In The Animal’s Interests: Euthanasia
Print This Post
While reading up on TNR (trap, neuter, return) for feral cats, I came across this excellent description of euthanasia:
“The Difference between Euthanasia and Killing”
“Millions of cats die in U.S. animal control pounds and shelters every year. The pounds and shelters say these animals are ‘euthanized.’ But they’re not—they are killed. An animal is only euthanized when she is terminally ill or untreatably injured.”
“‘Euthanasia n. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.’ The American Heritage Dictionary”
“Genuine euthanasia is a medical decision and is always done in an individual animal’s best interest. It can be an important part of end-of-life care. But most animals who die in pounds and shelters are killed for very different reasons. Facilities kill animals to make room for new ones, to manage disease, or to compensate for inadequate staff or funding. Decisions to kill reflect the operating interests of facilities, not the best interests of animals.”
“Using the word ‘euthanasia’ masks what really happens to cats in pounds and shelters—they are killed.”
(I’ve bolded the parts I think are most important.)
Euthanasia is mercy killing. It is ending an animal’s life because that life is too painful to continue. It is NOT ending a life because it’s in someone’s best financial interests. It it NOT ending a life because that’s what’s always been done. It is NOT ending a life because someone is worried the animal might bite someone or transmit disease. It is NOT ending a life in the hopes that others may live. Those things are KILLING. Those things are NOT euthanasia. Those things are NOT vegan.
I had a recent experience that taught me why the no kill revolution is so important. I found a stray dog. (You can read my story here.) Who knows why she became stray, but one of the reasons she remained a stray (and thus malnourished, injured, and fertile) was a fear of our local animal shelters. She had been cared for by a construction crew. Though they neglected to care for her properly (they didn’t feed her everyday, only on the days when it was convenient for them) they did like her and give her some attention. And one of the reasons they said they didn’t do more for her was they were worried that Animal Control would seize her and put her down. Even my own vegan husband didn’t want to involve the local Animal Control authorities because he was worried they would take her away and kill her.
There is such a social fear of Animal Control that many people are justifiably fearful of “the pound.” And this fear extends to adoption, too. One of the reasons people say they don’t want to get a dog from an animal shelter is that visiting the shelter is “too sad.” People say they’d rather buy puppy-mill dogs from pet stores than adopt from a local animal shelter because they don’t want to see the dogs who might end up dead. They’d rather not see their faces, hear their barks, or watch their tails wag. It makes them feel too guilty.
We can’t fear animal shelters. In order to develop a more compassionate society with justice and respect for all, we MUST create true shelters, places where animals are sheltered from harm, not places where animals are killed. No matter what the excuse, killing animals who aren’t terminally ill or injured is immoral.
The ‘no kill revolution‘ is part of the vegan revolution. IF we interfere with animal’s lives, we do so for THEM, not for us. We can help them. But we cannot in good faith or good conscience kill healthy (asymptomatic) animals and call it mercy. We MUST adopt no kill policies in our animal shelters.
These euphemisms we employ are clever disguises.
~ Recent blog post: President-Elect Obama on factory farming ~
Wasn’t there something about PETA “euthanizing” animals, or that they were in favor of it or something?
This has the potential to be a very devisive issue for obvious reason. I don’t think that it is fair to make such swinging accusations and assumptions about the euthanasia vs no kill debate. There are good no kill shelters that have the means to care for or adopt animals into loving homes. There are also bad no kill shelters that serve more as warehouses for neglected animals who are subjected to a fate worse than death. In many situations, it may actually be the more humane thing to painlessly end an animals life than to allow him or her to suffer in a tiny cage for years. Then, there are so called “no kill” shelters that should more accurately be called “leave the killing to someone else” shelters because when they fill up (which happens very fast) they turn animals away. These animals end up at shelters that won’t turn needy animals away and the people at these shelters are forced to do the dirty work of killing the animals while the so called no kill shelter workers get to feel good about themselves because their hands are clean.
There is also the risk of horders at these no kill shelters. Horders are people who take on more animals than they can actually provide adequate care for. While the people get to say they don’t kill animals, the animals who lack veterinary care, adequate food, water, shelter and companionship are the ones who pay the price.
