T-61 in Animal Euthanasia: What It Is, Why It’s Controversial, and Why Turkey’s Bulk Purchases Deserve Scrutiny

Across Europe and beyond, veterinarians sometimes use a drug called T-61 to end the lives of animals who cannot be saved. It is potent, tightly controlled, and—when used correctly by trained professionals—intended to minimise suffering. But in 2024–2025, as Turkey’s government empowered municipalities to remove street dogs from public spaces and euthanise those deemed “aggressive” or “incurably ill,” credible concerns have surged about large-scale procurement of T-61 by local authorities and the risks of misuse in municipal shelters.

This post explains what T-61 is, sets out best-practice safeguards recognised by veterinary authorities, summarises what is happening in Turkey, and offers concrete oversight measures that would protect both animal welfare and public trust.

What is T-61?

T-61 (also marketed historically as Tanax) is a combination euthanasia solution containing three active substances—embutramide, mebezonium iodide, and tetracaine hydrochloride. Each component contributes to rapid loss of consciousness and cessation of vital functions when administered by a veterinarian under proper conditions. Product literature and EU regulatory listings affirm this composition and its status as a veterinary-only medicine.

Reputable veterinary guidance stresses that humane euthanasia requires professional judgement, appropriate pre-sedation/anaesthesia, correct intravenous administration, and monitoring until death is confirmed. The AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals are internationally referenced for these core principles (even where specific drugs differ by region).

Why T-61 is ethically sensitive

Because T-61 includes a neuromuscular-blocking component, its misuse (e.g., in a conscious animal or by an improper route) can mask distress while causing profound suffering. Ethical evaluations in the scientific literature therefore emphasise strict adherence to protocol and training to ensure loss of consciousness before any paralytic effect becomes relevant. The take-home point is simple: who uses it, and how, matters enormously

The Turkish context: a legal green light without clear guardrails

In July 2024, Turkey passed a law requiring municipalities to round up street dogs, place them in shelters, and euthanise animals assessed as dangerous or unsuitable for adoption. In May 2025, the Constitutional Court upheld the framework. These moves have triggered widespread public opposition and protests by animal-welfare groups, who warn that under-resourced shelters and weak oversight could translate into mass killing rather than humane care.

Reports and footage have continued to surface from specific municipalities. For example, in Bursa (Osmangazi), Turkish outlet bianet documented videos posted on social media showing bags of dog and cat carcasses being dumped and separate allegations—again on video—that dogs were killed with T-61 inside the shelter. While each incident requires independent verification and due process, the pattern underscores why transparency around procurement and use of euthanasia agents matters.

The procurement problem: why “how much” really matters

When a state authorises euthanasia at scale, the volume of euthanasia solution purchased becomes a de-facto indicator of expected killing—particularly in systems where sterilisation, vaccination, and adoption capacity are limited. Without granular public data, citizens cannot assess whether authorities are prioritising “catch-neuter-vaccinate-return/adopt” or defaulting to euthanasia.

Red flags that should trigger scrutiny include:

• Sudden spikes in T-61 orders by a municipality after policy changes.

• Purchases inconsistent with shelter records, such as volumes exceeding the number of animals documented as euthanised for legitimate medical reasons.

• Opaque tendering, where orders lack itemised quantities, unit strengths, or intended use protocols.

• No independent auditing of storage, access logs, and batch tracking.

Turkey’s public procurement records (EKAP) do exist, but they’re not easily searchable by drug name across all municipal tenders, and line-item transparency varies. Given the legal environment and emerging media reports about shelter practices, advocates are justified in demanding published, verifiable procurement data for T-61 and other euthanasia agents

What “good practice” looks like (the minimums)

To align with internationally recognised welfare standards (e.g., AVMA principles) and the product’s own restrictions, municipalities should, at an absolute minimum, implement and publish the following:

1. Strict Indications
   Euthanasia only when warranted by a veterinarian for incurable suffering, confirmed untreatable conditions, or genuine, assessed dangerousness—with behaviour assessments documented, appealable, and transparent.

2. Veterinary-led Protocols
   Mandatory pre-sedation/anaesthesia and intravenous administration by licensed veterinarians; never permitted for lay staff. On-site continuous monitoring until death is verified by clinical criteria.

3. Chain-of-Custody Controls
   Locked storage; named authorised users; real-time logs recording date, animal ID, dose drawn, and outcome; monthly reconciliation of inventory to cases.

4. Independent Oversight
   Quarterly third-party audits (with civil-society participation) of procurement, usage logs, CCTV, and case records; public reporting with batch numbers and volumes.

5. Transparency by Default
   Open data on: numbers impounded, sterilised, vaccinated, adopted, returned, and euthanised; T-61 purchase volumes by month; per-case justifications (de-identified) reviewed by an oversight board.

6. Accountability for Violations
   Clear penalties—including criminal referrals—for any staff who violate protocols (e.g., using T-61 on conscious animals, falsifying records, or disposing of carcasses illegally).

7. Prioritise Humane Alternatives
   Fund and scale mass sterilisation, vaccination, community feeding points, and adoption pipelines, which are more sustainable and publicly supported than culling

Why this matters now

The composition and labelling of T-61 leave no doubt: it is a special-risk drug intended for humane use only under stringent conditions. Where the law enables euthanasia at scale, public procurement becomes policy in practice. If municipalities are buying large quantities of T-61, citizens have the right to know how those purchases correlate with veterinary indications, shelter capacity, and investment in sterilisation/adoption.

Without transparency, the risk is that T-61 becomes the shortcut for overcrowded facilities and political pressure to “clear the streets,” rather than a last resort for animals who cannot be saved. That outcome would betray the humane intent embedded in veterinary standards and inflame social division in a country with a deep cultural history of coexisting with street animals

What we’re calling for

Dog Desk Animal Action supports Turkish and international partners to press for:

• Publication of all T-61 tenders and deliveries by municipality (quantities, batch numbers, dates, suppliers).

• Monthly dashboards showing intake, sterilisation, vaccination, adoption/return, and euthanasia numbers, side-by-side with T-61 usage logs.

• Independent shelter monitoring (including unannounced visits) with findings made public.

• National funding shift from euthanasia capacity to sterilisation/vaccination campaigns and adoption infrastructures.

• Whistleblower protections for veterinarians and staff who refuse unethical orders.

Bottom line

T-61 is not the villain; secrecy is. In the wrong hands or under the wrong incentives, any euthanasia drug can become a tool of quiet mass killing. Turkey’s recent legal changes have made this risk immediate and real. The antidote is radical transparency, independent oversight, and investment in humane alternatives—so that euthanasia remains what it should be: a rare, compassionate last resort, not a municipal policy.