#EuthanasiaForDogs #AnimalRights #PetEuthanasia
Many people advocate for euthanasia for dogs but oppose the same for people. They struggle with the concept of animals suffering, while the suffering of humans does not elicit a similar response from them. 🐾
Why is that? What is the root of this discrepancy in attitudes towards euthanasia for animals versus humans? Let’s delve into this complex and often contentious issue to gain a better understanding of the underlying factors at play.
Understanding the Advocacy for Euthanasia for Dogs
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia for dogs, supporters often cite compassionate reasons for their stance. They argue that animals should not have to endure prolonged suffering and pain, especially when there is no hope for recovery. Euthanasia, in their view, is a humane way to end an animal’s suffering and ensure a peaceful passing.
Many pet owners have firsthand experience with making the difficult decision to euthanize their beloved furry companions. They understand the agony of watching their pets struggle with debilitating illnesses or injuries. This personal connection fuels their advocacy for euthanasia for dogs, as they empathize with the animals’ pain and wish to spare them further distress.
Additionally, animal rights activists and organizations often emphasize the importance of minimizing animal suffering and promoting their well-being. They view euthanasia as a compassionate solution to prevent animals from enduring unnecessary pain and distress.
Opposition to Euthanasia for People
On the other hand, discussions about euthanasia for humans evoke a range of emotions and ethical considerations. While some individuals support the concept of assisted dying for terminally ill patients, others vehemently oppose it due to religious, moral, or legal reasons.
Opponents of euthanasia for humans may argue that the sanctity of human life should be preserved at all costs, regardless of the individual’s medical prognosis. They may express concerns about the potential for abuse or coercion in end-of-life decision-making, fearing that vulnerable individuals could be unduly influenced to choose euthanasia against their true wishes.
Furthermore, the complex nature of human relationships, legal frameworks, and medical ethics adds layers of complexity to the debate surrounding euthanasia for people. Determining the criteria for eligibility, ensuring informed consent, and addressing the nuances of pain management and palliative care are among the myriad issues that complicate the discussions on this sensitive topic.
Exploring the Discrepancy
The stark contrast in attitudes towards euthanasia for dogs and people raises thought-provoking questions about empathy, compassion, and the ethical treatment of living beings. So, why do many individuals express strong support for euthanasia for animals while simultaneously opposing the same option for humans?
Several factors may contribute to this disconnect:
Perceived Vulnerability: Some people may view animals as inherently vulnerable and dependent on humans for care, leading to a heightened sense of responsibility for their well-being. This perception of animals as innocent and defenseless beings can evoke a stronger empathetic response compared to the complexities of human experiences and decision-making.
Emotional Attachment: The deep emotional connections that many individuals form with their pets can shape their attitudes towards euthanasia for animals. The bond forged with a beloved pet can elicit intense feelings of protectiveness and concern for their welfare, influencing the advocacy for compassionate end-of-life options for animals.
Cultural and Religious Beliefs: Cultural or religious teachings and traditions may play a significant role in shaping individuals’ perspectives on euthanasia for humans. Prevailing beliefs about the sanctity of life, the moral implications of hastening death, and the afterlife can deeply influence attitudes towards end-of-life decisions for humans.
Legal and Ethical Considerations: The legal and ethical complexities surrounding euthanasia for humans, including issues of autonomy, consent, and the potential for abuse, contribute to the nuanced and often contentious nature of the debate. These multifaceted considerations may lead individuals to wrestle with conflicting views on the topic.
Promoting Empathy and Understanding
As we navigate the complexities of attitudes towards euthanasia for dogs and people, it is essential to foster empathy and understanding in these discussions. By acknowledging the diverse perspectives and ethical considerations at play, we can strive to engage in respectful dialogue and promote greater awareness of the underlying factors shaping our attitudes towards end-of-life decisions for animals and humans.
Ultimately, the tension between advocating for euthanasia for dogs while opposing the same for people underscores the intricate intersections of empathy, ethics, and compassion. By critically examining our beliefs and engaging in informed conversations on this topic, we can work towards promoting thoughtful and empathetic approaches to addressing the complex issues surrounding end-of-life care and decision-making.
In conclusion, the juxtaposition of attitudes towards euthanasia for animals and humans reveals the complexities of empathy, ethics, and cultural influences that shape our perspectives on end-of-life decisions. By delving into the root causes of this discrepancy and fostering open, empathetic dialogue, we can strive to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of advocating for compassionate end-of-life options for all living beings.