While some shelters may euthanize animals as a first resort, and certainly the entire country could do more to make this a no birth nation, there are a lot of really compassionate people working in shelters that have no alternative but to provide painless deaths for unwanted animals. The only alternatives these hard working and caring people have are to allow these animals to suffer fates worse than death: life in a a tiny cage, starvation in the streets, death from exposure, etc.
It’s a complicated issue and I think to simply label those who are forced to the dirty work of euthanizing healthy animals as immoral is too narrow. Nobody likes euthanizing dogs, cats and other animals. In almost every case, the people doing this work are not trying to save money, they are simply doing the best they can for the animals who have no better options.
Instead of dividing people on this issue, we should be uniting against the root cause of the dog and cat overpopulation crisis. We can’t afford to waste time with infighting while breeders and puppy mills continue to exacerbate the problem. Once we have done away with the breeders and the puppy mills (the source of the problem) then we can start discussing what to do with the unfortunate animals without homes. In the meantime, we should start by assuming that everybody, on both sides of the euthanasia vs no kill debate, is honestly trying to do what they think is in the best interests of the animals. In the meantime, we should spend all of our energy going after the people who obviously don’t give a hoot about the animals’ best interests – the breeders.
Matt,
“a fate worse than death” is a human excuse for killing. Sorry to be “divisive,” but I’ll bet you that the majority of both humans and nonhumans would prefer to be “warehoused” to being put to death.
I agree that warehousing animals isn’t the right thing to do, but neither is killing healthy animals.
While I agree with you that breeders and puppy mills are a problem, so are kill shelters. We can’t develop public compassion towards animals when we’re killing them. It just doesn’t work.
Killing animals is divisive, not blogging about no kill shelters.
veganprimate,
Yes, PETA has promoted killing animals in the past. This is one area where I strongly disagree with them (though I continue to support the organization as a whole because they do plenty of good work, too.)
They take a utilitarian approach to animal ethics: they want to reduce suffering for as many animals as possible. The problem is that in their decisions about how to allocate funds and other resources, they wind up trying to predict the future, game play, and kill animals.
Real life and real ethics demand more consistency and less paternalistic euthanasia excuses. Killing is killing is killing.
I wrote about the PETA response to Vick’s dogs here: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/theres-more-than-one-way-to-save-a-life/ (I even used the same picture.)
Matt, PS – You said “It’s a complicated issue and I think to simply label those who are forced to the dirty work of euthanizing healthy animals as immoral is too narrow.”
I know this is hair-splitting, but I labeled the activity immoral, not the people.
Moreover, no one is perfect. We are all immoral sometimes. And our need for a paycheck to feed our families makes some of us do things that are questionable. I understand and have compassion for people who kill animals – be they in slaughterhouses or in “shelters.” But we all also have choices. We can change at any time. So if you don’t have to kill animals, DON’T!
I completely understand where you are coming from. But I think you are missing my point. There are not any perfect answers to this issue and it is devisive to use broad strokes to characterize the entire issue or make it seem black and white.
Shelter workers aren’t euthanizing animals to collect a paycheck and feed their families. The people who are doing this work are dedicated, caring people who do it because they feel it is in the best interest of the animals.
“A fate worse than death” is a fair and accurate description of the conditions in which I have seen many animals. You mention that you think it is best to euthanize animals who are terminally ill and suffering. That’s a quality of life argument. In the same sense, animals who are forced to live the rest of their lives in a tiny cage without socialization and often without adequate food, water and vet care are in a living Hell. I can’t speak for everyone, but I would prefer to be put out of my misery than to face a fate like that.
Many people mischaracterize the efforts of PETA because, let’s face it, people love to hate PETA and few will stand up for them. But the fact is that PETA sends people into extremely low income areas in Virginia and North Carolina where dogs are treated more like lawn ornaments. They live their entire lives on a 3 foot chain, in all weather conditions. The animals are almost always extremely thin, dehydrated and terrified of everyone. PETA tries to educate the people and get them to bring their dogs inside and take care of them. Failing that, PETA does what it can to rescue these animals from the nightmare they are forced to endure. Now what options does PETA have? They could turn the animals over to a local “shelter” where they will be gassed with several other dogs in a metal box attached the exhaust pipe of a car. If they are lucky, they’ll be shot with a rifle. PETA could take them to shelters in Virginia that are already bursting at the seams with unwanted animals. What good would that do? It would just make less room for the animals who are being rescued from the streets in Virginia. PETA could spend all of it’s money creating new shelters to warehouse these animals. But at the rate of thousands of animals a month who need homes the organization would quickly become bankrupt and wouldn’t be able to care for any animals at all, or do vegan outreach, or work with companies to stop selling fur, or do anything else to save animals. They would have to spend all of their money in a futile effort to keep up with the endless supply of unwanted animals. Or, they can provide the animals with the only possible thing that can relieve their life of suffering: a painless death.
