# Why is pet euthanasia okay but people euthanasia not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958 "2011-01-17T16:51:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/41 "2011-01-18T17:24:29Z")
I think most physicians interpret it that way, yes. ETA: My mother practiced in the UK, where doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath, but there’s a similar provision in the Medical Council’s oath-thing. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/42 "2011-01-18T17:43:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What part of their oath prohibits euthanasia? > > The best I can think of is the “do no harm” bit (or however it is phrased) but that is certainly open to interpretation. Is a doctor that keeps a person alive, but in excruciating pain without any hope of cure, causing less harm than helping that person achieve a better end to their life? The part in the original oath would be “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” though few doctors take that oath nowadays. Many people on this thread are obfuscating, intentionally or not, the differences between euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and withholding futile care. Doctors are not obligated to keep people alive in excruciating pain without any hope of cure, and in fact most would see that as unethical. They regularly withhold futile treatment, and provide terminally ill patients with sufficient opiates to alleviate their pain even if it might hasten the patients’ death, although studies show that opiates don’t cause as much respiratory depression in terminally ill patients as we used to think. When terminally ill patients with zero quality of life are being kept alive by extreme measures, this is often due to the family’s insistence. If the family (or power of attorney) consents, there is no legal reason to provide futile care. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/43 "2011-01-18T17:59:46Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > When terminally ill patients with zero quality of life are being kept alive by extreme measures, this is often due to the family’s insistence. If the family (or power of attorney) consents, there is no legal reason to provide futile care. I realize that futile care is not given in most cases. I also saw an uncle die of cancer who, despite being doped to the gills with pain medication was still in considerable pain. His wife pleaded with the doctors to provide more medication and they told her they could not give any more without killing him. (I was in the hospital witnessing all this) Mind you, when I say “deathbed” here I mean it. Short of divine intervention it was abundantly obvious to everyone, doctors included, this was the end for him. It was just going to be a matter of hours (from a couple of hours to a day or so). Note that due to his level of pain and level of pain killers the man was largely unconscious and when conscious he was delirious. At the very end there he lasted about 12 hours in massive pain that, frankly, was entirely unnecessary except doctors are prohibited from helping him along. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/44 "2011-01-18T18:03:13Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > Many people on this thread are obfuscating, intentionally or not, the differences between euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and withholding futile care. I think those differences are simply not so clear as we would wish. I’ve heard (unresolved, to the participants) debates about _exactly how much assistance_ a physician can provide before the act becomes euthanasia. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/45 "2011-01-18T18:48:15Z")
> [@SeaDragonTattoo](#): > > Suicide is self-murder, and you will damn yourself to Hell if you do it for any reason. Euthanasia is murder, and whoever performs euthanasia on people will be damned to Hell if they to it for any reason. Animals don’t count. We eat them. > > That’s the Catholic perspective I grew up with, in a nutshell. IANAC, but isn’t the sin of murder potentially redeemable? Maybe I’m wrong, but ISTR there aren’t many irreversibly mortal sins, except for suicide (which is only a problem since you’re no longer around to receive atonement.) And speaking of mortal sins… > [@kanicbird](#): > > Regardless of what cats may think, we are ‘gods’ for our pets. Umm, **kanicbird** – I think that’s a violation of Exodus 20:1. To be safe, you should probably sacrifice a live rooster. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/46 "2011-01-18T19:04:09Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > Many people on this thread are obfuscating, intentionally or not, the differences between euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and withholding futile care. Indeed, and I think this important so we all know what we’re talking about. To me, when we talk about euthanasia of pets and then see if we want to do that to people, we are saying that we are making the decision FOR the patient, WITHOUT the patient’s consent. That’s VERY different from physician assisted suicide, which is obviously done WITH the patient’s consent. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/47 "2011-01-18T19:10:13Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > IANAC, but isn’t the sin of murder potentially redeemable? Maybe I’m wrong, but ISTR there aren’t many irreversibly mortal sins, except for suicide (which is only a problem since you’re no longer around to receive atonement.) We’ve done some threads on this around here in the past and, IIRC, the Catholic church no longer views suicide as an unforgivable sin. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/48 "2011-01-18T19:20:36Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > It’s because the animal shelter is an ethical organization that practices _adoption_. Petland is an alternative for people who just want to _buy_ a dog. Maybe I’ll start a pit thread. I think its stupid to pretend that I can’t buy a dog if you make adopting one that fucking difficult. It almost seems like they’'d rather euthanize a dog than take a chance on a family that wants to adopt an older dog. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958/49 "2011-01-18T19:41:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Maybe I’ll start a pit thread. I think its stupid to pretend that I can’t buy a dog if you make adopting one that fucking difficult. It almost seems like they’'d rather euthanize a dog than take a chance on a family that wants to adopt an older dog. You probably should start a new thread rather than hijack this one. The short answer is the adoption agency cares about the welfare of the animal and want to try their best to ensure the animal gets a good home. Having people just plop $200 and walk out with the dog does not work well in the end. Older dogs are all different where some do well with a family (read young children are present), some do well with other pets and others don’t. In the end it is a good policy for both the dog and the would-be owner. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-pet-euthanasia-okay-but-people-euthanasia-not/567958.md?page=2)