How do we know it's best to put down suffering animals?

[Victor Charlie]

Nobody wants to see an injured or sick animal suffer, but how do we know putting them down is more humane? We rarely consider it humane to euthanize humans stricken with life-threatening inuries or diseases. Are we assuming the animal would rather be put out of its misery? How do we know an animal's suffering outweighs whatever pleasure it still gets out of life? How often are we masking our desire to dispose of the inconvenience of a sick dog with the notion that it's better for the dog? Is it often, or even usually, just better for the owner?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Nobody wants to see an injured or sick animal suffer, but how do we know putting them down is more humane? We rarely consider it humane to euthanize humans stricken with life-threatening inuries or diseases.

This is the problem. We still cling to the antiquated idea that somehow a suffering human's life has more meaning and value than a suffering dog's life. The dog can't make the decision, but the human can. We should allow euthanasia of humans if the person has a valid living will or directive to physicians that states this is what they want.

[Lasciel]

There's also the complication that humans (to a large, but not universal extent) have the ability to make decisions about suffering for themselves - if you hurt, you get pain medication, or in some areas, can actually take your own life to relieve the pain, or have a medical professional take it for you. We also have an amazing capacity to distract ourselves from pain just by focusing on other things.

Animals don't have that ability. They can't say directly that they are in pain or suffering, they can't think of the past or the future or imaginary places to distract them from the pain, and for some animals, we don't even have very effective pain-killers developed for them.

So we have to act for them, and most people decide that it is less harmful for an animal to have a peaceful passing than to live with a painful condition. We can't know, because we're not the animal, but I would imagine that most people do what they hope is the best for their animal. Sadly, monetary considerations DO come into that as well, but that's unfortunate for everyone involved, not just the animal being put down.


There's also a difference between something painful and temporary, and something painful and chronic. A human can often be made to understand that certain pains will pass, but no animals that I know of have made that leap. For someone tenderhearted or who has anthropomorphized their animal, having to watch it suffer and being helpless to assist (except through the passage of time) is a very hard thing to do. I wouldn't judge someone harshly for not being able to handle that, and choosing to put their animal "peacefully to sleep" instead.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

This is the problem. We still cling to the antiquated idea that somehow a suffering human's life has more meaning and value than a suffering dog's life. The dog can't make the decision, but the human can. We should allow euthanasia of humans if the person has a valid living will or directive to physicians that states this is what they want.

All true. But we would rarely put a sick human down if he/she couldn't communicate that wish... and only in the case of vegetative brain death. If they showed any sign of cognitive life, we wouldn't consider euthanizing them.

[njtt]

We don't (and can't) know what the animals would want (if, indeed, an animal is even capable of conceptualizing a preference to be dead rather than continuing to suffer, which it almost certainly isn't). We take our best guess about what the animal would want if it was capable of thinking about such things. In such conditions of radical uncertainty, it is not unreasonable to allow considerations of our own convenience to factor in as well as what we guess about the animal's wishes or welfare.

As far as humans go, I find myself agreeing with Clothahump (possibly a first!).

[njtt]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

All true. But we would rarely put a sick human down if he/she couldn't communicate that wish... and only in the case of vegetative brain death. If they showed any sign of cognitive life, we wouldn't consider euthanizing them.

The fact that we generally don't do that, does not prove that we never should.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Nobody wants to see an injured or sick animal suffer, but how do we know putting them down is more humane? We rarely consider it humane to euthanize humans stricken with life-threatening inuries or diseases. Are we assuming the animal would rather be put out of its misery? How do we know an animal's suffering outweighs whatever pleasure it still gets out of life?

There isn't really a factual answer to this question. I think most pet owners would agree with you that putting an animal down should be deferred if possible to the point where its suffering outweighs its enjoyment of life, and I think most would agree with you that there's no objective way to tell when that point is reached.

IME, pet owners generally try to assess the animal's condition by considering whether it is constantly showing signs of distress, refusing to eat, taking no interest in things it used to enjoy, and so on. Many pet owners will go to a lot of expense and inconvenience to prolong a pet's life as long as the pet still seems at least somewhat happy.

[md2000]

Most people are aware enough to assist in their own recovery. If you have a broken leg, we put it in a cast and tell you to stay off it. A month or so later, you are walking again.

