Euthanasia and animals

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

If a human is very sick, then it is very controversial, even if they are suffering a lot, to kill them, even if they give consent to be killed or actively desire it.
(For the record I am opposed to Euthanasia).

Yet when an animal is in the same position, we will kill the animal often.

Now, if we want to say, yes, we are in an exploitative relationship with these animals, their lives are not worth the trouble of keeping them alive beyond a certain level of sickness, humans are different, we are special somehow. Ok, I can buy that.

But normally what we say, is that it is for the best, that our beloved fluffy was just going to suffer and it was better to put her out of her misery...

But if that is true for fluffy... why not for grandma? Sure grandma is human, she is special, she is made in the image of God.

But when I hear these people talk about how much better it is for fluffy to be dead... it is hard for me not to extrapolate that to humans.

Is it really better to kill fluffy? For fluffy I mean. To argue economics is one thing, fluffy is not human, so... fair enough, I eat meat... I can't be too harsh. But to argue it is better for fluffy... why is it better for her and not for grandma?

 

[keith99]

Personally I think humans should have the choice. There can be a time where there is nothing left to do, all that a person can do has been done and while the physical shell remains there is little left to live for. Mind you this is the indivduals call.

My brother' wife's father decided the time had come and no longer took dialysis and died. Only different by a legal hair from active death.

For animals much more of their life is the wind in their face and running free (more or less). Wheatley, my alpha male dog, is past the expected end of his life. 15 is old for a large dog. He is on medication but actually doing well. Before he was limping and hurting, but mobile. I know if he hurrt, but could still run he would think it worth living. But what if a time comes when he can no longer move? What is left for him? He is a smart dog. Even my company would do little to help him. In fact it would likely hurt him even more because he would only get to see me unhappy.

So A time may come when it is time for him to go. If so I will be with him to the end and likely cryig my eyes out.

 

[mpok1519]

weird huh?

"I am sick. I am going to die in less than a year. The pain meds aren't enough. I try taking more meds for the pain, but the doc says that'll kill me. I still hurt."

"Please put down my dog. He's in pain, and theres no reason to let him suffer any longer."

 

[ragarth]

I personally believe humans have the right to euthanasia. I personally wouldn't choose it (I think, as sun tzu said, you only truly know someone when you hold them over the volcano. This is true for the self as well, you don't truly know yourself till you've been held over the volcano.), but I feel people should have the right to choose it if they wanted.

The issue with animals is that they are not capable of making the choice. If fluffy is terminally ill and in pain, fluffy can't say 'I want to spend every last moment I can with you regardless of the pain' or 'the pain is to great, please end it'.

 

[Penumbra]

Here's something to consider:

When an animal in the wild is suffering, there is a good chance that it will soon die. Maybe it has trouble getting food, or maybe a predator can get to it.

Pets are different. If an animal is suffering greatly, we can sometimes sustain them for years. We control their environment, and sometimes, like in the case of domesticated, purposely-bred animals, we even control their genetics.

In other words, we provide an artificial environment that can sustain their suffering longer than nature usually would. So I find euthanasia to be merciful. It's a better way of dying compared to what many animals in nature face, and it's better in my opinion than keeping a suffering animal alive in an artificial environment for long periods of time.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Here's something to consider:

When an animal in the wild is suffering, there is a good chance that it will soon die. Maybe it has trouble getting food, or maybe a predator can get to it.

Pets are different. If an animal is suffering greatly, we can sometimes sustain them for years. We control their environment, and sometimes, like in the case of domesticated, purposely-bred animals, we even control their genetics.

In other words, we provide an artificial environment that can sustain their suffering longer than nature usually would. So I find euthanasia to be merciful. It's a better way of dying compared to what many animals in nature face, and it's better in my opinion than keeping a suffering animal alive in an artificial environment for long periods of time.

That is true of people too though (apart from the genetics bit). If there was a person actually fending for themselves who was really sick, they'd not be able to work, they might starve or freeze or dehydrate, or if they are really sick without drugs, without mechanical interventions etc they would die.