Now, I understand that is not a “good” end for these animals. It is not vegan. It is not ideal. It is not a way to make money. It is not a way to save money. It is the only reasonable way to deal with the fact that there are literally millions of healthy animals who are absolutely suffering a fate worse than death and only a very few people who are willing to do something about it. Until we stop the source of the problem or somehow make more people care enough to help out, there is not going to be a reasonable, no kill alternative in many situations.
The animals may not be terminally ill, but they are terminally suffering. Euthanasia is meant to alleviate this terminal suffering.
Matt, we’re simply going to disagree.
a) I do not think PETA should even bother with animal rescue. I think they should stick to media and education, they are better suited to those tasks.
b) Someone can believe that what they are doing is in the animals’ best interests, but that doesn’t make it so. Shelter workers may care about animals, but some are ignorant or misguided. They are not omniscient beings who know exactly how every animal feels and what every animal wants. They are human and they make mistakes, like all of us. But the responsibility for killing is mostly the fault of the shelters’ leadership, not the workers.
c) Who is to say suffering is terminal when it’s not from illness or injury? Are you God? Can you predict the future? Could you be wrong? Haven’t you been wrong before? What if you’re wrong now?
d) Every life matters. How can we possibly hope for a vegan or nearly vegan world if we can’t even stop killing the animals we care most about – the pets? We MUST be more consistent. We cannot confuse the message that animals’ lives matter and that we mustn’t take their lives if it’s possible to spare them.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I disagree with mischaracterizing the efforts of shelter workers who are forced to euthanize animals. You saying people shouldn’t kill animals if they don’t have to. I agree. But do shelter workers have a humane choice? I don’t think they do in many cases. It’s provide a painless death or sustain a life of suffering.
The disagreement comes from whether or not you think sustaining life is more important than preventing suffering. You don’t have to be God to know if an animal is suffering and it doesn’t take omniscience to know that there simply isn’t enough warehouse space, nor enough people, to provide even adequate care for the 4 million dogs and cats who are euthanized every year in this country. Until there are enough people willing to spend the time and money needed to care for these animals we can’t simply abondon them to a life of unmitigated suffering.
The issue seems to be one of allocation of resources. Assuming that there are 4 million dogs and cats euthanized each year, that the average dog or cat would live six years after entering the shelter, and that it costs about $150 to house a dog or cat (which seems like a very conservative estimate to me — to house them in humane conditions would probably require at least ten times as much), then the cost incurred by housing all of those dogs and cats is around $3 billion.
For a comparison, this is about equal to the American Red Cross budget and about 1/200th of the budget of the Department of Defense. The U.N. estimates that world hunger would cost $30 billion to end. Immunizations are also very cheap.
So would it be worth doing? Whatever your opinion of the value of a life spent suffering, I suspect there are much better things to do with 3 billion dollars than warehouse dogs. But if we actually committed ourselves to doing the right thing, part of that could be providing humane treatment to all shelter dogs.
Another question is what these dogs and cats would be eating. Would we be factory farming chickens to feed them?
I think that in a vegan utilitarian utopia there might be no place for shelters which euthanize. In the world we actually live in, there are enough other cheaper and more efficient causes to make it worthwhile to save money and euthanize the dogs and cats.
Matt & Derek, I’m reading Redemption by Nathan Winograd. That might explain some of my thinking. Have you read it? It addresses many of your concerns.
