Euthanasia and animals

Servant of Jesus · May 26, 2009

The Nihilist said:
Is everyone going to think I'm a jerk if I come out in favor of euthanizing terminal patients? Because I don't want everyone to think that.

But if we did, they'd suffer less, they'd die with dignity, healthcare would cost less, we'd remember them as the people we love rather than as the thin frail specter they eventually become, and it would make life more pleasant on the whole. Seriously, if I get a terminal illness, I'm going out with seppuku. My death is going to make the news.

But we're all "terminal patients"- everyone is destined to die. So at what point do we define a person as being terminal enough to justify euthanizing them?

The Nazis in the 1930's decided to euthanize ("kill"- to call it what it really is) hopelessly challenged patients in mental institutions- but again, who is to decide where the line is? In the case of the Nazis, being a Jew was enough to "euthanize" a person.
-----------------------

But to get back to the topic: killing pets that are either very sick or not wanted (I think "not wanted" pets, especially newborn ones, are more likely to be killed).

Personally, I believe every pet is still a product of God's creation and shouldn't be killed for frivolous reasons. Every owner of a dog or cat will tell you that a pet has emotions- displaying love, fear, frustration, and other emotions just like a human being.

My bet is that when we get to Heaven, Fluffy, Fido, and a host of other pets will also be there to greet us (assuming you're eligible to go to Heaven, of course).

The Nihilist · May 26, 2009

Servant of Jesus said:
But we're all "terminal patients"- everyone is destined to die. So at what point do we define a person as being terminal enough to justify euthanizing them?

The Nazis in the 1930's decided to euthanize ("kill"- to call it what it really is) hopelessly challenged patients in mental institutions- but again, who is to decide where the line is? In the case of the Nazis, being a Jew was enough to "euthanize" a person.
-----------------------

But to get back to the topic: killing pets that are either very sick or not wanted (I think "not wanted" pets, especially newborn ones, are more likely to be killed).

Personally, I believe every pet is still a product of God's creation and shouldn't be killed for frivolous reasons. Every owner of a dog or cat will tell you that a pet has emotions- displaying love, fear, frustration, and other emotions just like a human being.

My bet is that when we get to Heaven, Fluffy, Fido, and a host of other pets will also be there to greet us (assuming you're eligible to go to Heaven, of course).

Look what you did. We had a perfectly good thread, and you went and Godwinned it. Shame on you. This is why we can't have nice things.

RobinRedbreast · May 26, 2009

I am 100% against animal euthanasia...
... and 100% in favor of self-elected human euthanasia.

This is because a human being can say "I want to pass on to relieve myself of suffering" and an animal cannot.

Plain and simple for me.

R3quiem · May 26, 2009

An animal doesn't know when it's dead, but it knows when it is suffering.

Keeping fido alive and suffering for years is horrendous.

Chajara · May 26, 2009

I honestly have to wonder if those of you against animal euthanasia has ever had to go through the decline of a beloved pet. Honestly, watching my old cat go downhill from renal failure was the most gut-wrenchingly horrible thing in the world for me. It took him about three days to really reach the end. The first day I babied him like I always did when I knew he didn't feel well. By the end of the second day when he hadn't responded to my babying I was frantic and knew the end was nigh, and on the third day when I called my boyfriend from work and he told me my poor cat hadn't even moved all day, it tore me apart to know he was suffering. The very second I got home from work I loaded him up and took him to be put down. I could not stand to let him suffer any longer. If I could have taken all his pain upon myself I'd have done it. When he breathed his last and I knew he was no longer in any pain, no longer felt like crap because of the toxins his kidneys could no longer filter from his blood, I felt nothing but relief.

I don't know how anyone can see an animal languishing from old age, illness, or injury and just let it lay there until it dies on its own. Don't your instincts to protect them from harm get all riled up? How can you stand the sight? It literally boggles my mind, and I can't help but consider it extremely cruel not to end an animals pain when you have the means to do so.

Having said that (and to remain on topic): I have the same view on human euthansia. Were my boyfriend or parent or sibling or whoever hit by a car and laid up in a hospital with fractures and internal bleeding, or suffering an agonizing death from cancer, I'd have the same response as I did with my cat. I'd be frantic and going crazy so long as they were suffering. If euthanasia were available to relieve them of that sort of torment I'd do it in a heartbeat, and would never regret it for a second.

keith99 · May 27, 2009

Penumbra said:
The bold part in particular is why I feel the way I do...

Humans suffer, and it is their choice to continue. They can learn from suffering, but sometimes it gets to the point where they would rather not be alive anymore and aren't learning anything because all they do is suffer.

