Euthanasia and animals

[Servant of Jesus]

We have a cat that has brought us much joy, but is now getting pretty old.

Would we consider "putting it to sleep" or "putting it down"; i.e. killing it?

I don't think so. It has emotions, it understands love and fear; joy and pain. It is in a nutshell like us- part of God's creation and as such, doesn't it have as much a right to live as we do? And as much a right to let God decide when He will bring it home?

 

[Mling]

@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.

are you claiming that only people who don't actually love the animal have them put to sleep, and they just make up platitudes and lies to quiet down the people who actually loved them?

As for the humans--I'd agree with you...in certain situations. the important questions are, "are those statements platitudes or are they actually true?" and "what did that person think about himself?"

Not in that order.

 

[Mling]

We have a cat that has brought us much joy, but is now getting pretty old.

Would we consider "putting it to sleep" or "putting it down"; i.e. killing it?

I don't think so. It has emotions, it understands love and fear; joy and pain. It is in a nutshell like us- part of God's creation and as such, doesn't it have as much a right to live as we do? And as much a right to let God decide when He will bring it home?

getting pretty old is ...sort of irrelevant. Is the cat living, or just enduring the fact that his heart still insists on beating?

 

[david_x]

are you claiming that only people who don't actually love the animal have them put to sleep, and they just make up platitudes and lies to quiet down the people who actually loved them?

The traditional example would be parents putting down the sick cat instead of doing the $1000 dollar surgery.

As for the humans--I'd agree with you...in certain situations. the important questions are, "are those statements platitudes or are they actually true?" and "what did that person think about himself?"

They are not always true, unless spoken by the individuals themselves. I'm saying that these statements are used to justify letting an older person go without really trying to save them.

 

[b&wpac4]

The traditional example would be parents putting down the sick cat instead of doing the $1000 dollar surgery.

That is an evil, evil statement. Not everybody can afford to go to the doctor themselves, but you would expect someone to perhaps risk eviction or not having enough food for that amount of surgery on a cat? How hard is your heart, exactly?

 

[Mling]

The traditional example would be parents putting down the sick cat instead of doing the $1000 dollar surgery.

unless you're going to make the argument that only rich people should have pets, I wouldn't necessarily object to that decision. again, animals don't have the understanding of science or the foresight to be able to think "Being hurt and sick now is worth it, because it's making me better." A lot of medical treatments would just be meaningless torture to animals. I'm not sure it should even be legal to give an animal chemotherapy.

I'm seriously offended by the suggestion, though, that only people who don't love their pets have them put to sleep. When we found out what was wrong with our cat we decided, as a family, to let him enjoy the time he had left. He did, and then he got sick. This cat had no immune system, so the little bug got out of control. He was *trying* to die on his own, slinking off into hiding places the way cats do just before they're going to go, and I didn't recognize it at the time. When we figured out what was going on with him, it was obvious there was no way he could survive, and he was in incredible pain. We probably cut off hours, maybe a day or two at most, from his life, and I'm glad we did it. I loved him, and I'm glad that I could spare him the experience that living would have been, in the state he was in.

"It will be better for it not to suffer" is *not* a meaningless lie that people make up to justify killing off burdens they don't want to deal with. It is the truth. Unless there is a purpose to the suffering, it is always better not to have to. When your entire existence has become suffering, and there is neither a purpose nor an end to it, it's time to stop existing.

They are not always true, unless spoken by the individuals themselves. I'm saying that these statements are used to justify letting an older person go without really trying to save them.

Well, you're right, it's not always true. But sometimes it is. That's the question.

Sometimes they *are* used sometimes by people who don't want to deal with treatable problems, and sometimes they're utter truth said by people who truly understand what their loved ones wanted, and are able to put their own grief aside long enough to have true compassion.

 

[david_x]

unless you're going to make the argument that only rich people should have pets, I wouldn't necessarily object to that decision. again, animals don't have the understanding of science or the foresight to be able to think "Being hurt and sick now is worth it, because it's making me better." A lot of medical treatments would just be meaningless torture to animals. I'm not sure it should even be legal to give an animal chemotherapy.

I'm seriously offended by the suggestion, though, that only people who don't love their pets have them put to sleep. When we found out what was wrong with our cat we decided, as a family, to let him enjoy the time he had left. He did, and then he got sick. This cat had no immune system, so the little bug got out of control. He was *trying* to die on his own, slinking off into hiding places the way cats do just before they're going to go, and I didn't recognize it at the time. When we figured out what was going on with him, it was obvious there was no way he could survive, and he was in incredible pain. We probably cut off hours, maybe a day or two at most, from his life, and I'm glad we did it. I loved him, and I'm glad that I could spare him the experience that living would have been, in the state he was in.

"It will be better for it not to suffer" is *not* a meaningless lie that people make up to justify killing off burdens they don't want to deal with. It is the truth. Unless there is a purpose to the suffering, it is always better not to have to. When your entire existence has become suffering, and there is neither a purpose nor an end to it, it's time to stop existing.

I'm not trying to say that only rich people should have pets, the money was just an example of something that people could want more. They could get rid of it because they don't have time, patience, etc.

Nor did I mean that people don't love their animals if they put them to sleep, that is probably the healthier side of human-pet relationship.

Well, you're right, it's not always true. But sometimes it is. That's the question.

Sometimes they *are* used sometimes by people who don't want to deal with treatable problems, and sometimes they're utter truth said by people who truly understand what their loved ones wanted, and are able to put their own grief aside long enough to have true compassion.