Lack of space is never a good reason to kill. You know, human homeless shelters turn people away when they don’t have room. Churches tend to help pick up the slack and provide some shelter and food for homeless people. It’s not a perfect solution and it doesn’t always work, but it’s a start. I’m thinking nonhuman homeless shelters could work in much the same way.
a) Reduce the need for the shelters by increasing free and lowcost spay and neutering
b) Reduce the need for shelters through TNR for feral cats
c) Encourage volunteers and fosters – in my experience, every single animal organization can improve in this area.
d) Do aggressive adoption events and promotion.
e) Get creative.
I’m not an expert, but I’ve worked as a volunteer in a few shelters and I have wide eyes and see what happens. I can tell you with a certainty that many shelter workers are simply mistaken. There is room, there is money, there is compassion. People get stuck in their ways and don’t think outside the box. If we don’t think it’s possible to create a no kill community, we’ll never even get close.
Stop defending the past and start looking towards the future.
Quote:
“Shelter workers aren’t euthanizing animals to collect a paycheck and feed their families.”
It isn’t “euthanasia,” as the term is defined. It is killing. There may be external motivations making the killing less indefensible than in other circumstances; however, killing it is. Our misuse of the term “euthanasia” is strategic. We recognize the wrongness in doing what we do, however, for various reasons elucidated above (not all valid of course), we do it nonetheless. However, pleasant euphemisms aside, we are killing the vast majority of these animals for our purposes (financial, for example).
I wrote something about this here:
http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/11/understanding-euthanasia.html
The human homelessness example was excellent Eccentric Vegan and not yet responded too.
Quote(s):
“I think that in a vegan utilitarian utopia there might be no place for shelters which euthanize. In the world we actually live in, there are enough other cheaper and more efficient causes to make it worthwhile to save money and euthanize the dogs and cats.”
“Until there are enough people willing to spend the time and money needed to care for these animals we can’t simply abandon them to a life of unmitigated suffering.”
One simple answer: be a responsible dog person and prevent breeding; outlaw breeding programs; trap, neuter, release programs. The problem is human arrogance, which can individually be overcome.
In the end, then, it isn’t in the animals interests. The killing occurs because human animals have various interests – most trivial -, the animal, then, is the unfortunate recipient of our misdeeds.
~ Recent blog post: A problem with "…potential" ~
Thank, Alex, I was going to link to your post, too. It’s a good one.
Derek said, “I think that in a vegan utilitarian utopia there might be no place for shelters which euthanize. In the world we actually live in, there are enough other cheaper and more efficient causes to make it worthwhile to save money and euthanize the dogs and cats.”
He’s right that utilitarianism (the idea that we ought to do that which allows to most pleasure and the least pain for everyone, sacrificing some individuals for the group, by any means) allows killing some animals. But a rights-based, every-life-matters kind of philosophy does not. I am not a utilitarian and I do not promote utilitarianism.
Moreover, humans are not the arbiters of pain and pleasure. Even if a utilitarianism utopia were a good thing (and I don’t think it would be) humans make mistakes, plain and simple. Humans will misjudge the suffering of animals. They will over and under estimate it depending on human interests, not animals’ interests.
If it were YOUR healthy cat or dog to be “euthannized”, you probably wouldn’t accept the excuse that there’s simply not enough money or room. You’d find an alternative solution. Most people would go above and beyond for a family member. When it’s YOUR friend in the car accident, you stop and help. When it’s a stranger you might just drive on by. When it’s YOUR brother or mother facing the death penalty, you might rethink your previous support of capital punishment.
We are NOT the dictators of the world with the right to end the lives and any and all. It’s not our right or even our responsibility to determine which animals should exist and which should not. Our responsibility is to limit our negative impact on the rest of the world and expand our positive impact. Our ethical duty to animals is either to leave them alone or to rescue, not to kill.
If we can spare a life, we should. That goes for the factory farmed pig and it goes for the stray dog in the shelter. Everyone – human or non – deserves a fighting chance.
Eccentric, I agree with this portion of what you said:
a) Reduce the need for the shelters by increasing free and lowcost spay and neutering
b) Reduce the need for shelters through TNR for feral cats
c) Encourage volunteers and fosters – in my experience, every single animal organization can improve in this area.
d) Do aggressive adoption events and promotion.
e) Get creative.
I think that is where our efforts should go, not into mischaracterizing the efforts of people who are trying to eliminate suffering in the only practical way possible at the moment.
