PDA

View Full Version : Euthanasia Hypothtical



HuskyWillow
05-30-2011, 05:35 PM
[Disclaimer since I know some of the people on this website like to jump down people's throats] By no means does this affect me, it's simply a HYPOTHETICAL. I know there's people out there who are against euthanizing an animal because there's no room in a shelter, or just because people as a whole are stupid. Then there's also people out there who are completly and udderly against putting an animal down even if it's in pain, and would rather dope up the dog on pain killers, rather than put it down. In my opinion that's selfish, if your dog is old, and it's the dogs time to go don't dope it up on pain killers because you're against euthanizing an animal in general. This was just a rant but share your opinions too please.

magic mushroom
05-30-2011, 06:12 PM
yes it would be more humane to euthanize the animal, but for the owner it is an attachement issue, they are torn to let go, been there done that and will never let any of my pets suffer again, even though it is hard to let go.

GreyWolf
05-30-2011, 06:58 PM
My dog was euthanized when no other options were available, We didn't want her to die a slow and painful death.

I highly respect no kill shelters and I love that there are people like Dog Whisperer out there rehabilitating dogs who would otherwise be put to sleep due to owners being unable to understand how to change the dogs aggression. I think euthanasia should always be a last resort, animals shouldnt die because there is no room for them or because someone won't train them properly or because they have an illness that is too expensive for the owner to handle.

kitca
05-30-2011, 09:26 PM
oh grey wolf, you said that perfectly. i do not agree with the 'no kill' shelter who will keep an animal alive at all costs just to keep their no kill reputation. i also agree with assisted suicide.

MaO3
05-30-2011, 09:31 PM
I've always believed that as responsible pet owners it is your duty to have your animal euthanized when the animal is suffering. As difficult as it is its (in my mind) your responsiblity. As for no kill shelters, I think that if an animal is suffering and there is no way to ease its suffering then Euthanasia is the most humane thing.

Just my opinion however!!!

Joy.D
05-30-2011, 10:07 PM
The idea of a no kill shelter is not to make animals suffer... even they will euthanize if there is no alternative. no kill shelters do not kill because of personality issues or overcrowding... they will do everything they can to save a life and rehabilitate a pet, but sometimes there is no other alternative.

I Wonder Why
05-31-2011, 10:25 AM
I would like to hear from Handyman on this one and what his thoughts are.

kitca
05-31-2011, 10:19 PM
lol!!! i just read the above posting, then i read the name of the person posting it. ha! read it in that order, lol

Bill Nash
06-01-2011, 09:33 AM
oh grey wolf, you said that perfectly. i do not agree with the 'no kill' shelter who will keep an animal alive at all costs just to keep their no kill reputation. i also agree with assisted suicide.

WTF does assisted suicide have to do with having an animal euthanized? Oh yeah, .... I see who the poster is, all questions answered.

As a society, we have a responsibility to our own first. Taxes that are collected are used to operate every facet of public life we know, ... including municipal animal shelters. When people are in need of housing, education, and health care when our tax dollars are going to support some abandoned mutt that NOBODY wants, we obviously have our priorities screwed up.

Before you jump down my throat with the obvious, .... I know there are private and public shelters, ... my views will cover both. Private shelters are a commercial and revenue generating venture. They are in it for the money and should be self-supporting. As far as I am concerned, private shelters can do what ever the h*ll they like with the animals they have, .... just don't feed me a sob story about the poor animal suffering and you want a donation to help.

I have more contention with public shelters and their operation and existence. To appease the animal lovers (who I realize also pay their share of taxes), these shelters exist to house and tend for the homeless pets, and to educate the public about pet responsibility. What a comparison, .... house, tend and care for, educate, .... not where people are concerned, but domesticated animals!

I do not blame the animal for its situation when it comes to survival, ... every blame falls on people. Irresponsible people letting their animals run loose only to be injured. Irresponsible people allowing their animals (sometimes purposely) to breed and produce more homeless animals solely for the money or to let "little Susy" watch how nature works. Irresponsible people taking in an animal knowing they will soon grow bored and drop it off at the shelter to let the "public coffers" take over their responsibility. The list is endless.