An old animal, full of sickness and disability probably isn't learning much. My friend's family had a pet dog that had many healthy years. It got old, though, and it became extremely crippled, 100% blind, just about all of its teeth fell out, and it got partially deaf. It was obviously in pain. All it did was sit in the corner and snarl at anything that went near it, because it was suffering and unhappy. The family kept it alive for 3-4 years I believe before it was finally put down. 3-4 years of snarling in the corner in misery, surviving because its loving owners continually gave it nutrition-rich slop to eat.

If Wheatley were to sit in a corner and snarl at me I would know it was time to end things for him. NOT because of anger or fear on my part, but because of what it would show. He will NOT snap or snarl at me for any reason. It does not happen. He will yelp if his hair is pulled during grooming or if I cause pain when checking a possible injury. But a nip of snarl simply does not happen. If it did become a norm for him it would indicate a serious and lasting level of pain I do not want to imagine.

Joey, the beta dog is not quite as devoted. It is possible he would snarl at me. It has never happened. In general he does not believe in pain. (Ears excepted). That pretty much leads to the same decision. Consedering his pain tolerance (He once split a tooth and showed only minimal signs of pain) I do not want to think of anything that would push him that far.

keith99 · May 27, 2009

The Nihilist said:
Is everyone going to think I'm a jerk if I come out in favor of euthanizing terminal patients? Because I don't want everyone to think that.

But if we did, they'd suffer less, they'd die with dignity, healthcare would cost less, we'd remember them as the people we love rather than as the thin frail specter they eventually become, and it would make life more pleasant on the whole. Seriously, if I get a terminal illness, I'm going out with seppuku. My death is going to make the news.

I do not consider you a jerk. I support patients having the option of euthansia because I know there is a pretty decent chance I will need it. I have the misfortune of being a tough enough guy that I could linger in pain for years.

Rebekka · May 27, 2009

Chajara said:
I honestly have to wonder if those of you against animal euthanasia has ever had to go through the decline of a beloved pet.
(...)
It literally boggles my mind, and I can't help but consider it extremely cruel not to end an animals pain when you have the means to do so.

Yes I have, and I loved my cats with all my heart. I did all I could to minimize their suffering. I would not have forgiven myself had I ended their lives.

I have to ask you Chajara, would you (want to) euthanize your sibling or parent or boyfriend who was suffering even if s/he didn't ask for it? Would you make that decision for them, perhaps even against their wishes?

Mrs. Luther073082 · May 27, 2009

I've always wondered the same thing. I used to work at vet clinics and have always thought euthanasia is a real good way to go, one that I quite frankly could see myself being envious of down the road. One key difference between humans and animals, though, is that animals don't know it is coming and people most likely would. I think it would be difficult for a human to know what was going to happen. (But then again, if you were terminal, you'd be dealing with that kind of knowledge anyway -- at least you wouldn't have to deal with a prolonged painful death.)

Dharma Wheel · May 27, 2009

I actually agree. This is a hard issue to deal with as if you don't put ''Fluffy'' down they will have to suffer, but if you do there is a chance that ''Fluffy'' would have preferred to live.

Servant of Jesus · May 27, 2009

What about squashing a mosquito- is that morally defensible?

Bloody murder, I would say (no pun intended), of a living entity that has as much a right to live as any other created entity.

And before you ask- I bet there IS someone out there who has a pet mosquito.

Mling · May 27, 2009

Rebekka said:
Yes I have, and I loved my cats with all my heart. I did all I could to minimize their suffering. I would not have forgiven myself had I ended their lives.

I have to ask you Chajara, would you (want to) euthanize your sibling or parent or boyfriend who was suffering even if s/he didn't ask for it? Would you make that decision for them, perhaps even against their wishes?

I realize this wasn't directed to me, but I have to answer. I would, under the 'right' conditions. If they have enough will to be opposed to that decision, then the conditions aren't 'right.'

Chajara · May 27, 2009

Rebekka said:
Yes I have, and I loved my cats with all my heart. I did all I could to minimize their suffering. I would not have forgiven myself had I ended their lives.

I have to ask you Chajara, would you (want to) euthanize your sibling or parent or boyfriend who was suffering even if s/he didn't ask for it? Would you make that decision for them, perhaps even against their wishes?

I plan on encouraging my family members to make their last wishes known before we have to deal with this situation. However, if a family member told me explicitly not to choose euthanasia I would not go against their wishes unless they changed their mind while suffering greatly, of course. It'd kill me to let them suffer but if that is what they wanted, that is what they would get. If they never told me either way then I'd choose to end it, because like I said, I cannot handle someone in my care suffering. The suffering must end one way or another, either by a cure or by death. If a cure is out of the question and death is going to come sooner or later anyway, I would choose a merciful death for them. Again, I would not regret this one bit, but if I allowed them to suffer it would haunt me for the rest of my life. I already feel bad enough that I didn't call off work the day my cat died so I could have taken him in that morning rather than at 4 in the afternoon.

