Euthanasia and the failure of philosophy: Can horsemen do better?

[vacation1]

I question the idea that professionals in a direct-care field are the best people to thrash out the ethics involved. Every nurse I've ever met has been loudly outspoken that euthanasia should be allowed and encouraged with humans. This is a completely emotional response to the suffering they see every day and it's caused partly by the tendency of nursing to attract capable, assertive people who want to DO something and who are extremely uncomfortable with situations where there's nothing left for them to do.

But the fact that some people will recoil from the discussion of euthanasia for animals because they leap to what happens to their grandmother or themselves is not a good reason-- intellectually or ethically-- to not think through the process really carefully for horses.

True. But. People ALREADY talk about how it's so ironic and cruel that they can put Tabby out of her suffering, but had to watch Grammy die by inches. Human nature being what it is, and our regard for animals being what it is, it's inescapable that we draw parallels. The comparison is invalid - human consciousness is different, and human medicine is different - but they exist as emotional arguments for euthanasia in humans. Anyone putting together a euthanasia philosophy for animals has to keep that issue in mind.

[Jaideux]

Euthanasia for ending pain and suffering is a no-brainer for me. I'm in the "a year too soon than a minute too late" camp, and my BO/mentor would be the first to kick me in the butt if I swayed from that position during a time of emotional wreakage. She's tough as nails and has no qualms about holding her horses for the final shot, or being there for the removal. She doesn't like it, but she is able to take it in stride. Faced with that kind of thing, you bet I'm gonna lean on her to kick my sentimental butt into responsible action.

For economy... well, there's where I struggle. I don't have to choose what I would do right now, because I have the joyous luxury of being able to afford them both, for now.

But part of being responsible for taking care of my pets includes being responsible for what happens to them when I truly can't afford them. I may sell them to a lovely person, but what will that person do when done? And then the next person?

The guilt and sadness I'd have over euthanizing my healthy horse absolutely pales in comparision to the anxiety I would have over wondering what ultimate fate they met, especially if I was cut out of the loop of information on their wherabouts. And the guilt and sadness I'd have if I learned that my horses' fate ended up being slaughter, or a torturous decline in a neglectful back yard, or anything else like that, would even moreso outweigh the sadness and guilt I'd feel euthanizing a healthy horse.

But it wouldn't be easy. And I hope with all my heart I am never forced to make that decision.

[Diamondindykin]

Really? What is "unreasonable suffering"?
What if the horse is suffering today but there is a 10% chance of recovery? 20%? 30%? 40%? where do you draw the line?
What if the horse is suffering and has a 100% chance of recovery but that recovery will take a year and their quality of life is going to suck in that year?
What if the horse is suffering and has a 50% chance of recovery, but the treatment involved will require that you spend your entire savings?

The world looks a lot grayer from where I am sitting.
The easy choice is when the horse is suffering and there is no to little chance of recovery- how often does life make decisions that straightforward for us?

I have experienced this first hand and yes, sometimes the decision isn't always so black and white.

[Lucassb]

Very interesting topic.

I am not sure I know how I would choose in every single circumstance that's been discussed. I do believe that euthanasia is the appropriate choice - a responsibility, even - in the case of an animal that is suffering unduly with illness or injury, and where there is limited prospect of a good recovery or decent quality of life.

I'm not sure I could manage to make that choice on an economic basis, but I am certain that I won't judge those who do. Most people I know of who've been in straits that dire did not make the choice lightly, and they put their animals down because they did not feel comfortable that the animal's long term prospects for a happy life were acceptable once they were out of that person's care. I believe that is a reasonable decision even though I am not sure I could make that choice myself.

I put my then 9 year old Selle Francais mare down when she contracted an illness that progressed so quickly in the course of a single day that she went from being slightly off in the RF to serious neuro symptoms in a matter of hours. It would not surprise me if she had EPM although none of us had heard of the disease at that time.

In that case, I was with her all day as we struggled unsuccessfully to figure out what was wrong with her, but when it was clear that she was having terrible balance problems and was very distressed, I had her put down. I believe it was the right thing to do for her, and I would do it again. I did the same for my beloved black lab when he started to fail, although I cry over him to this day even though it has been many years now. I could not stand to see him suffer at all. As a younger dog, he had a variety of illnesses and injuries and he got the best available veterinary care including eye surgery and orthopedic work - but those were cases where my vets assured me there was a good chance of recovery and excellent quality of life.