I don’t think it’s that human suffering doesn’t bother them as much as it is that they just struggle with the idea of human mortality. There’s this unspoken need to try to pull out all the stops to live (or help your loved ones live) forever that people have a tough time letting go of.
But yeah, quality > longevity imo.
If I was a dog I’d have been offered the needle. We just have more options as humans when it comes to treating life changing conditions.
I’ve read animal lovers say they hate humans and love animals only… So there’s that.
I think people get caught up in religious reasons. Only God decides when we die, etc.
If I could have taken my Dad out to the country like he asked me to once we landed in the ER, I would have. I sat helpless for days begging God to end his suffering. It was the most difficult thing I’ve ever witnessed.
I think it should be the other way around. Humans can give consent. Dogs can’t
Something something God’s plans something blather something
probably because you cant pet a human
I am just afraid of how it would be abused by our current system. “Sorry, the insurance company had decided euthanasia is cheaper than treatment”
Even in countries with healthcare like Canada we are hearing stories about it being abused and recommended in inappropriate situations.
I just can’t trust people to make those kind of choices when money is the primary motivation.
It’s not struggling with the concept, it’s valuing human life more than a dog’s life.
Someone I know has just spent £29k on vets bills for a dog that swallowed a plastic toy. Only £8.5k was covered by insurance. There’s no way I would spend that to save a dog’s life, but to save a person’s life I wouldn’t think twice.
Edit: calling -> valuing (correction)
It’s always an active debate in Denmark whether to allow it or not.
A case that is brought often is a doctor who illegally helped patients with assisted chemical suicide. One of his patients survived the “treatment” and then a month later realized, actually, he wants to live.
So the issue in my eyes, boils more down to, how do we judge whether an individual is in a capable state to decide if euthanasia is right for them.
Personally part of it is that the human can understand what is going on for the most part but you cannot explain to an animal.
If an animal is very sick, and in pain, then you can’t explain what is going on or why they have to be on bed rest, or have these stupid medications etc. where a sick human can,
But yes, there comes a point where a human is ONLY suffering and the issue is that that suffering can only be stopped by high levels of drugs that may or may not also kill you (e.g. morphine).
If anything, it should be the opposite.
(Most) humans can consent to euthanasia. An animal cannot. It is much more moral to euthanize a communicative human than an animal.
I’m all for assisted death when someone is terminally ill and physically suffering, but I am scared of the slippery slope (or maybe justified slope, who knows) of facilitating suicide to people suffering from depression etc.
Euthanasia requires a doctor who actively ends the patient’s life. That’s okay for pets because they’re legally the owner’s property but for humans it’s technically murder. I’m pro euthanasia for terminal illnesses and suffering but it needs a clear legal framework.
One other aspect: we can’t talk directly to animals and know they understand us. Pet owners have a responsibility to try and do what’s right for their pet as best as you can with the information you have.
A person though, by and large, can understand what’s happening to them and also a human life is generally seen as ‘more valuable’ than most pets lives (in a general sense – not trying to argue semantics here).
A disease that’s incurable now might be mitigatable in 3 years and curable in 10. It also might *not* be. We don’t know. It’s definitely a very grey area (to me) morally speaking.
On the other hand, there’s also the huge issue of eugenics and that generally any organization or government will look at ‘try to keep someone alive and work on a cure for this thing aiming them’ versus ‘kill them off- I mean, pressure them into- I mean, *offer* them assisted suicide’ – they’re going to choose killing off, I mean, assisting people in committing suicide every time.
I may just sound jaded here but if you are seen as just a number on a page, which is what happens in any large organization, they’re simply going to rule that pressuring you into assisted suicide is better.
Look at insurance companies and the constant horror stories of them denying claims for life saving medicine and procedures that happens *right here, right now*.
However, that being said, I think it *should* be a viable option for people with debilitating conditions that aren’t getting better for them to choose- we just need to be very, very, *very* careful to have checks and balances in place to ensure that people are not being pressured into this choice as once you’re gone, you’re not coming back.
Have them spend some time in a nursing home or hospital. If you can do that and still oppose euthanasia then there’s something wrong with you
Animals cannot practice and realize an end to suffering.
If pets could speak, it wouldnt be that way.