With animals, however, we cannot expect they will understand the need for restraint or modified behaviour. Some will fight it. A horse in nature MUST walk, to graze and run to escape predators; so it is not mentally equipped to survive a broken leg. (Whereas a cat or dog or wolf may manage to limp from carcass to carcass and scavenge until able to run again). Therefore, it takes extraordinary measures to keep a horse with a broken leg alive, and they may aggravate the situation with struggling. Kinder to kill it.

Similar with household pets with chronic conditions. They are not equipped to enjoy laying in bed, having conversations, watching TV and readng a good book as opposed to wandering around sniffing. They probably do't appreciate intravenous or throat tube feeding. Most people are not prepared to pay nursing staff to take care of a cat 24-7 and deal with injections. A dog is less likely to understand and appreciate daily needles.

If essentially, you are just going to torture an animal in that way to keep it alive - kill it kindly.

[Yllaria]

Originally Posted by njtt

The fact that we generally don't do that, does not prove that we never should.

I've heard that in hospice situations, it is legal to supply pain killers at doses that will suppress respiration. There is a risk of hastening or precipitating the end, but as long as the purpose of the dose is to relieve pain that can't be relieved any other way, it's legal. That's not putting someone down, but it's prioritizing relieving suffering over extending life.

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by md2000

Similar with household pets with chronic conditions. They are not equipped to enjoy laying in bed, having conversations, watching TV and readng a good book as opposed to wandering around sniffing. They probably do't appreciate intravenous or throat tube feeding. Most people are not prepared to pay nursing staff to take care of a cat 24-7 and deal with injections. A dog is less likely to understand and appreciate daily needles.

If essentially, you are just going to torture an animal in that way to keep it alive - kill it kindly.

This.

About 2 weeks ago we had to put our 7yo great dane down because she developed a wicked fast acting bone cancer. She simply couldn't understand why her leg hurt and what the problem was, and she certainly didn't understand that it wasn't going to get better. We put her down early because we knew that it wasn't going to get better for her and we would rather her go peacefully early rather than torture her for a couple weeks just so we could pet her a couple times.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

We rarely consider it humane to euthanize humans stricken with life-threatening inuries or diseases.

I don't think that premise is correct. There are many who do consider it humane to euthanize humans who have an almost non-existent chance at recovery and have a deteriorating quality of life. The difference between euthanizing a human and an animal is a legal one and not necessarily an ethical one.

[brainstall]

If you know and love an animal it is never an easy decision to end their life, you just have to believe that you are doing the right thing.

For owners that don't really care and just euthanize an animal to be rid of the inconvenience? Better than some of the other options, such as abandoning the animal by the roadside, inept attempts at killing it themselves or neglecting it until it dies on its own.

[Sailboat]

Yes, how do we know? It is a hard decision and it's hard to know we're right.

The conclusion is, we don't know for sure. We do our best, and hope.

[Gary T]

Humans have dealt with animals for millennia, and a convincing case can be made that in certain situations, putting down a suffering animal is the best choice. We do know that they suffer, and we do know that death will relieve the suffering.

What case can be made that keeping them alive, suffering, is the best choice?

[Sage Rat]

A personally theory, but I suspect that the history of anti-euthanasia sentiment is due to legal considerations more than ethical.

If someone is "put down" by their doctor or a family member, how do you prove that this was euthanasia, not murder? Even if you videotape the person explicitly stating that they want this and they sign a document to that effect, how are you to know that it wasn't coerced or due to someone "preying on a sick and feeble mind who talked him into it"?

There's also issues of inheritance. If someone had lived a little bit longer, would he have changed his will?

Western culture inherits a lot of legal/moral framework from ancient Judaism. One of the core tenets for rabbinical law at that time - in my opinion - was, "Keep it simple". It's easier to simply avoid this sort of confusion than to have thousands of court cases to decide exactly what happened and who gets what. For several things - adultery, homosexuality, polygamy, etc. - we have thousands of years worth of morality built on this basis and that's a lot of inertia to go back and redo, based on a different set of underlying logic.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Gary T

What case can be made that keeping them alive, suffering, is the best choice?

