<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dancing lawn:
I've seen horses killed in a few different ways-slaughtered with a bolt gun, shot in the head, and euthanized, by a vet. And you know what? I still have nightmares about the first two. With a vet, it's done quietly, usually at home, in a loving surrounding, that isn't traumatizing to a horse. If you truly have horses because you love them, it's the only way to do it. No horse of mine will ever be sent for slaughter, or shot in the head. If the vet bill means I don't eat for a week, that's fine. At least I'll be able to sleep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, I have seen the same thing. And I've seen all three methods go well and not go well. When it doesn't go well, it's not pretty.
But if you have seen a horse shot at home versus euthanized, what exactly about it gave you nightmares? Truly, this is an honest question.
For me, personally, I do find the act of shooting a horse more disturbing than watching death by barbituate, but I put that down to cultural influence.
When you see a horse euthanized it is easier to equate that with sleeping (as evidenced by the phrase "putting him to sleep"). Meanwhile a gunshot evokes all the cultural meaning of violence, unintended death and so forth. Not to mention the animal drops like a rock rather than folding down.
But if you truly look at the physical process of death, can you make a case that instant brain death is worse for the animal than what ultimately amounts to a much slower more drawn out death by suffocation and organ failure, followed by brain death? (The process of "euthanasia" is described as follows: "When properly administered by the intravenous route, barbiturate overdose (60-80 mg/kg sodium pentobarbitol IV) produces rapid unconsciousness and anesthesia followed by respiratory depression, hypoxia, and cardiac arrest.")
Now I freely admit to being a hypocrite. I have had to put down two animals in the last few years, and even though I feel that euthanasia via bullet is truly less painful (based on everything we know about the process of death) than euthanasia by barbituate, I selfishly put my own feelings ahead and opted for barbituates.
And honestly, I think we might be splitting hairs as to which is most humane, so I can live with that.
But I still have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks euthanasia by bullet (or penetrating captive bolt) is less humane than by barbituate. Unless of course the humanity we are talking about is our own cultural perceptions.
Note - talking about the process is a different argument than talking about the place.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard
I've seen horses killed in a few different ways-slaughtered with a bolt gun, shot in the head, and euthanized, by a vet. And you know what? I still have nightmares about the first two. With a vet, it's done quietly, usually at home, in a loving surrounding, that isn't traumatizing to a horse. If you truly have horses because you love them, it's the only way to do it. No horse of mine will ever be sent for slaughter, or shot in the head. If the vet bill means I don't eat for a week, that's fine. At least I'll be able to sleep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, I have seen the same thing. And I've seen all three methods go well and not go well. When it doesn't go well, it's not pretty.
But if you have seen a horse shot at home versus euthanized, what exactly about it gave you nightmares? Truly, this is an honest question.
For me, personally, I do find the act of shooting a horse more disturbing than watching death by barbituate, but I put that down to cultural influence.
When you see a horse euthanized it is easier to equate that with sleeping (as evidenced by the phrase "putting him to sleep"). Meanwhile a gunshot evokes all the cultural meaning of violence, unintended death and so forth. Not to mention the animal drops like a rock rather than folding down.
But if you truly look at the physical process of death, can you make a case that instant brain death is worse for the animal than what ultimately amounts to a much slower more drawn out death by suffocation and organ failure, followed by brain death? (The process of "euthanasia" is described as follows: "When properly administered by the intravenous route, barbiturate overdose (60-80 mg/kg sodium pentobarbitol IV) produces rapid unconsciousness and anesthesia followed by respiratory depression, hypoxia, and cardiac arrest.")
Now I freely admit to being a hypocrite. I have had to put down two animals in the last few years, and even though I feel that euthanasia via bullet is truly less painful (based on everything we know about the process of death) than euthanasia by barbituate, I selfishly put my own feelings ahead and opted for barbituates.
And honestly, I think we might be splitting hairs as to which is most humane, so I can live with that.
But I still have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks euthanasia by bullet (or penetrating captive bolt) is less humane than by barbituate. Unless of course the humanity we are talking about is our own cultural perceptions.
Note - talking about the process is a different argument than talking about the place.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard
(which is more important than explaining/asking questions as of now... but not more important than fighting horse slaughter methods!)
Comment