Economics were not a factor in either decision.

The whole issue of the slippery slope does not unduly trouble me; I'm not sure why. I do believe that people should be able to make decisions to end their *own* suffering if it becomes unbearable. And I wish our medical professionals had better skills at palliative care than they typically do, and more options to end suffering if the patient requests it.

Having sat with my mother as she died a very slow, very painful death from cancer at 56, I would never wish the so-called heroic measures that were taken to keep her alive -when there was no chance of recovery - on my worst enemy.

She fought very hard, even when there was no hope, because she felt obligated not to give up - because some of our family members begged her to. They did it out of love, and so did she, but it cost her an unfathomable measure of suffering. We would never put any of our pets through that kind of torture.

[sisu27]

The guilt and sadness I'd have over euthanizing my healthy horse absolutely pales in comparision to the anxiety I would have over wondering what ultimate fate they met, especially if I was cut out of the loop of information on their wherabouts. And the guilt and sadness I'd have if I learned that my horses' fate ended up being slaughter, or a torturous decline in a neglectful back yard, or anything else like that, would even moreso outweigh the sadness and guilt I'd feel euthanizing a healthy horse.

I had to learn my lesson in this regard the hard way. Not the hardest way (slaughter, neglect...) but still hard. I sold my first pony into the best possible situation I could imagine. I had to sell him because I had outgrown his abilities and moved on to a fancy H/J barn and leased a fancy hunter to show. I didn't want to but with he and my hunter being stabled 45 minutes away and my school/show work load it didn't make sense. My parents made me choose. I chose to sell him for peanuts to what I thought was the perfect home. I recently found out that he was euthanized for being "mean".

Now I live with the guilt of not knowing what exactly his life without me was like. I live with the guilt of not knowing if I would have made that decision for him at that time or not. Would it have been better to euthanize a perfectly healthy animal so I could pursue my show career? Not for me but I essentially made that decision by passing the responsibility off to someone else. If I got a mulligan for anything in life thus far it would be that decision. It certainly isn't the worst horror story but still not something that I will ever feel good about. Far from it.

I still don't believe in euthanizing for any other reason then ending the animals suffering but because of my beliefs and my mistake with my pony I will ensure that for the animals I love, it is always my decision. This thread and the varying degrees of what people consider the "right" reasons drives that home.

[Coanteen]

I am pro-euthanasia. In cases of suffering with a terminal diagnosis I am pro-euthanasia for people as well as animals, but let's deal with animals.

I wouldn't hesitate to put down my horse if she were suffering and couldn't be successfully treated so that she would no longer suffer. I would hope that no one would hesitate in such a circumstance.

In grey areas I'd discuss the issue with my vet, regarding odds of successful recovery. My horse for example is sound, still working and healthy at 20. She might live to 30, who knows, and I can afford and will happily pay her retirement board until she dies.
But if she needed colic surgery tomorrow I might well choose to euth her.

There are people who firmly believe that once you get an animal, you owe it a life until its normal death. There were a couple of comments on the first page saying that responsibility does not end even if you can no longer afford the animal - ok, so what would be suggested? If the animal is sound and desirable it can be sold, but what if it's a medication-requiring pasture ornament that no one else will take? I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I'd euth it if I honestly could no longer afford to take care of it.

In general I believe in euthanasia to end suffering or to prevent something that might bring more suffering (ie the colic surgery example, in consultation with a vet). But I am not against it for honest economic considerations where the animal has no great options, nor for extreme behavior issues that might lead to either the animal suffering or to people being hurt.