The case could be made that suffering animals, like humans, may still get enough enjoyment out of their lives to compensate for their suffering in at least some instances. I don't pretend to know where the line is, but that's the case to be made.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

I don't think that premise is correct. There are many who do consider it humane to euthanize humans who have an almost non-existent chance at recovery and have a deteriorating quality of life. The difference between euthanizing a human and an animal is a legal one and not necessarily an ethical one.

My contention was in regard to the actual euthanizations of humans. I'd say, relative to the number of people critically injured or ill, the incidence of human euthanasia or medically assisted in suicide is exceedingly rare.

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

The case could be made that suffering animals, like humans, may still get enough enjoyment out of their lives to compensate for their suffering in at least some instances. I don't pretend to know where the line is, but that's the case to be made.

Okay, I got that from your OP, and I guess I was too subtle. I'm asking you to make the case. What evidence, insight, or argument can you present to advance this viewpoint?

What I'm getting at is that we have longstanding knowledge and understanding that leads almost everyone to agree that killing a suffering animal is the best option. While it's true that we don't know with absolute certainty what the animal might be thinking, we (humans in general) haven't seen anything to persuade us otherwise. What would you offer besides the speculation/question you mentioned to convince folks that keeping them alive is the best option?

[computergeek]

There are a lot of pet owners who would want to keep their pet alive for as long as possible. There are others, like me, who don't want to see an animal suffer and will likely put the animal down sooner rather than later. And in my view, it doesn't matter whether it's "best" or not because animals don't have a soul like humans do and they're not humans so there's no ethical concern for me in putting an animal to sleep "too soon" if they're sick. To me, it is more humane to not let them suffer for any length of time.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by computergeek

And in my view, it doesn't matter whether it's "best" or not because animals don't have a soul like humans do and they're not humans so there's no ethical concern for me in putting an animal to sleep "too soon" if they're sick. To me, it is more humane to not let them suffer for any length of time.

This. If I fuck up with Aunt Gladys, then I murdered her. If I did the same for Snuffy the cat, then...I just fucked up. Either way my intentions were good, but with a human, I deprived a person of part of his/her life. With a pet, it was a chattel anyways, and I did my best and did it humanely.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

My contention was in regard to the actual euthanizations of humans. I'd say, relative to the number of people critically injured or ill, the incidence of human euthanasia or medically assisted in suicide is exceedingly rare.

True but again, not for humane or ethics reasons but rather for legal reasons.

[Shosy]

Originally Posted by Lasciel

T for some animals, we don't even have very effective pain-killers developed for them.

Do we even know they work? I'm just thinking about the various natural chemicals which do nothing to humans but are lethal to dogs. How would we know they really work in the way we think they do? Most pet type animals seem to like to please their owners. My dog always forgot about his arthritis and jumped all over me if I hadn't seen him in a bit.

Disclaimer...I LOVE horse steaks (and my mom always teased my dog how the light haired ones had the sweetest meat).

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

This is the problem. We still cling to the antiquated idea that somehow a suffering human's life has more meaning and value than a suffering dog's life. The dog can't make the decision, but the human can. We should allow euthanasia of humans if the person has a valid living will or directive to physicians that states this is what they want.

+1

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Gary T

Okay, I got that from your OP, and I guess I was too subtle. I'm asking you to make the case. What evidence, insight, or argument can you present to advance this viewpoint?

What I'm getting at is that we have longstanding knowledge and understanding that leads almost everyone to agree that killing a suffering animal is the best option. While it's true that we don't know with absolute certainty what the animal might be thinking, we (humans in general) haven't seen anything to persuade us otherwise. What would you offer besides the speculation/question you mentioned to convince folks that keeping them alive is the best option?

One possible argument would be this: No matter how injured or ill, many animals will struggle for life. I realize this has as much to do with survival instinct as anything and few, if any, animals have the capacity to understand that succumbing to a threat equals cessation of pain. But some animals, particularly dogs, seem to exhibit a relatively broad display of emotion. Could this translate into some ability to recognize the effect their illness has on their happiness? It's possible. There are many stories of sick or wounded animals who will leave their group to wander off and die, resigning themselves, on some level, that it's best to pass on. To what degree actual awareness plays in this, if at all, I couldn't guess.