 

[Penumbra]

That is true of people too though (apart from the genetics bit). If there was a person actually fending for themselves who was really sick, they'd not be able to work, they might starve or freeze or dehydrate, or if they are really sick without drugs, without mechanical interventions etc they would die.

Well for the record, I support a person's decision for euthanasia, like some other members have. Humans often can voice an opinion at least, but pets cannot.

I think that fear of death is the real issue of this thread. Do you find a horribly suffering life to be more favorable than death?

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I think that fear of death is the real issue of this thread. Do you find a horribly suffering life to be more favorable than death?

I think suffering serves a purpose. The point of life is not to suffer, but its not to "not suffer" either. Life is a very special and precious thing to have, even if you cannot at a given time appreciate that because of your circumstances.

I am not sure how that relates to animal suffering though...

It's a complex and confusing set of issues.

 

[Penumbra]

I think suffering serves a purpose. The point of life is not to suffer, but its not to "not suffer" either. Life is a very special and precious thing to have, even if you cannot at a given time appreciate that because of your circumstances.

I am not sure how that relates to animal suffering though...

It's a complex and confusing set of issues.

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.

 

[Rebekka]

If a human is very sick, then it is very controversial, even if they are suffering a lot, to kill them, even if they give consent to be killed or actively desire it.
(For the record I am opposed to Euthanasia).

Yet when an animal is in the same position, we will kill the animal often.

Now, if we want to say, yes, we are in an exploitative relationship with these animals, their lives are not worth the trouble of keeping them alive beyond a certain level of sickness, humans are different, we are special somehow. Ok, I can buy that.

But normally what we say, is that it is for the best, that our beloved fluffy was just going to suffer and it was better to put her out of her misery...

But if that is true for fluffy... why not for grandma? Sure grandma is human, she is special, she is made in the image of God.

But when I hear these people talk about how much better it is for fluffy to be dead... it is hard for me not to extrapolate that to humans.

Is it really better to kill fluffy? For fluffy I mean. To argue economics is one thing, fluffy is not human, so... fair enough, I eat meat... I can't be too harsh. But to argue it is better for fluffy... why is it better for her and not for grandma?

Good question.

I think in many cases people don't want to (or are not able to) spend a lot of money on their sick pet - that makes the whole "putting them out of their misery" a bit blurry. In many western countries there are good public healthcare facilities for humans, but not for animals, so people have to pay for their pets out of their own pockets.

I don't know what's better for Fluffy, and I have decided that I can't make life and death decisions for my pets, so I am against euthanasia of pets. And I feel the same about human euthanasia. Most people in my country are for euthanasia (which is why it is legal over here), and most will argue that if mercy killing of pets is moral, then mercy killing of humans is moral as well. So they treat both kinds of euthanasia the same (unlike the situation in the OP). Similarly, I couldn't end my own kitty's life so how could I end my mother's? It's the same argument, but from a different perspective.

 

[jayem]

It's not uncommon for terminal cancer patients, in the end stages of their illnesses, to be put on morphine drips. Ostensibly, it's only for pain management. But of course, narcotics also suppress respiration. So the patients are given a large enough dose to ensure they're not feeling any pain, and then whatever else the morphine does...well, it just happens.

 

[The Nihilist]

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.

 

[Bampot]

Euthanasia is not only for the animals health purposes, but for over population as well. It's no secret that shelters are too overrun with cats and dogs these days. I'm an animal lover, but I still find it a necessary. I would rather see a dog die a humane death than spend the rest of it's life in a cage while other dogs die on the street. Which is just a little reminder to check out your local shelter when getting a new pet and sterilizing your current pets.

Since the animals can not give any form of consent, we must decide what's right for them. It all comes down to being a protector and provider of other creatures. It's just the dirty part of it.

Humans, on the other hand, can give consent when they are suffering. Personally, I believe someone should have the choice to end their suffering if there is no hope for recovery.

 

[Rebekka]

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.

Depends on your definition of euthanasia. Do you want to euthanize terminal patients against their wishes?