I think if the shelters truly want to be responsible to all tax-payers ( including the pet-huggers), they should have a simple code to follow. They should have to hold any animal placed in their custody for 5 days so that the owners can come to claim them if they were lost. During this time, the shelter's responsibility is to care for the animal in the same way any responsible owner would care for it. After this time, any animal left at the shelter should be humanely euthanized at minimal cost to the public. This can be attained by allowing staff to administer drugs to end the life of the animal without the necessity of a veterinarian to do so.

I do not believe it should be the policy of the shelter to find owners for abandoned animals. If someone walks in off the street on day five and want to purchase the animal (money would go to defray operating costs of course), they could do so as long as the purchaser pays for spaying or neutering immediately and does not get possession of the animal until the procedure is done. I believe there is currently a similar policy in place to this effect.

The next time you hear of someone waiting countless hours for health care or having to go to the states for the likes of life-saving bariatric surgery (for example), or you see pictures of homeless people (yes they do exist) waiting in line for a meager cup of soup because that is all the homeless shelter has to offer, or you see a young person shopping at Value Village because student loans have left them living like a pauper for 10 years, .... think about your wasted tax dollars going to make sure Fido (not the phone company) has nutritional meals, all his shots, and John Q. Public attends educational seminars on "pet grooming 101".

Just think Kitca, ... an actual thoughtful and comprehensible response from the "bear killer", .... something I am sure you could not have composed yourself, let alone comprehend, .... that is, unless you agree that the general public should be starving, dying, and un-educated at the expense of homeless animal?!

kattty
06-01-2011, 10:33 AM
I've believed ever since I started dealing with rescues that the majority of the human race is nothing but ignorant and selfish, especially in developed countries. The lack of knowledge and guidance is an excuse I can give under developed countries.

When you think about it, the dogs at dog shelters do not eat"good" dog food..they eat whatever is donated or purchased at minimumal cost. So I BEG to differ on the nutritional value. I would also like to stress that an animal being locked in a cage for essentially 24 hours a day is very deterimental to the overall well being of the animal. This all goes towards indicating the shelter system we have now is not working regardless..(thats a whole other topic)

It's like saying, a tax payer shouldn't contribute minimal costs to save an animal life, yet you'd pay hundrends of thousands of tax payer dollars to let someone who went on a murdering rampage and killed numerous lives, live in a cozy cell with SEVERAL meals a day, and don't even get me started on what REALLY goes on there. If you decided to end that tax payer contribution, I bet you your health care system would sky rocket in accessability and time waits would be mimimal.

Who is anyone to say that you have a right to live, and that animal dies?. You'd be assuming your superiority over another classification of life on this earth, who I might add...shares it with you. You'll say that if they were smart enough ,we'd be in their position and them in ours, just because the roles aren't designated as such doesn't indicate a lesser being.

TO be honest with you, this topic is one that will always have two sides of the fence. ALWAYS.

You seem smart enough, so instead of solving an issue the easy way, and blaming a small issue on a deficency in a system take a step back and look at the whole.

Euthanising an animal should always be a last resort. And like anything, if whats going on bothers you(fundrasing, animal welfare groups, shelters ect)..turn a blind eye.(Since you appreciate the easier route).

I also forgot to mention, I've never once thought about the money value of helping an animal. That's what happens when you care for something beyond yourself.

I Wonder Why
06-01-2011, 11:40 AM
Actually, I thought The Handyman was pretty close on his comments. Do not agree with everything he says but have much respect for his thoughts. If you go to the HS web page and read the mission statement, you will notice some common ground with what The Handyman is saying. If you had an open mind and talked to the shelter staff you would see they are truly having a pos. impact on the care and control of the animal population, reducing euth and increasing adoption rates. As for his bear posting, I thought he was just poking a little bit of harmless fun at certain individuals and I must say I got quite a kick out of it.

kattty
06-01-2011, 12:37 PM
I'm all for reducing euth and increasing adoption rates?lol...I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm simply stating a minimum contribution to shelters ect is nothing compared to other tax related issues people pay for.

kitca
06-01-2011, 07:02 PM
tax dollars dont go to spca's. it is all donated money to care for, house, etc the animals within. the money that comes from the tax dollars is for the dogs running at large - or pound - service that the spca provides because it is considered a safety issue, and the money that comes from dog licences. the rest is from donations.

my implication on pet euthanasia and assisted suicide it was to say that i agree with humanely euthanizing a pet and i also would want the same done for me (or my loved ones if that is what they wanted.)

you can choose to donate or not to donate to whatever charity you like for people, animals, art - whatever. it is called personal choice.