?

Log in

Vegan People
Respecting All Animals
Poll (Please share what you think) 
2nd-Apr-2007 03:11 pm
There are a lot of people in anti-PETA, anti-VEG, and anti-AR groups etc...
Who will tend to poke fun at AR folks and groups like PETA for euthanizing animals.

While I personally am not in agreement with much of PETA's image and "tactics" so to speak, the fact that they euthanize animals sometimes is not one of them... Just as I'm not wholly against county and city run shelters having to euthanize animals as well.
The way I see it is the pet overpopulation problem is mankind's fault. We wouldn't even have all these breeds of "pet" animals if humans hadn't kept breeding them to get them to exist. Now the other problems that exist because of it are puppy mills, not enough people spaying or neutering their pets, and people insisting on buying pure-bred animals from breeders instead of adopting animals from shelters, or only adopting pure-breds from the rescue groups that exist which take them from bad homes and need to find them good homes.
Many state or county run shelters are often under equipped, under-sized, and/or understaffed to deal with the animal population issues in their area in a very organized or humane way... If they have a high rate of animals coming in that is hard for them to deal with then they have a high euthanization rate as well. But there is also not ever enough funds to form enough non-profit, no-kill shelters for every animal in need of a good home either, despite many organizations and groups best intentions and efforts.
The way I see it is, so long as people neglect to spay/neuter their animals... and so long as there are still people who will not adopt their animals but instead insist on going through pet-stores and breeders, ...there are always going to be a huge number of "unwanted" pets. There are just not feasibly enough GOOD homes in this world for every animal out there right now that gets turned over to a shelter, (be it a kill or no-kill facility)... and I think that because of that, euthanization must exist, and in many cases it is doing the animal more of favor than letting them languish in overcrowded cages and kennels.

Anyway, I bring the topic up because I thought I would poll all of you fellow vegan and vegetarian folks on here to ask what you think.

Do you think...

A. - Euthanization of animals is ever acceptable, and/or even necessary?

B. - All shelters that euthanize should be banned and/or replaced with no-kill facilities?

C. - Euthanization is bad/wrong unless only in THE MOST dire of cases when an animal is obviously so sick, injured or tempermentally dangerous in such a way that it is "unadoptable"?

Or

D. - Euthanization of animals is wrong, period, regardless of the circumstance or situation?

Thanks!
Comments 
2nd-Apr-2007 08:23 pm (UTC)
Euthanization of animals is sad, but it's reality. People who run shelters are not to blame -- those who don't spay or neuter their pets, and to a lesser extent those who buy animals rather than adopting them, are to blame.
(Deleted comment)
2nd-Apr-2007 08:41 pm (UTC) - Re: Mine....
Seconded, I also say C.

We, as humans, have a moral obligation to these animals, since we're responsible for their overpopulation.
2nd-Apr-2007 08:34 pm (UTC)
I tend to waiver between a and c. While I would prefer that no animal be needlessly euthanized, the reality is that the shelter system cannot support the huge numbers constantly streaming in. They do what they can. I can't even see an end to the problem because people, by and large, refuse to be responsible.
2nd-Apr-2007 08:51 pm (UTC)
Agreed. C sounds good, but how does it translate to real action? Shelters fill up, that's the reality. And often that means that shelters have a choice between (1) euthanizing and (2) putting an animal out on the street to starve or freeze to death.
2nd-Apr-2007 08:35 pm (UTC)
I'm in between A and C. I wouldn't say it's always acceptable, but it is sometimes? Idk, i can't really identify completely with either choice.
(Deleted comment)
2nd-Apr-2007 09:11 pm (UTC)
Well, I suppose the extra several thousand cats that go into a shelter every year could be... tossed into a silo? ~Humane~ euthanasia is just that.

Not to mention really sick cats & dogs...