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

One possible argument would be this: No matter how injured or ill, many animals will struggle for life. I realize this has as much to do with survival instinct as anything and few, if any, animals have the capacity to understand that succumbing to a threat equals cessation of pain. But some animals, particularly dogs, seem to exhibit a relatively broad display of emotion. Could this translate into some ability to recognize the effect their illness has on their happiness? It's possible. There are many stories of sick or wounded animals who will leave their group to wander off and die, resigning themselves, on some level, that it's best to pass on. To what degree actual awareness plays in this, if at all, I couldn't guess.

I would dispute the idea that animals cannot sense death. My brother's dog died of heart failure. The night she died, I had wrapped her in blanket, and tried to keep her warm-she moved away, and went out to the back yard-when I tried to bring her back in, she resisted me.
I'm convinced she knew her time was up.

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

True but again, not for humane or ethics reasons but rather for legal reasons.

That depends on who you ask. There is no shortage of people who have a moral or ethical opposition to suicide, no matter the law or circumstances. I'm from Oregon, the state that pioneered physician-assisted suicide and the opposition, while the minority in the state, was very vocal and impassioned.

[jenderella]

When I made the choice to euthanize my last cat, I did it based on what I thought was best for her, of course. The deciding factors, though, made me feel as if she could not have known much before the final car ride.

My kitty had become senile - crying and howling in the night in the living room and unable to find her way to us in the bedroom. (No stairs, eco-friendly small home - really about 12 feet at most)

She could recognize our voices but could not figure out where we were and did not stop mewling until we physcially came to get her.

I truly feel that to keep her alive at that point would have been the height of human selfishness. While she clearly had relief and perhaps some joy at seeing us come (do cats ever have joy?) we knew that she was unable to access parts of her brain that had worked previously and was disturbed by her current situation.

I think that in cases like ours, it is possible to feel strongly that the pet should be put out of that kind of misery.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shosy

Do we even know they work?

Pain and other forms of stress have a lot of physiological indicators. If a drug causes those indicators to go down and the animal acts like it's in less pain, it seems a likely hypothesis that they really are in less pain.

[gunnergoz]

Do they feel pain at being euthanized? I don't know about every case, but I just yesterday had to put down a little female cat my family and I were very fond of, who had extreme difficulty breathing from probable cancer - I say probable, because the veterinarian said she probably would expire if stressed enough to be restrained for the x-ray. So we did without the x-ray, and went ahead with the euthanasia. I held her as the first injection of painkiller went in. I could clearly feel her racing pulse in her neck. After half the hypodermic went in, her head dropped like a stone to the towel below it. Her heart beat slowed somewhat. Then the second and third injections began to still her heart. As it was, her heart stopped beating (I could sense in the pulse in her neck) before half the first injection went in. She was already basically unconscious, in a deep and totally relaxed state when this happened.

Considering the clear suffering she was in, with gravely restricted breathing and audible little mewlings of pain or discomfort at times, putting her out of her misery was a kindness.

Our financial condition precluded any sort of treatment options. I could barely afford what we had to do as it was. (The preceding month I'd spent nearly $1,000 for treatment of one of her adult kittens, wiping out our family reserves.) So given the lack of options and given her state of suffering, I have a sense that the best that could be done for her, was done.

I try to live a life such than, when I go, I will have no major regrets for acts of my own choosing. This act will not be one I regret, though this little cat will be dearly missed until then.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Yllaria

I've heard that in hospice situations, it is legal to supply pain killers at doses that will suppress respiration. There is a risk of hastening or precipitating the end, but as long as the purpose of the dose is to relieve pain that can't be relieved any other way, it's legal. That's not putting someone down, but it's prioritizing relieving suffering over extending life.

In wartime, there is also the concept of the coup de grace. During the 19th century and earlier, if a soldier was not expected to live, some would administer the coup de grace for humanitarian reasons. Admittedly, I originally learned of this in a piece of Civil War fiction.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

All true. But we would rarely put a sick human down if he/she couldn't communicate that wish... and only in the case of vegetative brain death. If they showed any sign of cognitive life, we wouldn't consider euthanizing them.

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? Plenty of us would be happy to assist those who want to die, for many reasons other than persistent vegetative state, if we wouldn't go to jail for it.