Yeah, right.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

The traditional example would be parents putting down the sick cat instead of doing the $1000 dollar surgery.

That is an evil, evil statement. Not everybody can afford to go to the doctor themselves, but you would expect someone to perhaps risk eviction or not having enough food for that amount of surgery on a cat? How hard is your heart, exactly?

Not so black and white. I don't think you would agree with this statement, would you:

Not everybody can afford to go to the doctor themselves, but you would expect someone to perhaps risk eviction or not having enough food to keep a 90 year old relative who has Alzheimer's alive?

My point is that we don't routinely put humans "to sleep", even if they are obviously beyond hope in terms of having any chance of leading a productive life, notwithstanding that euthanasia is a hot topic of debate. But my guess is that most pets are killed not because they are at the end of their life with some terminal medical condition, but simply out of convenience because they are no longer wanted or because they have some relatively minor medical problem.

Our cat had a bowel obstruction that caused him great pain and did not allow him to eat and would have eventually caused him to starve to death. We did not think that was a good enough reason to "put him to sleep"- so we paid the $1000 for the simply surgery needed to make him well again.

One can argue that that the $1000 would have fed a lot of starving people in the world. Fine- in that case, maybe we should ban having all pets and instead donate the $50 billion we spend yearly on pet food to feeding the world's hungry.

 

[david_x]

]Not everybody can afford to go to the doctor themselves, but you would expect someone to perhaps risk eviction or not having enough food to keep a 90 year old relative who has Alzheimer's alive?

Of course not, I expect the Government to.

 

[keith99]

The traditional example would be parents putting down the sick cat instead of doing the $1000 dollar surgery.

Well mark me as not traditional. Things have changed since the start of this thread, since I had the first response. Wheatley is still alive and well. But Joey is dead. Quite differetn from what we ever expected. He was not feeling well and we took him to the vet, he had a tumor in his spleen. Our choice was $3000 plus for surgery. Per the vet if when he went in he found it had ruptured he suggested simply not waking Joey back up.

The surgery went well, by that evening Joey was home. But there wwere still lasb tests to wait on. Then the worse news, it was cancerous, basically no chance. One could go with chemo and prolong 'live' and have a sick dog for a couple months longer, or let him have a decent life for what time was left. We chose the later.

One afternoon he stumbled and fell in the pool. That turned to be the first sign of the end. A few hours later he was worse. He was able to make one trip part way up the hill behind the house. He seemed to tired to go farther when he was half way up. But when Wheatley saw something and went after it Joey tried to follow, he made it about 20 feet before he fell and could not get up. With help he regained his feet and was able to get down the hill.

At dinnertime we gave him some food in the bedroom where he was lying down, but he had no appetite. But when we fed Wheatley in the garage Joey went out to eat also. He never ate anything and did not have the strength to make it back the the bedroom. He never got farther than the kitchen, one room from the garage.

Later that evening the vet came out, after hours, and ended Joey's life. At least he went out surrounded by his people.

There was nothing left for Joey, safe suffering. In the end the decision was not difficult. All I could do was end his suffering.

 

[Mling]

Yeah, right.

I'm sorry. I listen to mumbling, sullen high school students so much, I don't even hear stuff like that. If you want to make a point, you'll have to actually make it.

 

[david_x]

Well mark me as not traditional. Things have changed since the start of this thread, since I had the first response. Wheatley is still alive and well. But Joey is dead. Quite differetn from what we ever expected. He was not feeling well and we took him to the vet, he had a tumor in his spleen. Our choice was $3000 plus for surgery. Per the vet if when he went in he found it had ruptured he suggested simply not waking Joey back up.

The surgery went well, by that evening Joey was home. But there wwere still lasb tests to wait on. Then the worse news, it was cancerous, basically no chance. One could go with chemo and prolong 'live' and have a sick dog for a couple months longer, or let him have a decent life for what time was left. We chose the later.

One afternoon he stumbled and fell in the pool. That turned to be the first sign of the end. A few hours later he was worse. He was able to make one trip part way up the hill behind the house. He seemed to tired to go farther when he was half way up. But when Wheatley saw something and went after it Joey tried to follow, he made it about 20 feet before he fell and could not get up. With help he regained his feet and was able to get down the hill.

At dinnertime we gave him some food in the bedroom where he was lying down, but he had no appetite. But when we fed Wheatley in the garage Joey went out to eat also. He never ate anything and did not have the strength to make it back the the bedroom. He never got farther than the kitchen, one room from the garage.

Later that evening the vet came out, after hours, and ended Joey's life. At least he went out surrounded by his people.

There was nothing left for Joey, safe suffering. In the end the decision was not difficult. All I could do was end his suffering.

That post had a different context, I'm very sorry about your pet.

 

[b&wpac4]

Not so black and white. I don't think you would agree with this statement, would you:

Not everybody can afford to go to the doctor themselves, but you would expect someone to perhaps risk eviction or not having enough food to keep a 90 year old relative who has Alzheimer's alive?

My point is that we don't routinely put humans "to sleep", even if they are obviously beyond hope in terms of having any chance of leading a productive life, notwithstanding that euthanasia is a hot topic of debate. But my guess is that most pets are killed not because they are at the end of their life with some terminal medical condition, but simply out of convenience because they are no longer wanted or because they have some relatively minor medical problem.

Humans can make a decision to live in pain. Animals cannot make such decisions.

Look, I paid like 1500 when my dog got sick to get him well. It was a financial hardship, but I would not expect someone to make the same decision if they absolutely couldn't.