If I could get away with it, I would euthanize (or painlessly kill, depending on your semantic point of view) all of the factory farmed animals on the planet. And I would hope they would do the same for me and mine if the situation were reversed.
I’ve worked at animal shelters (still do), I’ve been to factory farms, stockyards and slaughterhouses. I do not think these animals have a fighting chance at life or an end to their suffering. I think it is up to us to end their suffering in the most effective and immediate ways possible. In the future, I hope we have the resources to care for all of the unwanted dogs, cats and other animals in the world. in the present, I think we should do the right thing by animals who are suffering and have no hope of ever having a life that doesn’t involve constant, immeasurable suffering. In many cases, the right thing in my mind is to provide them with what I would want if I were in their shoes – a painless death.
I’ve read Nathan’s articles. I don’t find them compelling and his use of divisive, mischaracterizations of other animal rights organizations is off-putting to say the least.
Oh, but I agree that some shelters kill because it is more convenient or because it is part of the way they have always done things. I don’t agree with that policy. I think providing a painless death for an animal should always be a last resort.
Quote:
“If I could get away with it, I would euthanize (or painlessly kill, depending on your semantic point of view) all of the factory farmed animals on the planet. And I would hope they would do the same for me and mine if the situation were reversed.”
It isn’t “semantics,” it is a purposeful distortion for psychologically strategic purposes. For consider if we replaced human animals with the dogs killed for space and financial reasons. Painless or not, we would appropriately label that “killing.”
~ Recent blog post: Silk Nog ~
Matt, I don’t think disagreeing with one another is “divisive.” I think it’s honest. I think it’s normal, human behavior.
Veganism is not a cult. We can disagree. It won’t end the movement.
I just read this at the PPK:
“I volunteer at a no-kill animal shelter, working with dogs. Yesterday I found out that one of the dogs that I had been working with for the last 3-4 weeks was euthanized. [...] I’m still trying to get details on what happened, because she was such a sweet little dog, but had torn ligaments in her leg that they were planning on treating (or so I thought). If I had known there was a possibility that she’d be killed I would have fostered her and paid for the surgery and maybe even adopted her.”
source:
http://www.postpunkkitchen.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=46231
Ask virtually any volunteer at virtually any animal shelter and they’ll tell you a story that ends with “If I had known they would kill her, I would have saved her.” That’s WHY we volunteer. We want to save lives. And then we’re slapped in the face with empty excuses. If every animal shelter simply managed their volunteers a little better, we’d save more animals’ lives. Volunteers are one of the best resources a shelter has, yet they’re overlooked, underutilized, ignored, kept out of the loop, and traumatized over and over and over again.
“We are NOT the dictators of the world with the right to end the lives and any and all. It’s not our right or even our responsibility to determine which animals should exist and which should not. Our responsibility is to limit our negative impact on the rest of the world and expand our positive impact. Our ethical duty to animals is either to leave them alone or to rescue, not to kill.”
“Every life matters. How can we possibly hope for a vegan or nearly vegan world if we can’t even stop killing the animals we care most about – the pets? We MUST be more consistent. We cannot confuse the message that animals’ lives matter and that we mustn’t take their lives if it’s possible to spare them.”
It’s utter hypocrisy to assume that the above paragraphs don’t apply equally to euthanasia. Three cheers for consistency!
I think overpopulation is an incurable condition presently, therefore the animals at the shelter where I work are euthanized humanely. It’s not fair for them to live their lives in a cage with no one to care for them, or want them. Life is not an existance, these dogs and cats are already dead after they stay in a kennel run for that long with no one wanting them. What would you suggest any shelter who does euthanasia or “kills” do with the animals they can’t find homes for because the homes are simply not available?
Hi Jenefier,
The assumption that “homes are simply not available” is just that, an assumption. It’s not a proven fact.
I think we ought to try harder to find/ make homes.
EV says: “Matt, I don’t think disagreeing with one another is “divisive.” I think it’s honest. I think it’s normal, human behavior. Veganism is not a cult. We can disagree. It won’t end the movement.”
I think you completely misunderstood me. I am very much in favor of honest debate. I am, however, very much opposed to distortions, lies and mischaracterizations.
