human proxies within the temporary care network were forced to choose between an expensive and uncertain surgery that required permanent guardianship, and euthanasia, leading to a profound ethical dilemma. The decision to proceed with euthanasia, based on a poor prognosis and limited resources, highlighted that end-of-life processes for stray animals are shaped not only by medical but also by social factors. Conclusion: The case of NONAME 6796 demonstrates that powerful human–animal bonds and significant care responsibilities can exist beyond the boundaries of legal ownership. Veterinary ethics and urban care systems need to be expanded to support spontaneous care networks that emerge to help animals in need. This requires designing “more-than-human infrastructures of care” that can accommodate these temporary yet meaningful relationships, facilitate urban animals’ access to veterinary care, and alleviate the ethical dilemmas faced by temporary caregivers.