Originally Posted by Yllaria

I've heard that in hospice situations, it is legal to supply pain killers at doses that will suppress respiration. There is a risk of hastening or precipitating the end, but as long as the purpose of the dose is to relieve pain that can't be relieved any other way, it's legal. That's not putting someone down, but it's prioritizing relieving suffering over extending life.

Not in most states in the US, it's not. But I have known hospice/palliative care doctors to look the caregiver straight in the eye and say something like, "This is his morphine. His dose is Xmg every 4 hours as needed for the pain. You want to be careful with that, because Ymg will make him stop breathing and he'll die." They're treading a real fine line there, but I thank them for it.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Yes, how do we know? It is a hard decision and it's hard to know we're right.

The conclusion is, we don't know for sure. We do our best, and hope.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

The case could be made that suffering animals, like humans, may still get enough enjoyment out of their lives to compensate for their suffering in at least some instances. I don't pretend to know where the line is, but that's the case to be made.

And I think that's why we leave it up to individual pet owners, who know their pet and see their pet the most and are the best people to make that judgement based on what they know of their pet. We don't tell people based on some dispassionate rubric when it's time, we let them decide based on what they know of their pet (and what they're emotionally, financially and physically able to provide in terms of ongoing care). What may be unendurable pain and boredom to a boarder collie happiest while herding sheep might just be taking it easy for a pug snoozing on a sofa.

If only we were so humane to humans...

[Victor Charlie]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Who's this "we"? Got a mouse in your pocket? Plenty of us would be happy to assist those who want to die, for many reasons other than persistent vegetative state, if we wouldn't go to jail for it.

I said would not should. Whether for legal or moral reasons, we would very rarely assist in the suicide or "pull the plug" on a person no matter the degree of pain or suffering. I can see how the sentence could be viewed in the hypothetical, but I'm talking, in this case, about actual practice. I should've dropped the "would."

[ralph124c]

Regarding human euthanasia: any medical doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath cannot participate-doesn't the oath say something like "I will give no deadly drug.."-isn't that a stumbling point?

[Sister Vigilante]

Lots of things can be deadly. Tylenol can be in sufficient amounts. Digitalis is great for heart patients but not for people without heart problems.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Regarding human euthanasia: any medical doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath cannot participate-doesn't the oath say something like "I will give no deadly drug.."-isn't that a stumbling point?

It's a symbolic oath, not a literal or legally binding one. Otherwise, no doctor could give chemo for cancer.

[Napier]

I think we don't know and are compelled to use our best judgement. I also believe we can't euthanize humans because of religions influencing our civil laws, and for no other reason.

My doctor tells me there is a wide range in what patients tell him about end of life choices -- when they are basically well. "I don't want to be lying there with tubes coming out of me" et cetera. But, he says, when death is imminent, nearly all of them beg him to do anything he can to keep them alive. Anything at all.

And yet I still think euthanasia should be easily available. The great majority of people do not want to buy a pomegranate today, either, but that's no reason to make them illegal!

[drewtwo99]

I think that euthanizing animals is all about relieving the suffering of the pet owner, and not the pet. Sure, people may think they are doing it to help their pets not have to suffer, but they only think that because the suffering of the pet causes them to suffer as well. If a pet suffering did not hurt the feelings of the pet owner, they wouldn't have them euthanized.

[SnakesCatLady]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

I think that euthanizing animals is all about relieving the suffering of the pet owner, and not the pet. Sure, people may think they are doing it to help their pets not have to suffer, but they only think that because the suffering of the pet causes them to suffer as well. If a pet suffering did not hurt the feelings of the pet owner, they wouldn't have them euthanized.

I totally disagree with this. When I have had to put a pet to sleep, it breaks my heart. I MISS my furbaby! It's a hard decision to make, and I have never done it without sleepless nights and tears.

Why would anyone let an animal live with constant pain and suffering? My only regret about putting an animal to sleep was that one time I waited too long and made her suffer too much because I was selfish and didn't want to let her go.

Euthanasia is a gift I wish I could have given my mother.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by SnakesCatLady

I totally disagree with this. When I have had to put a pet to sleep, it breaks my heart. I MISS my furbaby! It's a hard decision to make, and I have never done it without sleepless nights and tears.