 

[Rebekka]

Since the animals can not give any form of consent, we must decide what's right for them.

I understand this position, but it is not mine. Since the animals cannot give any form of consent I cannot know whether they want to die or not. That's one of the reasons why I prefer natural death for pets.

 

[Penumbra]

I understand this position, but it is not mine. Since the animals cannot give any form of consent I cannot know whether they want to die or not. That's one of the reasons why I prefer natural death for pets.

I think putting "natural death" and "pet" in the same sentence is an oxymoron, for reasons I've already described in a previous post. We control their environment and take care of them, therefore sustaining them unnaturally.

An entirely natural death for a pet would mean letting it go in the wild and letting it fend for itself. That's natural, but of course very cruel if we actually did that after raising it and domesticating it because most pets have lost the natural ability to survive in the wild, due to both breeding and training.

 

[The Nihilist]

Depends on your definition of euthanasia. Do you want to euthanize terminal patients against their wishes?

Well if I do, I'm certainly not going to say it now. I do wish that western culture valued dignity over life at any cost, but what can you do.

 

[Mling]

It's not uncommon for terminal cancer patients, in the end stages of their illnesses, to be put on morphine drips. Ostensibly, it's only for pain management. But of course, narcotics also suppress respiration. So the patients are given a large enough dose to ensure they're not feeling any pain, and then whatever else the morphine does...well, it just happens.

My grandfather begged everybody around him to crank up that drip. Eventually, a nurse suggested that my grandmother go grab herself a sandwich, and he wasn't breathing when she got back, 20 minutes later.

It's better for Fluffy, and it was better for him.

 

[Rebekka]

Well if I do, I'm certainly not going to say it now.

LOL, coward.

I think putting "natural death" and "pet" in the same sentence is an oxymoron, for reasons I've already described in a previous post. We control their environment and take care of them, therefore sustaining them unnaturally.

An entirely natural death for a pet would mean letting it go in the wild and letting it fend for itself. That's natural, but of course very cruel if we actually did that after raising it and domesticating it because most pets have lost the natural ability to survive in the wild, due to both breeding and training.

I agree that having pets is unnatural, and in an ideal society (at least, ideal to me) there wouldn't be any pets, but since we have them I want to take good care of them. For some, taking good care includes giving them a good death, but not for me. I try to do what's best for the pet, but I draw the line at ending their life. I can imagine to a degree what my pets want in terms of food, shelter, freedom, and I can try to keep them in good health, but I can't see whether they would choose life or death. And when in doubt, I don't make a decision.

There are other reasons too, which is why I'm against human euthanasia (the moral difference to me is that in case of human euthanasia the patient has at least asked for death so it's not against his wishes - except in a Nihilist society ^where others decide that you want to die. )

 

[ragarth]

It's been well established that pets cannot give consent to Euthenasia. But there are other factors at play here as well.

Most animals do not seem to comprehend what death is, there's evidence that some apes do, but dogs and cats fail to show recognition of the mortality of themselves or of others. Keep in mind this is separate from familiarity of presence. Just because a dog misses their dead owner does not mean they comprehend the owner's death, I wouldn't be surprised if said dog would run to the door expecting their owner to come through it for years even after viewing their owner's corpse.

Animals, while having retentive memory equivalent to a human do not have comprehensive memory extending as far as a human. An animal who's hurt or ill won't comprehend the idea of not feeling better. To them, the moment is pain but there is no comprehension of moments beyond that, no comprehension of always being in pain for every moment beyond this one.

Given this, I'd have to say that yes, animal euthenasia is acceptable because their suffering is helpless. Pets have no comprehension of mortality and cannot gain value from the idea of extended longevity. Further, they will exist in a state of pain with no comprehension of an out. They won't be able to take solace in the thought (I'm still alive, atleast) because they can't comprehend the state of being alive or not alive and so, stripped of hope for future recovery, future release, or solace of existence they can only suffer. This state is not just physical torture, but a mental torture we as humans can scarcely comprehend.