(The following is an op-ed I submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune, which was not published for reasons unknown.)
Merriam-Webster defines Euthanasia as the act of killing the hopelessly sick or injured in a way that doesn't cause suffering for reasons of mercy. In common usage, this is exactly what euthanasia means: a painless means to relieve persistent suffering when other options are not available. The interests of the individual whose life is taken provide the reason for the action. Killing an incurably ill person, then, out of concern for her suffering is euthanasia. Putting a healthy individual to sleep because it would take resources to feed her, or as a means to free-up space, is simply "killing." To label this action as anything other than killing is a purposeful, self-interested, confusion of the language.
The new West Valley City (Utah) Animal Shelter, currently under construction, will have a gas chamber for euthanasia. Given the definition of the word, it is a patent misnomer to label killing over 2,400 companion animals annually primarily for reasons of "space" and "financial resources," euthanasia. However, I do not mean to imply any moral judgments. Given the context of limited resources and our society's inability to control our selfish desire to "create" a dog that better satisfies that which we get a passing pleasure from today, the decision of shelters and rescue organizations alike to kill some animals in their care is rational. (However, a "no-kill" revolution is beginning to challenge some of the assumptions that are used to justify all this killing.) My intent is merely to illuminate the erroneous use of the word euthanasia and force some recognition of what we are actually doing: killing. The interests being considered are our own. The animals' interests are but a passing thought along the way to the execution chamber.
In the case of animals, then, our understanding of the word "euthanasia" doesn't seem to fit the actual definition. However, "painlessness" does seem to be fundamental, which means that we are left with a decision: Since we are killing, for the most part, perfectly healthy animals simply because the habits of our species result in millions of unwanted "pets," should we take their lives painlessly, even if we are inconvenienced, or does their suffering just not matter at all?
The answer ought to be clear - a comfortable death is the least we can do for all these helpless animals. Would you expect anything less for your beloved dog? My family rescued a dog from "death row" several years ago. He was our companion, a unique individual, and a devoted friend. And without our intervention, he would have had to struggle against death by suffocation.
The use of the gas chamber should raise serious questions. Those who have witnessed the killing of animals by what is essentially suffocation generally describe a "desperate struggle," "mournful wailings," and what can only be understood as fear and desperation. We have an obligation to these animals. Forcing a fully conscious animal into a small chamber in which she will struggle for her last breath shouldn't be an option. There is a reason why the "gas chamber" provokes so much horror in us.
The American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Control Association, among others, have all determined injection of sodium pentobarbital is the most humane, safest, least stressful and most professional means of killing these animals.
Some may argue that since we do, as a matter of fact, kill these animals for our own purposes, their suffering is really a non-issue in the end. I emphatically disagree. If we must kill, then we must do so with compassion.
Merriam-Webster defines Euthanasia as the act of killing the hopelessly sick or injured in a way that doesn't cause suffering for reasons of mercy. In common usage, this is exactly what euthanasia means: a painless means to relieve persistent suffering when other options are not available. The interests of the individual whose life is taken provide the reason for the action. Killing an incurably ill person, then, out of concern for her suffering is euthanasia. Putting a healthy individual to sleep because it would take resources to feed her, or as a means to free-up space, is simply "killing." To label this action as anything other than killing is a purposeful, self-interested, confusion of the language.
The new West Valley City (Utah) Animal Shelter, currently under construction, will have a gas chamber for euthanasia. Given the definition of the word, it is a patent misnomer to label killing over 2,400 companion animals annually primarily for reasons of "space" and "financial resources," euthanasia. However, I do not mean to imply any moral judgments. Given the context of limited resources and our society's inability to control our selfish desire to "create" a dog that better satisfies that which we get a passing pleasure from today, the decision of shelters and rescue organizations alike to kill some animals in their care is rational. (However, a "no-kill" revolution is beginning to challenge some of the assumptions that are used to justify all this killing.) My intent is merely to illuminate the erroneous use of the word euthanasia and force some recognition of what we are actually doing: killing. The interests being considered are our own. The animals' interests are but a passing thought along the way to the execution chamber.