[MsM]

I think most thinking not-overly-anthropomorphizing horsepeople agree about euthanasia for suffering horses.
I am surprised at how many claim that economics "never" enters into their thinking. I suspect they are either very young or not thinking of the economics question in the same way as I am. To me, there are times when an owner has to say that the financial drain is too great. So maybe the horse can be saved or maintained with expensive care and medication but family finances are bad (lost job etc). Do you really expect people to sacrifice their children's education or their retirement to maintain a horse until it cannot be maintained any more? To me, there comes a point when economics (ie Real Life) intervenes. Compromises are made. And I'm okay with that as long as they are thoughtfully made and the horse does not suffer. I have emergency funds, but I have a limit of what I will spend for veterinary care. So my horse is "no colic surgery". But, hey, I am "no extrodinary measures" for myself!

And I do get the idea of feeling like I "owe" more to a horse who has served me well for years than to one I just purchased. I owe no suffering to both, but will extend myself more for the one with the longer relationship. That is purely for myself. But thats okay.

[Fun Size]

Really interesting. I will have to think on it for a bit. Bioethics is a strange area...I chose to focus on metaphysics, of all things, for my BA (weird, I know!).

Still had to write the bioethics papers though, so this is very interesting to me from a philosophical standpoint.

[Punkie]

I am pro-euthanasia for both animals and humans alike.

I should start this by saying I've been very sick almost my entire life and my health has no where to go but down. Unless something drastic happens in the wonderful world of genetics in the next 10 years, my genes will be my demise. I've always known this and I accepted it a long time ago. I also know, however, that I will likely suffer and suffer a great deal more than I already have. I've made it very clear that I would like to have a few choice medicines on hand in specific doses and I will not let myself end up in a place where I cannot utilize those medicines myself. Morbid? Maybe. But I've fought my condition my entire life and have lived thoroughly and wonderfully because of it, and I plan to continue to do so for as long as my body allows. But I will not end up on a continuous drip of narcotics, unable to move and in a great deal of pain just because someone says it's unethical to end my suffering. I'll do it myself before it gets to that point.

And I feel the same way about my animals. As another poster mentioned, palliative care for animals, well, sucks. I believe whole-heartedly in the "hour too early than a moment too late" idea. Will I try everything else first? You bet. But if it's clear there is no chance of creating a pleasant and peaceful life, then I will put my heart aside and let go. It's the least I can do.

I've never thought about euthanizing for economical reasons...frankly, I never have to. Even if I were to become destitute tomorrow, we have a connection to a farm that would take every last one of our horses and let them live on 90 acres of lush grass land with a big barn, good hay and grain as needed so long as we did some work around the stables a couple times a week.

I also own investment horses and buy and sell a few a year. It's at the "AA" level, but is it possible that one of my horses could end up in a bad place? Yes, anything is possible. But it's a small community and we've yet to lose track of any of our past animals. Our horses tend to go from one friend to the next (though more have stayed within the barn they're sold into and just sold or leased among clients) and everyone is aware that we are happy to take one back for retirement if it's necessary. We haven't been doing this long enough to have someone take us up on the offer, but everyone knows it's there.

I've never been of the mentality that once you own a horse you MUST KEEP IT. If I were, I'd have close to 50 horses right now and that would be a wreck. People have to buy their horses from somewhere and show horses that have been outgrown or need to step down from their current divisions need homes and riders too, so sales must go on. I just try to buy great animals and then my trainer brings them up to excel at their job and have wonderful dispositions, so it certainly goes a long way.

Is it all very ethically sticky? Absolutely. Is there one right answer? Absolutely not. But I think finding a line of best fit is well within the realm of possibility.

[dalpal]

My decision is based entirely on the need to end suffering to the horse.

I'd euthanase a horse is if it was so severely injured, disabled or in poor health that it's quality of life was gravely affected so much so that it couldn't or didn't want to eat and get about properly and that was obviously impacting negatively and it's prognosis for improvement and recovery was dire.

Poor economy, horse of little value and all that are in my opinion absolutely not factors to be taken into consideration when taking the decision to end a life.

THIS! I also find it disturbing when strangers on the internet, who have never met the animal, seem to be okay telling someone to euthanize their animal/and people asking if they should euthanize thie animal. That is something that should be reservered for people close to the situation...aka..veterinarian.

When used correctly, I support the practice 100 percent....when it is used as a convient means out of situation, I personally feel it is being abused. JMO.