I gotta agree here. I sure don't see Drewt's logic here. Yeah, there are probably some that euthanize their pet because the old thing's a pain in the ass. Or the fact that owner's knowledge that the pet is suffering is REALLY what's bothering the pet owner and not fact that its the PET that is suffering is what's bothering the owner. If you get the difference.

I mean, you could apply Drewt's logic to pretty much any hard moral decision. Folks can be for or against something not so much as whether it is the right thing to do and more "I'm for/against X because X bothers me on some basic level ".

[computergeek]

I disagree with Drew as well. In fact, I think the opposite is more true, in that a lot of pet owners put off putting their pets to sleep because they aren't ready to let go yet.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

I think that euthanizing animals is all about relieving the suffering of the pet owner, and not the pet. Sure, people may think they are doing it to help their pets not have to suffer, but they only think that because the suffering of the pet causes them to suffer as well. If a pet suffering did not hurt the feelings of the pet owner, they wouldn't have them euthanized.

I think this is only true in the sense that you can torture any action into being a selfish one if you are so philosophically inclined. It's the same reasoning that claims people only volunteer at soup kitchens for the warm fuzzies and run into burning buildings to save babies because they'd be eaten up with guilt if they didn't. It's too cynical even for me.

[Napier]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

I think that euthanizing animals is all about relieving the suffering of the pet owner, and not the pet. Sure, people may think they are doing it to help their pets not have to suffer, but they only think that because the suffering of the pet causes them to suffer as well. If a pet suffering did not hurt the feelings of the pet owner, they wouldn't have them euthanized.

What is behind your bizarre thought? Have you never seen anybody want to avoid suffering in which they have no direct share? Please say more. How did you get to this thought?

[saje]

Dragging this back up because I'm wrestling with this decision, again.

drewtwo99, I can assure you that relieving MY suffering is not the focus of my decision to euthanize. I have multiple animals in my house and life, always have. I've lost many a furry friend to age and disease over the years, almost all of them have left this world with me and a veterinarian beside them, and I can tell you it shreds my heart every single damned time. Losing my friends leaves a giant hole in my life, and it hurts.

I will admit that it is a relief not to have to worry about them any more, and I mean that in the sense of making sure that I am reading their comfort level correctly, monitoring what goes in and out, wondering every day when I go home and every morning when I wake up what I'm going to find. FWIW, I felt this way when my dad died too, I knew he was safe and out of pain. I only wish I'd had euthanasia available to me for him, to end his pain when there was no hope left. But it doesn't make their loss any easier, I can still get weepy thinking about them, and I miss them all.

Right now I have a 33 yo horse and a 10 yo German Shepherd who will be next to break my heart. The horse has few teeth left, is pretty well blind in one eye, is arthritic as all get-out, and has a bladder stone the size of a softball that makes him incontinent. He's still eating (an unbelievable amount of $enior feed) still seems cheery enough, but he's losing weight and I know his feet hurt. I think he's going to his well earned rest this coming Friday. My dilemma is the GSD. He has spinal arthritis, and is losing control of his hind end. He can get himself up with great effort, But he gets his back feet tangled and if he moves too fast he falls. He has to wear booties because he drags his hind feet. He too eats and seems happy enough so long as he can follow me around, though he hurts despite his meds. It's the follow me around part that's so hard. He lives to be with his people, my husband and I. And its very rapidly getting to the point that he can't, and he gets depressed when he's left behind. I have to talk to my husband (who's a physician, so his thoughts on euthanasia are convoluted) but I'm thinking of asking my horse vet to send Jack to his reward too, along with Archie.

It's tearing my heart out trying to do the right thing. I will miss them terribly when they're gone, and I'm an advocate of better too soon than too late, but... I'm signing their death warrant and I feel like a traitor.

Dammit, this sucks.