I think they value human lives more than animal lives. Like a human life is worth the suffering, but an animal’s life isn’t.
It’s not even Euthanasia. people will actively keep other people (who would otherwise just die naturally) alive while they continue to suffer.
My wife works in ICUs. Families will keep people alive for literally years when they’d die if taken off life support.
I’m the opposite lol. Really I’m okay with both. But an animal (pet) dying pulls my heartstrings just a little bit more.
As someone who was raised Catholic, it’s more the fear of damning someones soul. Even though I doubt God would hold euthanasia against a person I am not 100 percent sure so for me it’s not worth the risk.
The issue is almost assuredly a corporation one and not a moral one.
I think some people should be put to death for their crimes, but at the same time I don’t think we should give the government power to do that.
I think it euthanasia should be an option, but making it available introduces a lot of other moral edges to it. Not to mention it being abused by health institutions.
I’m for it, just cautious about it in the US
Think you might’ve jumped through a few hoops to come to the conclusion that this means people don’t care about human suffering, lol
If that were true then all those people would be vegan, but they aren’t, because their comfort is more important than the reality of animals suffering a lifetime for it.
I think it fundamentally comes down to many people not wanting anyone being an arbiter of another’s life. No person, organisation or entity should have the power to condemn another person to death and Euthanasia can lead to situations where it’s possible that someone unwilling to die could be killed.
I understand entirely that some people with untreatable/incurable conditions like dementia may want to be assisted to end their lives before it proceeds to far but we as humans can be absolute monsters at times and I don’t think it’s worth the risk of unwilling people being euthanised whatsoever. I understand these conditions are degrading and soul crushing but we all know there would be cases where some elderly person is pushed into euthanasia against their will just because their families want their financial assets.
Because a human life is much more valuable. And societies that go down the slippery slope of euthanasia quickly start “encauraging” the disabled and homeless to sign up for suicide pod like in Canada.
They struggle with paying for the dog’s treatment…
There are plenty of things for which we euthanize animals but treat humans.
I support both. Anyone, regardless of species, should be offered a less painful way to die IF they are actively in the process of death and are terminal. I think it’s gross that grandma has to take two weeks to slowly die when she could have the option to choose a quicker path.
Because it’s more profitable to keep a human alive. It’s not profitable to keep a pet alive when you can get much more money by starting up a new one.
New registrations, new shots, new everything for a new pet
But an existing person pumping out hundreds or thousands per month? Way more money alive than a painless death.
If you’ve ever had a relative die of COPD you’d know that’s isn’t exactly true.
They don’t call it euthanasia. They call it palative care.
“oh we’re going to give him morphine for the pain”
Except morphine is a respiratory depressant…For the people that already can’t breathe.
Its quick and humane
More a lack of faith in any governing body being able to ensure this ethically without struggling people being pushed into death instead of adequate care and help
There’s a serious issue with human euthanasia that’s currently afflicting Canada:
Insurance companies will not cover amenities and medications for disabled or seriously ill patients, but *will* cover euthanasia. There was a woman in a wheelchair who asked for a wheelchair lift in her house, and was told “we can just kill you instead.”
It’s cheaper to kill them off than keep paying for expensive medicine to keep them alive.
When my mum was in massive pain but forced to keep having painful treatments to avoid even worse pain all with a terminal diagnosis she often pointed this out. That were she the family dog she would be treated with more compassion and respect and simply painlessly put to sleep.
She was lucid until the end but very clear that she wanted to die now and upset that the doctors wouldn’t let her. She ended up dying in a fall, it was pretty horrible.
I 100% support euthanasia as an option, I did before all that happened to my mum but seeing it first hand only strengthened my view.
Humans would find a way to abuse the system and it would cease to be about ending suffering.
I am actually not against the idea of human euthanasia, but this^ is the only argument I see against it with any teeth imo.
I cry when animals on TV are harmed. Not so much humans.
I don’t think people struggle with the *concept* of animals suffering. I think it’s the fact that people tend to be more empathic with pets than with people that makes euthanasia seem like such a good option.
Most people also don’t give a shit about animal suffering apart from the few ones they personally know.
If you have a google about abuse of DNR orders (especially the recent scandal in UK hospitals during Covid where they were given to autistic individuals without their permission) then you’ll figure out that abuse of power WILL happen and loopholes will appear.