Rebekka · May 27, 2009

Mling said:
I realize this wasn't directed to me, but I have to answer. I would, under the 'right' conditions. If they have enough will to be opposed to that decision, then the conditions aren't 'right.'

So in other words, if they are incapable of making their wishes known to you, you will euthanize them?

Chajara said:
I plan on encouraging my family members to make their last wishes known before we have to deal with this situation. However, if a family member told me explicitly not to choose euthanasia I would not go against their wishes unless they changed their mind while suffering greatly, of course. It'd kill me to let them suffer but if that is what they wanted, that is what they would get. If they never told me either way then I'd choose to end it, because like I said, I cannot handle someone in my care suffering. The suffering must end one way or another, either by a cure or by death. If a cure is out of the question and death is going to come sooner or later anyway, I would choose a merciful death for them. Again, I would not regret this one bit, but if I allowed them to suffer it would haunt me for the rest of my life. I already feel bad enough that I didn't call off work the day my cat died so I could have taken him in that morning rather than at 4 in the afternoon.

It's good to discuss those things with your loved ones (also about organ donation for example). My family knows my wishes and I know theirs. I know that my husband will respect my wish to not be euthanized and I will respect his. My dad says he wants to be euthanized, but I know that I can never make that decision for him. I just can't, it's against my conscience.

I can understand the wish to end suffering, but a lot is possible these days with pain medication.

Mling · May 28, 2009

Rebekka said:
So in other words, if they are incapable of making their wishes known to you, you will euthanize them?

Well, that's a way of putting it, I suppose. Though, if they were in a persistent vegetative state, I would not euthanize. Just remove all impediments to death and let it happen on it's own. I don't think I would actively kill somebody (crank up the morphine) unless they made it clear that that's what they want.

You probably have to be in my family to understand just *how* hypothetical this situation is. The only person in my extended family who has ever elected to even *get treatment* when death was obviously imminent, did it mostly just so his wife could tell their child that they did everything they could. My mother has told me to even delay calling 911 if she is close to death, because, even though she is in decent health now (and thus can't really get a DNR,) she doesn't want there to be any chance of being resuscitated with brain damage, or into a coma. I think her exact words were actually "take me out back and shoot me." (Hyperbole--we don't own guns)

It was explained to me from very, very young it is often better for a person to die, than to force them to suffer through another day. That would have been after my first funeral (grandfather, when I was 8) and somebody said that they had prayed for God to take him 'home,' and I asked why somebody would pray for somebody else to die.

I've seen* people die very peacefully in their beds, surrounded by their Psalm-reading/praying, loving family; and I've seen* people die in agony, desperately clinging to a tortured life. But everybody I know has made it clear that they would chose the former, so yes, that is my default choice. If somebody isn't able to tell me that they prefer the desperation and torture, I would not force that on them.

*both 'seen's are somewhat metaphorical. I have never actually been present at the moment when soul departs body, but I have watched people deteriorate to the point where, by the time that moment comes, there isn't much left to lose.

Rebekka · May 29, 2009

Mling said:
Well, that's a way of putting it, I suppose. Though, if they were in a persistent vegetative state, I would not euthanize. Just remove all impediments to death and let it happen on it's own. I don't think I would actively kill somebody (crank up the morphine) unless they made it clear that that's what they want.

You probably have to be in my family to understand just *how* hypothetical this situation is. The only person in my extended family who has ever elected to even *get treatment* when death was obviously imminent, did it mostly just so his wife could tell their child that they did everything they could. My mother has told me to even delay calling 911 if she is close to death, because, even though she is in decent health now (and thus can't really get a DNR,) she doesn't want there to be any chance of being resuscitated with brain damage, or into a coma. I think her exact words were actually "take me out back and shoot me." (Hyperbole--we don't own guns)

It was explained to me from very, very young it is often better for a person to die, than to force them to suffer through another day. That would have been after my first funeral (grandfather, when I was 8) and somebody said that they had prayed for God to take him 'home,' and I asked why somebody would pray for somebody else to die.

I've seen* people die very peacefully in their beds, surrounded by their Psalm-reading/praying, loving family; and I've seen* people die in agony, desperately clinging to a tortured life. But everybody I know has made it clear that they would chose the former, so yes, that is my default choice. If somebody isn't able to tell me that they prefer the desperation and torture, I would not force that on them.

*both 'seen's are somewhat metaphorical. I have never actually been present at the moment when soul departs body, but I have watched people deteriorate to the point where, by the time that moment comes, there isn't much left to lose.

Thank you for answering so elaborately.

I see that you would respect their wishes (otherwise it would be a reason for me not to become too close to you LOL!).