It's just not tenable to argue that euthanasia should never happen.
2nd-Apr-2007 10:07 pm (UTC)
C. I think Catch, Neuter, Release programs are much more acceptable.
2nd-Apr-2007 10:24 pm (UTC)
I'm also between A and C. We obviously shouldn't just wantonly euthanize every animal, but I don't think there's a caring shelter that does that. They do what they can. Humane euthanasia is more preferable to subjecting them to a crappy life alone in a cage.
Trap, Neauter, and Release programs are great, for feral cats. Dogs, who are potentially dangerous when feral, and animals that are used to human companionship, not such a good idea.

It's tough, but I agree with an above commenter that it's going to be a problem until humans grow up and take some responsibility.

I also think euthanasia for humans should be legal.
2nd-Apr-2007 11:10 pm (UTC)
I think a or c as well. Euthanasia is (usually) the most humane way to deal with the overpopulation, though it is definitely not desireable. It is one alternative to a potentially miserable life.

Many people who advocate only for no kill shelters are not aware that the conditions of those type are not necessarily 'better'. Besides crowding problems, there is high potential for disease to run wild through its occupants (as in any shelter), and may not always (especially if privately run) be able to provide for such a high volume of necessary care and medication (which has potential for much more painful deaths anyway). I think that the concept is great, but the concept alone is not enough to make it happen in a more humane way than a 'regular' shelter.
3rd-Apr-2007 12:49 am (UTC)
Oooh, if euthanasia is really the most humane way to deal with overpopulation, then I'd like to start killing humans off right now :-) Will you volunteer to go first?

Euthanasia sounds a lot less humane now doesn't it...
4th-Apr-2007 01:21 am (UTC)
Essentially, what I meant to say was that it might be better to make their departure quick and painless than to force them to live miserably. I am just as uncomfortable that it goes on, but I don't have a better answer, besides EVERYBODY going right NOW to adopt a cat or dog, and be responsible and loving toward them. What are the chances of that?
3rd-Apr-2007 12:38 am (UTC)
Somewhere between b and c... I don't think non-kill shelters should be banned, but every effort should be made to make no kill cities. San Francisco is one, Philly is working on it, and I believe there is one other county in NY. Seems impossible, but it's not. In fact they can run under budget and there's an incentive to attack the cause of the problem rather than simply putting down all the animals that can't be afforded. So I disagree with people's "reality" or that it isn't possible.
3rd-Apr-2007 12:47 am (UTC)
I think only those individuals who want to die should be given the option to be killed. So unless someone specifically asks to die, and seems to want to die for healthy, loving, and joyous reasons, then I don't think it's at all acceptable to kill them. And, if you don't speak their language or they can't clearly communicate their wishes, then you should just let them die when they are good and ready to die.

That's the way I wish to be treated, anyway. "Play it safe" is my motto.
3rd-Apr-2007 01:30 am (UTC)
So if the animal is suffering then you should let it suffer?
3rd-Apr-2007 12:59 am (UTC)
I just read the previous comments, and I have to say that I'm sorry, but the folks here saying that it's ok to just kill other people because we aren't willing to take care of them, or let them live out their own lives in the world, is absolutely sickening. Usually I can deal with this sort of stuff, but this discussion is just really disgusting to me today. I honestly don't understand how anyone could think that murdering another person, of any species, is ok. I mean, it happens, but to think it's humane seems completely crazy to me. Would you go and kill your own child if there were too many other kids in your neighborhood? If not, why would you think it was ok to kill someone else's child?
(Deleted comment)
3rd-Apr-2007 05:54 am (UTC)
iawtc
(Deleted comment)
10th-Apr-2007 03:59 am (UTC)
i agree with this comment
3rd-Apr-2007 01:36 am (UTC)
I don't see anyone saying it is ok to kill other people. Human euthanasia means the person is requesting to die, people aren't walking around putting pillows over old people's faces while they're asleep, the patient signs a form saying they want to be euthanized and the doctor gives them something so they die in peace. It is assisted suicide, not murder.

Euthanizing an animal that is clearly suffering is more humane than letting them suffer.