Many in the anti-euthanasia camp use the same distortions about PETA’s euthanasia policy as the CCF and and other anti-animal organizations. For example, when someone points out that PETA “kills” 85% of the animals in its shelters – that is a distortion of the facts.
PETA doesn’t run ANY shelters. It does, however, run a program in which it sends teams to low income areas in Virginia and North Carolina where they perform low and no-cost spay/neuter surgeries to help reduce the dog and cat overpopulation crisis. During these trips they would also pick up animals from various shelters in North Carolina who were already slated to be killed by gassing (literally several animals put in a metal box hooked up to an exhaust pipe of a truck), and other cruel “euthanasia” methods, and provide these animals with a painless death via an injection of sodium pentabarbital instead.
But these facts aren’t mentioned in the anti-euthanasia rhetoric spouted off by so many people. People don’t mention that if PETA only euthanized 85% of the animals it took in from death row at other shelters that it must have found homes for 15% of animals who would have otherwise been cruelly killed. But people just say that PETA kills most of the animals it takes in. And it’s this kind of distortion of the truth that I am saying is divisive. Agreed?
I also think it is a distortion to claim that all “no-kill” shelters are good when many of these shelters keep animals in absolutely wretched conditions or turn animals away when they fill up and leave the killing to someone else.
As for your “cult” comment, I think it is much more mindless and cultlike to generalize about all no-kill shelters as if an animal’s right to life is always more important than an animal’s right not to suffer perpetually.
Matt, you make an excellent point:
“Many in the anti-euthanasia camp use the same distortions about PETA’s euthanasia policy as the CCF and and other anti-animal organizations.”
I agree with you 100% that no one should distort the truth.
That said, I think PETA should stop euthanizing animals. I don’t think the benefit of reducing a few animals’ suffering through use of a more humane method of killing is worth the cost to PETA’s reputation or the reputation of PETA members.
The CCF will sling all kinds of mud in the direction of animal advocacy. Most mud falls off easily, but some sticks. The “PTEA kills animals” rhetoric sticks because there’s enough truth to the claim and enough distaste for animal killing to make that criticism stick. PETA should respond appropriately by doing more to prevent animal death.
Yeah, I get your point. But having spoken to Ingrid Newkirk a few times before, I think she is more concerned about doing what she thinks is best for animals than she is about being popular or preserving her reputation.
As for doing more to prevent animals deaths, PETA seems to spend quite a bit of time and money on spay/neuter programs and anti-breeding campaigns such as its Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign. But I’m sure they have less money to prevent deaths the more animal rights advocates turn their backs on them after being mislead by divisive and distorted information.
It would be awesome if you addressed PETA’s latest blog about why it has a euthanasia policy: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php
Hi Matt,
Yeah I guess I have to write a real post about it, but for now I’ll post what I commented at the PETA blog:
I also like Stephanie’s take:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/petas_euthanasiakilling_record_ingrid_newkirk_responds
Matt, you said: “having spoken to Ingrid Newkirk a few times before, I think she is more concerned about doing what she thinks is best for animals than she is about being popular or preserving her reputation.”
I think she needs to re-think that position.
You’ll have a hard time winning a public debate with a counter-intuitive argument. If PETA is doing their job right and creating a society that cares about animals, PETA shoots themselves in the foot by requiring that same society to accept and condone some animal killing. Remember, it’s not a far leap from the mindset that condones homeless animal euthanasia to accepting slaughterhouses.
Killing animals isn’t an appropriate activity for an animal rights organization. It just isn’t.
I’m not following your logic. It sounds like you are saying that preserving one’s popularity with the masses is more important than doing what is necessary to help animals. By that reasoning, one might conclude that we should be promoting humane meat because that would make us more popular with the public and give less ammo to the anti-animal crowd.
You say: “Remember, it’s not a far leap from the mindset that condones homeless animal euthanasia to accepting slaughterhouses.”
I think that providing a merciful death is a long way away from slaughtering animals for profit.
Sorry Matt, I wasn’t clear enough. What I meant was that the long-term goals of animal rights is more important than Ingrid personally doing what she feels is best for individual animals that aren’t her own. Her involvement in killing animals potentially undoes her work against killing animals.