I am not sure which other category would be more appropriate for this question. But, this past weekend, my kitty went to kitty heaven. My vet(s) are sort of a "tag team" (same office), where if one is not available, the other cares for the pet. My first/original vet called me a few days before I made the actual decision, explained the process, that my kitty would be given a sedative, then "The Medicine". He said he would be out of the office over the weekend but the other vet would be in.
The vet who performed the procedure on Saturday was, in fact, the other vet. The procedure was, they put a little IV cath in his little leg, gave him a saline flush, then gave him The Medicine. There was no sedative beforehand. When she first gave him The Medicine, he had a slight "fight or flight" survival response, which I read about - I was holding him the whole time and he tried to reach up to my neck to climb up for protection (i had him wrapped in a blanket and was holding him to my chest).
I thought of this while it was going on, and while she explained the procedure, but didn't ask about the difference and/or why she did it that way. Did I wrongly trust her? I should have demanded that she use the sedative, and I am now feeling a horrendous sense of guilt that I hurt my kitty and didn't give him the easiest passage to the rainbow bridge. Because isn't there more pain when you have a heart attack (when his little heart stopped?) So essentially I caused him more pain?
Please, I need some advice on this. Should I bring this up or ask her? Or should I just let it go?