4th-Apr-2007 12:51 pm (UTC)
People = individual living beings. So, yes people who say involuntary euthanasia is humane are saying that killing people who don't necessarily want to die is humane. I disagree with that vehemently. It's not your decision to tell me when I should die. If you truly believe in the vegan premise of not participating in cruelty to animals (of any species) then you wouldn't condone killing them. You would instead treat everyone the same way as you would your mother or child, with respect. You'd let them die when they are good and ready to die, and you woulnd't keep them locked up in a cage, either. You'd let them live out their lives independently, if that's what they wanted to do.
(Deleted comment)
4th-Apr-2007 06:09 pm (UTC)
I had a rat that was really sick once. I didn't have a vehicle and was about an hour drive from any vet... She started thrashing every which way, she was in extreme agony. I was trying to give her some water (she was clearly dehydrated from her illness which had been treated for but relapsed) and she tried to jump out of my hands twice... I believe she was trying to kill herself. I sat there and contemplated for an hour on what I should do before she finally died. During that hour, I was wondering if I should kill her and how I could kill her humanely... Breaking her neck disturbed me (which was the only means I considered humane in that moment) but I knew she wanted to die. She couldn't tell me but it was obvious that she was suffereing extremely. As I sat there crying, unable to come to an answer or solution - she died on her own.
I believe she communicated her wishes to me clearly - I was just too much of a coward to follow through on her wishes.
3rd-Apr-2007 03:40 am (UTC)
There is just not enough room in the shelters for the animals that exist. There are only a few options here--manage to talk people into adopting every single animal (which is what current shelters etc. are trying to do, really), let them run loose (spay/neuter and release might work with cats, but dogs? rabbits? parrots?) or euthanize the ones they just plain don't have room for.

When I decided I was willing to adopt companion animals, after lots of thinking and research, I decided on rats, and I got four sisters at the local humane society. I know that if they get too many pet rats (domesticated rats can't really fend for themselves like their wild cousins), they do euthanize some. It breaks my heart, but I just don't have the time or space to properly care for more.
4th-Apr-2007 12:52 pm (UTC)
There's not enough room in the houses that exist, so we should kill homeless people? Is that what you are saying?
4th-Apr-2007 02:28 pm (UTC)
That argument doesn't even make sense because most homeless humans aren't homeless because there is lack of homes to be lived in, or lack of space for their homes.
But because of screwed up societal conditions that land them without a place. And when some/any of them may try to construct and build their own place they're kicked out of it for the place looking like a shack (i.e. being governmentally ruled as improper/unfit housing) and/or being erected on property they do not "own"...
You might want to check out Daniel Quinn's book "Beyond civilization" and read what he's written about the homeless. It makes for a much more compelling and relevant viewpoint of homelessness.
4th-Apr-2007 02:35 pm (UTC)
"most homeless humans aren't homeless because there is lack of homes to be lived in, or lack of space for their homes."

Really? Not the homeless folks I know. As you say they are likely to be homeless "because of screwed up societal conditions that land them without a place." Sounds like you are saying that there is a lack of homes or space for their homes to me.

Anyway, regardless of why someone is homeless, is that fact a justifiable reason to kill them in your opinion?
5th-Apr-2007 01:34 pm (UTC)
What, exactly, are you proposing we do with all the homeless animals?

Homeless people, to a certain extent, can fend for themselves. I work in a clinic that helps mostly the homeless (and addicted and mentally ill).

But do you really want homeless dogs running around? Where they could get hit by cars, or starve, or freeze to death, or attack people?
5th-Apr-2007 02:06 pm (UTC)
Again, I say, is it ok to kill homeless people (of any species) because they don't have a home? It sounds like you don't think so. Instead, you can do all kinds of helpful things:

1. Offer them a place in your own home.
2. Let them be free and offer them a chance to fend for themselves in the world like all other independent Earthlings.
3. Help them out as they try to make it on their own.
4. Work to help people understand that healthy adult individuals (of all species) should be taught to be independent and able to care for themselves, rather than being raised as permanant dependents.
5. Work to help people understand that adopting another individual is one of the most difficult jobs they will ever do, and that it's a lifetime committment.
6. Work to help people understand that adding more individuals to the Earth's population makes it more difficult for those who are already here to live sustainably (especially larger species like homo sapiens), and that before actively adding to the population, to consider if there are enough resources to support that person.
7 Create more housing for individuals.