[Still Workingonit]

This is a very deep question and merits serious discussion. I have had to euthanaise 4 dogs and 2 horses - 1 horseI shot myself as a 12 year old. (I had a significant amount of hunting experience - and simply put, I couldnt miss the "sweet" spot with a shot-gun in direct contact and man did I throw my guts up when I did that. BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE! She couldnt get up and the vet was 1.5 hours away on another emergency call and told me exactly what to do. He knew my background.)

I was discussing this thread with my flat mate last night - and she reminded me of what her bro-in-law said many years ago when she was writing their vet response to "Nuclear Winter" (that large banshee under the bed ). He is a dairy farmer (think 800 cows all field raised now - then I think it was 250??). His measured opinion was "I would go out and start shooting my cows. I would have no feed for them and "my girls" are my responsibilty. They have given me much, I must look after them myself. And no way would I want them to suffer." This is a guy who nursed one of his first cows - who gave him 10 daughters over 13 years!!! - for 3 years post-retirement 'cause "I OWE HER!!".

I also remember my last dog - well, I will front up and state that I didnt let him go as soon as I should. (NO "probably" or "Possbly" about it.) I THOUGHT I was doing the right thing - but looking back with 3 years grace, well I didnt. He had heart cancer - quite rare - but I thought getting up 3x a night to make sure that he could get out to piss/poo was the right thing to do. Sorry, "Grub" (my present dog),you get that diagnosis, you are GONE. I apologised to my dog when I took him to the vet for being a bad mother.

My last horse - well, I made the decision at the right time. I was told he had congestive heart failure - as a result of a long-term illness - I scheduled the day. A VERY HARD day, but he had been "a good horse". He wasnt a champion, but you always had a good ride on him.

[jeano]

I accept that those of us who acknowledge the possible need to euthanize due to economic necessity Have No Businees Owning Horses. Probably no one should ever own a horse because there is always that possibility that we'll have a reversal of fortune at some point, become destitute, and subject the horses we own (that we're not allowed to euth) to die horrible deaths from neglect while we starve with them. Sounds fair.

If I lose everything you betcha I will consider hocking my rings to scrape together enough money to put the animals down if I cant otherwise find appropriate homes for them. And if I do find homes for them I will try really hard not to look back and second guess what I shoulda coulda woulda done.

When my ancient mother refused to put her dog down or let me do it, which was the greater sin? Hers, for "loving" her dog too much to let it go, or mine, for not wanting to suffer the years and years of blame for Killing Poor Pookums that would surely have been my lot if I had taken charge and done what needed to be done?

OK, it was HER dog. Its MY horses. When does it cross over to the point where ethically and morally that someone else HAS to step in?

[wendy]

I think that in most situations it is the height of irresponsibility and unethical to euthanize a perfectly healthy animal just because you can't or don't want to keep it anymore. Most animals can be successfully rehomed/sold to nice homes and lead nice lives. Yes, once the animal is out of your hands there is a slight chance it may end up in a bad way somewhere but killing it out of hand "just in case" seems very unreasonable. An old animal with little future that is set in its ways becomes a real risk for rehoming however, and in that case euthanasia may be the best way; also lame animals are at high risk of a bad end regardless of age.

[dalpal]

I think that in most situations it is the height of irresponsibility and unethical to euthanize a perfectly healthy animal just because you can't or don't want to keep it anymore. Most animals can be successfully rehomed/sold to nice homes and lead nice lives. Yes, once the animal is out of your hands there is a slight chance it may end up in a bad way somewhere but killing it out of hand "just in case" seems very unreasonable. An old animal with little future that is set in its ways becomes a real risk for rehoming however, and in that case euthanasia may be the best way; also lame animals are at high risk of a bad end regardless of age.

OR...don't think anyone else has the ability to care for the animal, so you'd rather euthanize a healthy, young animal than rehome it. There was a thread on here several weeks ago, someone wanted to euthanize all 11 or 12 of thier horses simply because they didn't think the perfect home could be found. I think that is totally irresponsible and (if you could even find a vet willing to do it) totally abusing the practice.

[mvp]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies! You guys have maintained a long and smart conversation. You'd give any professional philosopher a run for their money, and those guys are trained in feats of intellectual endurance!

