I knew I could refuse, but I was not in a position to ethically refuse. My chicken needed euthanasia, and the vet used her position as a professional - whose status inherently invokes trust, much like a doctor - to influence my decision. I wasn't given a choice where I should have had one. I asked for a service which is allowed by the vet practice (stated on their website), and she declined saying it was not possible. She mentioned nothing about her professional opinion, or anything distressing. She used the word "dangerous" where it was incorrect. Informed consent is a pillar of medical ethics. I think even literally - they have the four pillars of medical ethics. She left out a vital piece of information that completely changed my decision. My consent was uninformed, therefore it was not consent. I think that the fact I could have revoked my consent is irrelevant, given that she lied. It's like a doctor saying to you that if you leave the hospital now, you will die. You won't die, but it's not medically advisable to leave in your current condition. Therefore the consent is uninformed, and the doctor has abused his position of trust to lie to a patient in order to influence their decision. As the patient, you could have left but you thought you'd die if you did. You would not have died. See where I'm coming from?