There are lots of other ideas I'm sure that are far more healthy and sustainable than killing people. At least in my opinion...
4th-Apr-2007 01:37 am (UTC)
Would you like to provide a statistic on how easy and/or possible it would be for ALL animals in need of a good home to actually get one? Heck, plenty that have homes are in depserate need of GOOD homes (dogs chained in the back yard 24/7 365, etc. I live somewhere where the shelters are full, animal abuse is common, and there are still countless strays in the city. It's a big problem that can't be solved with idealism alone. So, what should be done in your mind? What is a viable and realistic option that will actually work? I'm genuinely curious.
4th-Apr-2007 12:29 pm (UTC)
Let them try living a free life on their own, not trapped in a cage! :-) At least they'd have the chance at a free life, rather than being forced to die in a prison. These aren't helpless creatures who need humans to live, they are who should be given respect, and treated as independent and capable beings, and allowed to have all the same rights that you and I deserve. No, there are no guarantees, but that's the whole point of life, to make whatever you can of it. But if you are kept in prison, and then killed, you've got nothing. And that's just an insane waste, in my opinion.
4th-Apr-2007 03:17 pm (UTC)
What about the fact that if all pet-type-animals (cats, dogs, ferrets, parrots, hamsters, rats, mice, etc...) were left to just roam freely around everywhere, populations unchecked and so forth as you are suggesting, just left to do as they please... What about the harmful effect that would have on native animal species?

What about the fact that non-native animals, if they start to thrive in any area they are released and introduced to and left to roam in, it usually means they rapidly thrive... in which case their numbers could get so out of hand there would be more of them left to suffer due to disease and starvation, not to mention the whole time they'd be competing with native species of the area to survive and could severely unbalance and harm those populations. Not to mention there'd be that many more dogs/cats etc... hit by cars or poisoned by uncaring individuals who'd see them as nothing more than pests. Look at some of the countries who have dog and cat populations in particular that are largely just left to propagate and roam at will (In the middle east and many asian countries)... you see pictures of scrawny, unhealthy, raggedy looking animals where the human population is even less likely to care about them and sees them all the more as being pests, and heck - in those countries its not uncommon for those animals to be part of the human food chain.
I wager that is likely because there's so many of them and they breed rapidly they figured "well why not eat them, its just another animals right? no different than a cow or chicken"....... Maybe in the USA if those animals were left to just propagate and roam more freely all over the place we would start eating them too? I mean, there'd be so many of them after all... And cats and dogs have whole litters where as cows only have a calf or two at a time, so really we could get a lot more out of it. And those other countries that view cats and dogs as not being any different than cows for consumption and such are, in a way, it could be argued, they are more rational than our society where we make distinctions between the species for consumption.

Of course I'm vegan, my argument is that no animal should have to be consumed by humans, especially in first-world wealthy countries like the USA and what not.

And I don't think animals should be confined to horrid little cages either... But that is why I say some shelters must euthanize because otherwise the animals would be left to just overcrowd and languish in horrible little cages.
4th-Apr-2007 03:17 pm (UTC)

I know some people argue "well what if we stopped eating cows, what would happen to all of those cows, we'd just let them roam free all over the country over populating?" And my answer is "no, that's silly. Its not very reasonable to expect that everyone would stop eating cows all at once - the numbers being raised for slaughter would dwindle as supply and demand dwindled"
But also, cows do not breed rapidly and they only have a calf or two at a time, and they only eat plants - Its a bit easier for such a population as that to manage itself, or nature to manage it. (Though yes, you'd still potentially run into issue of their populations effecting native species).
Cats and dogs and such are a different story really... because they have many more than one baby at a time, and they can have litters more than once in a year, and they can be omnivorous and scavenge and live off of many things... this would be more dangerous for both their own health, as well as the native species of the area, if they were left to just breed and breed and roam around as such within our society as it is.