You up for another longy? I hope I am speaking to the points you guys raised in various forms. OK, here goes:

To be clear, but "professional philosophers" I mean toga-wearing or trained up to PhD level people who get paid to think hard about things and teach others the craft. They typically hold academic appointments (when there are any) but are not someone's b!tch where salary is obviously connected to *which* conclusions they reach. So, the professional philosopher is not the bioethicist on some committee at Monsanto, for example. On the other hand, it would be great if hospice care workers then donned togas and brought their perspective to that community.

From your comments, it seems that almost everyone does make some version of the comparison between human and animal cases. Speaking broadly and also to the pro philosophers, I think that's a mistake. So long as we can't think about euthanasia without moving from horse to grandma to ourselves should we find ourselves unable to make our own decisions, we'll never get the chance to practicing thinking, talking and *feeling* our way through a decision where the stakes are so much lower.

Despite the philosopher's attempt to make arguments based on logic rather than emotion, I think they'd be willing to admit that lived experience and how they felt during those events do figure into the stand they'll take. It's not a sin because philosophy is meant to be applied to the real world.

It also may be that we don't know what we will feel until we have to walk through it. Reading threads about euthanasia experiences here has been great for me. I can live vicariously through other people and don't have to kill animals in order to perform the kind of experiment that would clarify my emotions. This is why I think euthanasia done and talked about in the lower-stakes animal case. Among other things, it lets a bunch of smooth-handed people sitting in offices practice a bit.

Our consensus is interesting too: Absolutely euthanize a suffering animal. Be proud you had the cajones to do the deed and be glad you legally and culturally could. The stories about COTHers who had to stand by while (human) family members suffered worse before death are poignant and impressive. I can't imagine that I'd be good at that, and yet it would be a good skill to learn since we may be called on to help support someone in that situation.

The points of disagreement are more: Do you euth for animal suffering that seems willingly undertaken-- e.g. the animal doesn't seem to have given up yet? Do you impose your standards and response to that much pain on an animal or do you give more credence to bright eyes along with obvious, intense pain or poor prognosis?

And closer to my original questions about *which* critieria get figured in at all, people are divided about two things-- bad bottleneck of suffering now, but a return to some kind of useful life, or relatively useless but pleasant life. Should future value matter? Should future quality of life matter? How does either of these stack up against the temporary but intense suffering?

With all this being said, I'll take two stands that might piss y'all off. But I think they are worth some raised hackles.

1) Economic factors should be considered in the animal case. We gain nothing-- no practice thinking through the problem of maybe, kinda, someday considering that for people-- if we work backward from the present "you don't kill people for economic reasons" to the present animal case and attempt to take the money factor off the table entirely.

I think economics already do figure into the animal case and ought to. I don't think bankrupting a person in pursuit of merely "doing the right thing" with respect to a horse is also "the right thing." Oooh! Lookie there, we are smack dab in the middle of the kind of discussion Aristotle had. He talked about competing forms of "The Good"--fixed categories-- and how to accommodate all of those.

2) And then we get to the "slippery slope" comparison between people and animals. Since some people *would* rather be dead than suffer at great cost, not bankrupt their families and dies sooner (my mommy being one), we can't really figure out how to respect their perfectly rational wishes and their autonomy if we force them to pursue one "Good" (not killing people for the wrong reasons) and another "Good" (letting people enjoy the freedom and control that we all enjoy having). In fact, we don't create automatic standards for killing people precisely so that we can feel free and self-governed.

But there is another reason to keep the animal and human cases separate and it also has to do with practicing with money. End-of-life care for people can get to the bottom of an individual's or family's resources quickly and arguably trashes a society's balance sheet as well. If money is limited, then medical care gets rationed.... somehow, using some set of criteria.

My point is that we don't look hard enough at which criteria we use, and that we already do and I predict we will have to get even smarter about that in the future. A small reminder: If you think this all is veering toward a discussion of how we ought to think about euthanasia for people, you have got it absolutely backward. I don't have an opinion about that except to say that we ought to ask which criteria we consider, not how to rank them, and that we ought to sort that out in a lower stakes case. If anything, I'm arguing for keeping the human and animal cases really, really distinct.