Not wanting to resuscitate someone is different from euthanasia. I can understand DNR but I would personally never want to play a part in ending someone else's life. It's different for non-believers I suppose (although I was against euthanasia even when I was agnostic, but that was exceptional in my part of the world), which is why most people are for euthanasia over here (atheists/agnostics are the majority here), and that's why it's legal.

Not everyone who does not want to be euthanized is desperately clinging to life. There are a lot of people who want to die naturally because they believe life is not theirs, it's up to God to make new life and end it. But I don't want to make this thread too religious so I'll stop now. :sorry:

feral · May 29, 2009

I had to put my cat Ithaca down in January, after having her for ten years. I still cry about her, at least every week - it's never entered my mind that she's of lesser importance to me than the human beings I know as friends or family. It sounds funny, but I miss her more than the people I know who have died. She was put to sleep because she had feline leukemia and other complications, couldn't eat or drink much and was obviously suffering. There was no further treatment available at that point, and if she had been left alive she would have lasted perhaps a few weeks or month before she starved to death. I had her put to sleep because I loved her and didn't want her to keep suffering without a chance of recovery, and the vet assured me that there were no options.

I think human beings should have the right to decide when their suffering ends. If there is no real chance or hope of recovery, and life is unbearable, we should have a choice. I don't mean someone who gets depressed or who is having minor problems, or someone with a good prognosis, but those for whom waiting is futile, someone without options. We just need to make certain that laws are in effect that prevent euthanasia from becoming an easy out, or which would make it simple for someone to relieve themselves of the "burden" (emotional, financial, other) of a sick, old or dying relative. But I do think it's strange that we can choose to give other kinds of animals mercy, but cannot grant the same to human beings.

susan2scott · Nov 21, 2009

Rebekka said:
Thank you for answering so elaborately. I see that you would respect their wishes (otherwise it would be a reason for me not to become too close to you LOL!).

Not wanting to resuscitate someone is different from euthanasia. I can understand DNR but I would personally never want to play a part in ending someone else's life. It's different for non-believers I suppose (although I was against euthanasia even when I was agnostic, but that was exceptional in my part of the world), which is why most people are for euthanasia over here (atheists/agnostics are the majority here), and that's why it's legal.

Not everyone who does not want to be euthanized is desperately clinging to life. There are a lot of people who want to die naturally because they believe life is not theirs, it's up to God to make new life and end it. But I don't want to make this thread too religious so I'll stop now.

Why would you refrain from getting too religious? This is a Christian forum isn't it? I was really hoping to find some Christian guidance on this topic, ending my sick pet's life. I am praying for God to take her, to end her suffering. I just don't know if the Bible has anything to say on this topic or not!

Mling · Nov 21, 2009

susan2scott said:
Why would you refrain from getting too religious? This is a Christian forum isn't it? I was really hoping to find some Christian guidance on this topic, ending my sick pet's life. I am praying for God to take her, to end her suffering. I just don't know if the Bible has anything to say on this topic or not!

Modern Western society thinks of -certain- animals as being almost people, in the sense that they have 'rights,' and even non-physical rights, like emotional well-being and freedom.

I'm almost certain that's a very modern idea. There have been individual people who've loved animals and thought of them as friends all through history, and I'd believe it, if I found that that was even common in some cultures...but I've never seen any reference to a cultural view of animals, prior to the 19th century, that treated animals as anything more than physical property.

So, I don't think you're likely to find that question really addressed in any kind of ancient literature. I know there's one story in the Bible that talks about a man raising a lamb, and it describes him loving the lamb like a daughter, and holding it to him bosom, and feeding it from his own table...but I don't think there's anything like "Here is what is right to do." It's just not a question that would have been considered worthy of public discussion through most of history.

My opinion...if your pet is in pain, and can't be cured, it's best to just end their suffering. I don't really believe in giving animals treatments like chemotherapy, either, because they don't understand the situation enough know that feeling worse now will make them better in the long run.

david_x · Nov 21, 2009

@OP

Pet/Animal Euthanasia:
Property vs. Loved one?

Well if your pet is simply property there is no reason to try and make it feel better. But if it is a pet I would assume that the ones that would have to pay for it don't feel that strong of a connection to it so they tell the person that does have a strong connection to it that "it will be better if it doesn't suffer."

Human Euthanasia:
A lot of this argument deals with ageism. Opinions like "they have had a full life" or "they have nothing left to live for" are very ageist and usually not true.

Euthanasia and animals

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Contributor

RobinRedbreast

Guest

Senior Veteran

iEdit

sola dosis facit venenum

sola dosis facit venenum

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Commit to the LORD whatever you do - Proverbs 16:3

Wandering Hermit

Servant of Jesus

Guest

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

iEdit

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Dostoyevsky was right

Newbie

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Similar threads