Besides that, you keep saying the animal should die when it is good and ready. Do you think most animals in 'the wild' die when they are "ready"? Many are hunted by humans or other animals. Some get stepped on. Some get run over by cars. Some get sick and die. Some starve. Some get poisoned. Some meet with accidents. etc... "readiness" ultimately has little to do with it in the grand scheme of survival/life vs. death. And rampant populations of cats and dogs everywhere would (and do) suffer those same problems.
You could argue "well at least they roamed free up until they got poisoned by the evil person who thought they were pests" and so forth...
But at the same time, it being mankind's fault that so many breeds of "domesticated" animals exist in the first place as such, and it being mankind's fault that they're thus not "native" anywhere, it'd be mankind's fault if they were released in such numbers they'd damage the ecosystem of their area, and it'd be mankind's fault if they overran native populations, and if they themselves died even more frequently by getting hit by cars and poisoned by people and hunted down etc...

All in all, functioning by the "least harm" principle... (And that is not just "what causes the least amount of harm for the individual" but also "what causes the least amount of harm for the system of supporting all life in general")... To keep pet-type-animal populations in check via simple lethal injections could be argued as ultimately more in support of "least harm."

Maybe one day, if all people are convinced to spay their pets and not breed and sell them commercially anymore, etc... over population of pet-type-animals wouldn't be so much of a worry and potentially detrimental to their own health and native species health. And since there'd be less of them there wouldn't be so many in need of homes and threatening to overpopulate and so forth, and then it could maybe even be feasible they would find a niche to exist within, in "the wild", so we could largely do away with "having pets" period.
But until such a day in time may come, we have to be reasonable here. And it just doesn't seem very reasonable to think that the way the world is now, that there A. could be a good home out there for every single pet-type-animal currently in existence and continually being bred into existence for the purpose of being a pet-animal (and by good home I mean both with humans or outside of living with humans)... And thus B. - that letting so many of them roam around everywhere would be in compliance, so to speak, with causing the "least amount of harm" possible...
4th-Apr-2007 06:15 pm (UTC)
So if a dog is beaten its whole life and is extremely vicious, and has been through extensive dog therapy and training - which neither worked...Should we simply put this dog on the street? In a way, we put children and other people in harms way if we put dogs like this out on the street...
3rd-Apr-2007 03:26 am (UTC)
Euthanization is sad but necessary.

I'm lucky to live in Portland, Oregon--the Oregon Humane Society has one of the lowest kill rates in the USA.
4th-Apr-2007 01:26 am (UTC)
Awesome! I live around Portland (Vancouver, so close ish) and I wasn't aware of that :)
3rd-Apr-2007 12:14 pm (UTC)
I'm posting before I read what others say, so this might be repetitive, I don't know...

I've volunteered for shelters and for peta, and also worked on/for rescues and No Kill operations. There have been times when I've had to euthanize animals obviously.

Because of this I think euthanasia is sometimes necessary, but should be a last resort, and should be for animals without any other options. But I'm pretty strict in what I consider "no other options to represent."

After all of this I think that many of the shelters and Peta are operating with a profound misunderstanding of some of the dynamics of companion animal overpopulation (though to their credit Peta is improving and funding some spay/neuter programs now). One of the main misunderstands is that these organizations just don't seem to get how feral populations, particularly cats, work. I've done a lot of work with ferals over the years. I firmly believe that sterilization is the only thing that will ever make a difference. In many cases euthanizing the more visible members of a larger population (which is what Peta and Animal Control have done in the past) merely creates an imbalance in the population that spurs more breeding. Which means the overall population is never decreased and more animals are killed each subsequent year.

