Great Animal Issues—When is euthanasia really euthanasia?
And what implications does it really have for the fate of so many homeless animals?
The logic behind such actions is often elusive, especially when all parties to the issue bear good intentions. Where do we draw the lines?
The letter below was sent to the magazine ANIMAL PEOPLE (November/December 2011):
Letters
Euthanasia
Ned Buyukmihci
I am responding to the letter by Doug Fakkema (1) in the September 2011 edition of Animal People concerning “euthanasia.” [See below]
Without in any way impugning Fakkema’s motives and sincerity, he is either in denial or is unaware of the definition of the word. I do not argue that the death must be “good,” as stated by Fakkema, but his definition leaves out the most important aspect: the death should be in the interests of the individual dying. Of necessity, this means that the individual dying would benefit from death by ending a situation that is causing intractable suffering. Ideally, the individual would be able to indicate that he or she prefers death to continued life. In the case of cats, dogs or other nonhuman animals, this may not be feasible because of our inability to communicate with the individual. In these situations, it becomes especially important that the person ending life must be clear on her or his motives which must derive only from a sincere belief that ending the life will end suffering that cannot be relieved otherwise.
Using a defense that one is somehow preventing future suffering does not even warrant consideration, being patently absurd. Read more…





