3) I argued that for horses we ought to take "I like him or not" out of the equation. That's true because it allows for more humanitarian decisions in cases where the beloved animal is suffering and the person, for whatever reason, can't see their way clear to ending that. It's also true because it really does create some degree of suffering, if debt or bankruptcy is suffering or going broke and asking for public money is also suffering.

But we also ought to take the horse's belovedness or his "having earned life", his merit, out of the equation so that we can practice doing this for the human case. The same unattractive stuff applies here: We don't want to think that some people will get better care because they are cool or are worth it. We also don't want to make the Nobel Laureate hang around suffering when he would rather not as his reward for having made a great contribution to society.

So, using another favorite tactic of the philosopher, I'll offer you a thought experiment to show you what I mean.

It's 2084 and the Ministry Life, Death, Healthcare (Or Not) and Money has a small, unpopular committee that makes decisions regarding end of life care or euthanasia. I'm on it and the guy we are considering is Bill Gates.

I don't like the guy... and I don't know him personally. Really, I don't like the world that allowed one dude to acquire so much wealth and power. But he didn't create that world alone, and even if I turned my big Julius Ceasar thumb down for Gates, it wouldn't fix the larger scheme for distributing wealth and power. There's nothing to be gained by considering this decision outside of it's little vacuum.

So the question comes up-- why don't I like the guy? Or really, with such an impersonal relationship, shouldn't I like the guy who arguably did good? Other members of the committee may have enjoyed a good game of pool and raunchy jokes at his house and vote against me. That sounds like fun to me, and I also don't think the historical accident of my not having hung out at Bill's house is a good basis for making a decision of this gravity. They may have made a fortune with their Microsoft stock. Now I think they have confused "did me a favor" with "meritorious." They may produce a thick stack of handwritten letters from people in sub-Saharan Africa thanking him for his anti-malarial bed net campaign. My heart softens a bit here. Or they may make a convincing argument: A computer-using ingrate like me did benefit from Gates' work and ought to be at least neutral with respect to liking him even if we don't want to argue that Bill is worth more than the case we'll consider next-- a mother to 8 hardworking but utterly average children.

My point is that merit and love get tangled. And as I pointed out in my first post, no one wants to be the person who kills or not based on their personal affection or judgement of another's worth. At present, then, we categorically don't do this and consider it an ethical accomplishment. Expenses for one individual versus costs for another needy person be damned, but hopefully that means access to fairness is evenly distributed. Should we personally be unlikeable or unworthy (or our social value unknown because we are a very expensive premature baby in ICU), we get the same access to treatment. Of course individuals' value is regularly turned into monetary terms in another arena: Wrongful death suits.

There's no problem with the attempt to keep "like" and "worth the money" apart. But we don't have any other way to decide when to stop spending money. In fact, the default position *is* to spend money. You have to work hard to set up a living will and DNR order. If you have a history of depression and ask for a DNR by legal means in the event you attempt suicide, it's not clear whether that would be honored, or whether the request itself would rule you incompetent to make such a decision in the first place.

All this is so hard and untouchable in the human case, that we might as well practice in the animal one. One good reason to do that is that one experimental subject-- the deciding, observing person gets the benefit of full awareness of what's going on, while the other-- the animal with no ability to know his life hangs in the balance doesn't have to feel that awful precariousness of his position. This did help me because it clarified a lot about what gives an animal value to me, my own flaws and some information I need to know about what will make me comfortable in the world.

Thinking about my own lovely pet of a retired gelding and my inability to afford to care for him well while doing all the other stuff I'd like, I asked myself this: "If you can't have it all, how much is it worth to you to have bought your freedom by killing this animal?" I then figured out what gave him his value to me.

The biggest thing doing right by this horse give me is the sense that I *can* do the right thing even when constrained by money. Looking back, I realized that-- one bill at a time-- I have always had enough for him and lived through whatever deprivation his expenses caused.

I also realized that I don't know where the line between being selfish and being financially prudent is. Putting "kill the gelding who grooms you back to save money" in these stark terms did show me that I am a money sissy. I could either change myself and get more faith, or I could walk around for the rest of my life undermining that self-improvement project because I told myself that financial security or the pleasure of having money to spend the way I wanted were so hard to come by that I had to kill a horse I loved in order to get them.