I also have begun to feel that it is not the place of the animal rights movement to provide quiet, guilt-free, unseen killing of companion animals. This kind of animal control environment has allowed a lot of the dog and cat-loving public to keep buying and breeding companion animals without really seeing or owning the consequences. If we stopped making euthanasia so easy for people and instead started getting creative and aggressive with adoption programs I think we might make a real difference.

For some time now the attitude from the shelters has been that we can't make people feel too bad about handing over their animals, or they'll avoid the shelters and abandon animals outside somewhere. But having done this for so long now, I think most discarded companion animals are still abandoned outside somewhere, so not much has improved. When we start making communities really see what they're doing instead of silently cleaning up the problem, then maybe there will be a change.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
4th-Apr-2007 12:31 pm (UTC)
Humans are a non-native species, too! :-)
(Deleted comment)
4th-Apr-2007 02:31 pm (UTC)
Huh? So it's ok for humans to overpopulate and decimate the planet because we could change out behavior if we learned to or someone told us to?
(Deleted comment)
3rd-Apr-2007 02:50 pm (UTC)
Simcha makes a good point.
I'm originally from "the south" as well... And just moving from a small town in the rural south east, to where I am now in Missouri, there is a noticable difference in managing companion animals, so to speak. Namely people in this area who have pets are a lot more prone to keep them constrained (i.e. they're not just running around loose everywhere) and/or get them neutered. In rural areas in places like North Carolina for one, that does not happen as much. Animals go running around loose all over the place getting hit by cars, attacked by other animals, killing other animals, getting poisoned and shot by people who get pissed off about animals running around loose, and of course breeding and breeding is a common thing. And I've seen some pretty horrid and bad and awful things happen on account of it with the animals getting diseases, and sickly, and starving or their overpopulation causing problems for local wildlife, etc...
And my parents are originally from Michigan and they moved south a couple years before I was born and even they quickly noticed a huge difference between how "pet"- type animals were commonly dealt with down there as opposed to how it tended to be where they were from.
I'm sure a lot of it has to do with lack of proper education to the people in the areas, and on top of that more small and rural towns are going to be less equipped to have large shelter facilities, and proper funding for those facilities etc...
Perhaps if one witnesses some of the kinds of things that I and others have witnessed in regards to strays and population issues it is what makes HUMANE euthanization an understandable, and even in some cases - a desirable option.



Neva_butterfly...
That is a good point that you mentioned "In many cases euthanizing the more visible members of a larger population (which is what Peta and Animal Control have done in the past) merely creates an imbalance in the population that spurs more breeding." I've heard this same issue pointed out in regards to hunting and deer populations. And how hunters claim that they are helping "control" the populations from causing over population but inf act the opposite is happening in many areas and "the deer situation is getting worse" so to speak, because, like you said, it creates such a severe and sudden imbalance to which is responded to by more breeding.

"I also have begun to feel that it is not the place of the animal rights movement to provide quiet, guilt-free, unseen killing of companion animals. This kind of animal control environment has allowed a lot of the dog and cat-loving public to keep buying and breeding companion animals without really seeing or owning the consequences." --- that's a good point too.



And Turil, I've read through all of the comments on here and no one specifically said anything about killing people because we don't want to take care of them. You read too much into something I think and built your own context around it. Especially if where you formed that idea was just from someone mentioning how they feel euthanasia for humans should be legal as well --- I think you're misunderstanding what they were likely meaning by 'euthanasia of humans' ... I'm sure they didn't mean anything like governmentally controlled population exterminations and murders and such. No, I'm sure they were referring to the much heated debate of the medical establishment, of the right to "Assisted suicide"-as it is sometimes called (and as someone else already explained in their reply) --- in which case it is the patient's choice to be given a painless injection that just lets them pass from life and from their suffering.
And granted, animals cannot speak our language to say "yes, please put me out of my misery" at the same time if we're willing to understand that animals can suffer as we know suffering to be (Hence why a lot of us our vegan, right?), then there are PLENTY of cases where it is obvious to see an animal is suffering and it would be the kinder thing to give it a lethal injection than to let it go on suffering.
4th-Apr-2007 12:42 pm (UTC)
I consider all Earthlings people, not just homo sapiens. I had to admit that a long time ago after reading an animal rights book (I can't rememebr the title, sorry). I had to admit that there is no intelligent or ethical reason to discriminate against someone else because they are of a different species than I am.