[Colibri]

Let's move this over to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by saje

Right now I have a 33 yo horse and a 10 yo German Shepherd who will be next to break my heart. The horse has few teeth left, is pretty well blind in one eye, is arthritic as all get-out, and has a bladder stone the size of a softball that makes him incontinent. He's still eating (an unbelievable amount of $enior feed) still seems cheery enough, but he's losing weight and I know his feet hurt. I think he's going to his well earned rest this coming Friday. My dilemma is the GSD. He has spinal arthritis, and is losing control of his hind end. He can get himself up with great effort, But he gets his back feet tangled and if he moves too fast he falls. He has to wear booties because he drags his hind feet. He too eats and seems happy enough so long as he can follow me around, though he hurts despite his meds. It's the follow me around part that's so hard. He lives to be with his people, my husband and I. And its very rapidly getting to the point that he can't, and he gets depressed when he's left behind. I have to talk to my husband (who's a physician, so his thoughts on euthanasia are convoluted) but I'm thinking of asking my horse vet to send Jack to his reward too, along with Archie.

This last year, I watched a family hold onto a GSD long after he was able to rise and walk safely. From my perspective, it was horrible watching that family hold onto that dog for way too long. Yes, he was a friendly sort and had his moments of happiness, but he was always just a 'wrong-step' away from injuring himself and having to be put down in horrible pain. I actually have not been back to their house since because I find what they did to be terribly selfish.

I've dealt with horses and always gauged them by how well I thought they'd do in the up coming winter months. I've put down 'healthy' horses because I knew that in the up coming winter they would suffer terribly from their illnesses. I had a filly that had a condition that worsened as her size grew. She was 'healthy' when put down and I had to explain to the vet (new out of school) that the choice was to allow her to break a leg while running across the pasture (a near certainty because of her condition, she lost control of her legs and would go flying end-for-end at a full gallop) or put her down now, before she was injured.

Another senior I put down was weak in the hind end. He could manage in the summer, but had gotten much worse that year. So, my choice was to risk that he'd lay down in pasture in a storm and become stuck there at a time that I wouldn't find him or couldn't get equipment out into the field to help him stand or to put him down as a preventative measure.

It isn't that I didn't care about these animals, even writing about them now makes me tear up, it is that it was my responsibility to keep their best interest at heart. In my opinion, making an animal hit the bottom of pain and suffering before you let them go is not keeping their best interest at heart.

ETA: It sucks having to make such decisions and I wouldn't want to be in your situation. I was just posting my experience and my thought processes, not trying to tell you what to do with your animals. I wish you the best of luck no matter what you choose to do.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I f these same animals were in nature they would not have lived near as long. Only the owner can guage when the proper time is. A large outside dog would have a different criteria than a small house do for instance. I won't spend a lot of money on a dog with a chronic illness. I love my animals but have my own guidelines.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by SnakesCatLady

Why would anyone let an animal live with constant pain and suffering? My only regret about putting an animal to sleep was that one time I waited too long and made her suffer too much because I was selfish and didn't want to let her go.

This. Further to the points made so movingly by saje and Enkel, I've known three elderly horses whose owners just couldn't bear to let go of them and who kept them alive long after they'd become gaunt, shuffling, dead-eyed shells of their once vibrant selves. It was grievous and horrible to see, and in each case the owner refused to acknowledge his/her animal's obvious suffering because the horse's death would (and eventually, inescapably did) devastate them.

I've only had to put down one horse (so far; the two I have now are 20 and 22 years old, and the elder has founder issues, so...); seven years later, I still believe it was the right choice, made at the right time; and I still grieve.

[StGermain]

saje - I have an English setter with spinal arthritis right now. He's slower getting up and down, and will lose his balance in the back end if he's bumped hard by one of the bigger, rammier young dogs. At this point he's still happy to have the premier place in the dog bed next to my computer. He was adopted from the pound where they picked him up nearly starved to death and covered in ticks. He's been happy to be a house dog since I adopted him, so not playing outside is no big deal to him, and he still gets up and comes outside with me when I feed the horses. Still, that decision is in my relatively near future.

One of my dogs is going in in two weeks for hip dysplasia surgery. He'll be in pain, and for a 3 year old GSD not to be able to run will be torture. But I know that by doing the surgery now, while he's still young, not in too much pain and little arthritic changes will help him have many good years to come. And he might not be happy immediately post-surgically, but he'll get over it. It's worth it to me to put him through some discomfort now to extend his happy healthy life later.

To me, that's what it comes down to - my animals may not have a concept of the future, but they are entrusted to me to make the decisions for them. If they have a future, I'm going to do what it takes to make sure they get it.

StG