In the case of animals, then, our understanding of the word "euthanasia" doesn't seem to fit the actual definition. However, "painlessness" does seem to be fundamental, which means that we are left with a decision: Since we are killing, for the most part, perfectly healthy animals simply because the habits of our species result in millions of unwanted "pets," should we take their lives painlessly, even if we are inconvenienced, or does their suffering just not matter at all?
The answer ought to be clear - a comfortable death is the least we can do for all these helpless animals. Would you expect anything less for your beloved dog? My family rescued a dog from "death row" several years ago. He was our companion, a unique individual, and a devoted friend. And without our intervention, he would have had to struggle against death by suffocation.
The use of the gas chamber should raise serious questions. Those who have witnessed the killing of animals by what is essentially suffocation generally describe a "desperate struggle," "mournful wailings," and what can only be understood as fear and desperation. We have an obligation to these animals. Forcing a fully conscious animal into a small chamber in which she will struggle for her last breath shouldn't be an option. There is a reason why the "gas chamber" provokes so much horror in us.
The American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Control Association, among others, have all determined injection of sodium pentobarbital is the most humane, safest, least stressful and most professional means of killing these animals.
Some may argue that since we do, as a matter of fact, kill these animals for our own purposes, their suffering is really a non-issue in the end. I emphatically disagree. If we must kill, then we must do so with compassion.
It's probably because you spelled Merriam-Websters wrong.
But seriously, I have no idea either.
Ha! The version I sent was correct; the mistake was made in the transfer. Thanks for the catch - there are most likely more in this version. I think it wasn't published because the issue isn't "live," accept in a few groups here and there.
Working at a vet clinic, it makes me sad to take part in euthanasias even when they are warranted - a dignified end for a beloved family friend. I can't imagine having to kill an animal I know to be perfectly healthy.
Our particular clinic doesn't do what our vet calls "convenience euthanasia". We've had people ask to have their animals put down because they were moving, or were too expensive to care for.
There was one kitten the first week that I worked there. She didn't have a great prognosis, but we were fairly sure with a few weeks of treatment, we'd be able to get her well again. The lady that brought her in said "Oh, well just put her down then". As if she were returning a sweater. The vet told her that we could just do it in the back, and she didn't have to stay for it.
After she left, I asked if we really had to put her to sleep. He said, "Hell no, we'll treat her and put her in witness protection!" So we treated her, and one of the girls took her home. We have a few of these "witness protection cats" at the office now, their reasons ranging from an elderly parent that died to a simple food allergy (they didn't want to have to buy special food). I've always considered my own dogs as a part of the family, and it's still jarring to me to realize that many people don't.
I do understand shelter and rescue's reasoning behind killing these animals. But I don't understand how anyone that claims to care about them could possibly end their lives in anything but the most humane way possible.
I appreciate your thoughts very much Caroline.
"Convenience euthanasia," as I understand the definition of the word "euthanasia," that statement seems to be an inherent contradiction.
I feel for the entire veterinarian profession. Many people enter school with the express purpose of helping nonhuman animals realize their interests by providing them a means to health; like a doctor, they attack disease. However, as they leave these institutions, a majority seem to have been effectively conditioned into the dominant paradigm that say's while animals' interests do count, their "owners'" interests, no matter how trivial, ought to trump them.
It follows that the situations described in your comment Caroline, become normal - made "normal" by the tacit (and explicit) consent of the vet's themselves, who, by definition, are on the side of their patient (nonhuman animals). From a doctor-of-nonhuman animals, vet's have been converted into "mechanics," who offer cost/benefit analysis to their clients' owners, and "junk" those animals in situations where the costs, no matter how small, outweigh the benefits (i.e., getting another dog for free).
This totally should have been published. People just don't want to think about it so they brush these issues aside. Cowards, if you ask me. We as a society need to own up to what we're doing - killing healthy animals. KILLING. And yet people sugar coat it to make themselves feel better.
Anyway, great piece!
Thank you for the compliment MMG. Confusing language is a key rationalization tool used by human animals.