My test for ethical behavior is if I would want it to happen to my mother. If I wouldn't want her killed for the reasons that people give for euthanasia, then I wouldn't want it for anyone else. And so far the only reason that has stood up to my test is if the individual specifically asks for it and seems to be wanting to die for rational and healthy reasons. (Unlike when my husband wanted to commit suicide). My mom has a DNR order that she know's I'll respect if the time ever comes that she needs to be put on permamnant life support.

As for times when it is "obvious" that someone wants to die, I would suggest that your perceptions may not be theirs. In my experience, people will die when they have had enough living. Life is cool like that, if you don't get in it's way.

But I understand that others feel differently. And if you truly feel that killing someone else is the best thing to do then there isn't a lot I can do to stop you, because you need to do what you feel is right.
4th-Apr-2007 03:50 pm (UTC)
"As for times when it is "obvious" that someone wants to die, I would suggest that your perceptions may not be theirs. In my experience, people will die when they have had enough living. Life is cool like that, if you don't get in it's way."

People don't just die when they have merely "had enough of living"... its not so simple as that. To say it as simply and causally as that is kind of insulting to those who've suffered through death. What about "people" (both human and non-human animals) who suffer sudden fatal accidents? It doesn't mean they were readily thinking "I think I want to die today", but they died just the same. What about "people" (both human and non-human animals) suffering from some sickness or injury that is surely going to kill them and they're just having to wait around for the inevitable to take over, but in horrible pain and agony in the process... Don't you think then it is more compassionate for them to be put out of their misery?
4th-Apr-2007 03:59 pm (UTC)
"People don't just die when they have merely "had enough of living"... its not so simple as that."

In my experience, it is just that simple. It's not necessarily a conscious choice, but I have indeed experienced people of all species dying naturally when they have no life left in them. I would not put my stepfather "to sleep" because he is in constant pain and suffering, simply because he himself believes that there is more to life than always being pain-free. I grant the same respect to all other beings. I'm not going to tell them when they should die, I'm going to let them have the right to make that choice for themselves. The will to live is indeed strong, until it isn't...
4th-Apr-2007 11:41 pm (UTC)
And I restate: "What about "people" (both human and non-human animals) who suffer sudden fatal accidents? It doesn't mean they were readily thinking "I think I want to die today", but they died just the same."
In which case it's not like they "had enough of living" as you said, but more that an untimely accident happened to dictate their life ending suddenly.


And on the second point, just because your step father would rather suffer pain until it kills him doesn't mean everyone would want that. For instance I just lost my grandmother to lung/liver/bone cancer, it was irreversible, it was going to kill her the question was just "when?"... she tried a bit of treatment to prolong her life but it made the pain even worse. She became bed ridden and in agony all the time crying things like "Why why?", getting delirious, begging for medication, begging to die. If "physician assisted suicide" were a legal procedure I know she would have chosen that early on rather than go through the "wasting" of the disease until death.
Anyway... I'm not saying creatures do not die simply on the basis of natural aging and life process and so forth, and because they're "ready" to die... of course that is the case with many creatures... But it is not the case with all individuals.
And I'm just saying I think that the option for a suffering creature to be put out of their misery (emphasis on the MISERY part there) should not be wholly ostracized.
4th-Apr-2007 12:32 am (UTC)
I guess I'd go with C, except for the tempermentally dangerous. I know there are sanctuaries for cats that are "unadoptable", but I don't know about dogs.....I'm sure there has to be...
This page was loaded Feb 26th 2017, 12:25 pm GMT.