Obviously not.
Some of the crackpots who oppose euthanasia (and declawing and any treatment of a pet that implies it is not more important than world peace) might go nuts, but the original thread would not have been titled as it was.
Nor would an attention whore/troll like lissener have started it in the first place. But he did, and here we are.
Happy New Year.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, for the very reasons you stated, a clever troll would have told the story that way. It allows for a less one-sided controversy and would pit posters against each other rather than the unified hate we have here.
Enjoy my humble regards,
CarnalK
I admit that I’m uncomfortable with that solution since I’m not sure if it would be as painless as being put down at a shelter. But no, I don’t think I would have made this pitting in that case.
Poisoning the cat would seem a bit…sociopathic, too. I mean rationally I guess it makes sense. But if one of your friends or acquaintances had a cat and was all, “Yeah, it wasn’t working out so I killed it,” what would your reaction be?
First, I’d tell them how useful euphemisms can be. 
But really, dropping an older cat that destroys things and pisses in all sorts of imaginative place to a shelter is almost as an assured death sentence as tossing it out in the snow. As I believe was mentioned by a Doper vet (vetbridge ?), some people take healthy animals to be put down directly, for much less cause. While we are mostly conditioned to think letting some professional do the dirty work is less sociopathic, I’m not sure I can put my finger on a strong moral distinction.
The distinction is that an injection of strong drugs is pretty much painless and over very quick while exposing an animal to the elements in order to cause its death pretty much guarantees pain, hardship, suffering and/or terror.
It’s a bit like saying that if people are going to die anyways, what the difference between dying in your sleep after having awesome sex that makes your heart give out, and being eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs.
I guess…I don’t know. I’d feel a bit frightened. But then again, I’d also be curious about HOW they put the cat down. Poison would equal inhumane, and why would they have some kind of lethal injection?
What’s like saying that?
I’m pretty sure the lethal overdose done by a vet is pretty akin to poisoning. I did say “painlessly poison”; an overdose of drugs, similar to what the vet does or carbon monoxide poisoning would be likely candidates.
That you can’t put your finger on the moral distinction between a trained professional humanely putting down an animal and poisoning it yourself.
How would you know what the lethal level is, though, as a layperson?
But you were talking about leaving an animal to die in the elements which is not what you are comparing now.
Seeing as how that’s not what he said, I fail to see the relevance.
Poisoning an animal and hoping you got the dose/effect right is not a humane way to put down an animal.
Maybe you wouldn’t but it’s not necessarily rocket science to figure out.
I wasn’t asking what the relevance was.
Perhaps not, but I am. What is your point exactly?
As a layperson, I’d assume that anything equal to or over the lethal level would still work, so there’d be room for a substantial safety margin.
If you are talking about ingestion, that’s not necessarily true, for humans at least. You can take enough of some poisons that you may become nauseous and vomit it up before your body absorbs a lethal dose.
Just because you give an animal a lethal dose doesn’t mean it’ll die painlessly or easily.
Anybody that has poisoned a rat will tell you its anything but.
I wouldn’t admit to poisoning a rat around here, then. At least a lissner’s cat had a chance of surviving.