I should add that the fact that I bred this horse figured into it. I have a pretty flimsy logic here, but it works for me and creates a way to stay in horses in the future. I feel a stronger obligation toward an animal who only is alive to experience *anything* because I said so, than I do to one someone else created. I won't breed another one because I don't want to own horses only for the purpose of keeping and feed them. I'll think hard before buying one in the future if it seems likely I'll be it's last owner.

My question with this gelding was not "What will I do next in the name of money; which person would I kill for a pile of dough" but "How will I feel every day thinking that I'm this unsafe in an expensive world?"

For what it's worth, I feel safer thinking I have lots of control over life, death and money. If setting a moral precedent in the animal case means I can prevent my own expensive suffering later one, I'm all about it.

[SmokenMirrors]

I have been a hospice aide for many many years, have held the hand of patients who graced me with their confidence and trust to take care of them in their final hours and the family who chose to help their loved one die with dignity. Then I have worked in nursing homes where the kids just would not let mom go and they lingered for months, years, with feeding tubes, breathing tubes, etc. in agony while they demanded much of the nursing team to ease their guilty conscience some way. I am pro-euthanasia for our terminally ill or elderly should they want it.

As for animals, I am in the camp that I have a horse who can lightly be ridden but will never be a "productive" horse on our farm. At 8 years of age, Lucy was out in a herd of 12 horses in a large field where I boarded. Sometime in the day, we believe the alpha mare, who hated Lucy, went after her and in her haste to get away, Lucy slipped in the mud, took a stick up into her suspensory tendon, ripping the sheath 3" and dislocated her back hip. In the time it took to heal, she was on 4 months of stall rest, she got an infection in the senovial fluid, was on heavy duty antibiotics and finally when that was finished, was able to be hand walked. In this time, by 6 months, after doing rehab with her and physical therapy she still walked with a pronounced limp so we hauled her up to Texas A & M where the top sport horse injury doc's took a look at her and said that with the damage she sustained she may never walk again normally. Well, today, at 18, the only signs of the trauma is her left hoof is a bit wider from carrying most of the weight on it during the illness and the right hoof toes in some, but she walks normally and yes, can run and buck with the best of them in the field on occasion.

I kept her. Were not rich people by any stretch of the imagination, my husband was retiring out of the military, we were living on my nursing pay and his officers pay in the military but I would not part with her, she was my first horse I paid for. It has now been 8 years and in this time, I think I have sat on Lucy a dozen times and walked her around the field with only a lead rope around her neck. I pony her off her brother to give her exercise, I have let lighter riders on her and she has done alright but any strenuous riding and her tendon swells up and she is lame for a few days. Why do I keep her? Because I love the mare, I don't wish to breed her either, to "have her earn her keep", she doesn't HAVE to earn her keep. I also have started teaching my 2 and a half year old grand daughter to ride on Lucy and the mare is as patient and kind as the day is long. I have had people tell me to sell her or breed her and laugh at me for keeping a "useless" horse. I tell them, she is MY responsibility, I pay her vet bills, I feed her, and it is our money that goes into ensuring she has the best life possible.

I also have a 14 year old Malamute/GSD (my malamutt) Rocky who has advanced hip dysplasia, has been on rimadyl for several years now as well as a Alzheimer type medication to help with his cognitive recognition. We pay $125 dollars every 6 weeks or so for his medication that he takes twice a day. I keep a close eye on him and he is my shadow. When the time is right our large animal vet, or even our small animal vet, said they would come out to our farm and end is pain should it come to that. He gets check ups every 6 months as well for liver and kidney functions, so far so good. And I have told our small animal vet, if she feels I am being selfish, tell me!

When it is time to put any of my equines or canine's to sleep, will be the last thing they see before they are released from their body. My PERSONAL belief is it is selfish to let others hold that animal or be there, someone the animal may not know, it only adds to their apprehension and stress. My soft words and a gentle touch from me will also ease their anxiety....

[Coreene]

Many people have given examples of doing it when it's right, when it's time and when it needs to be done. And then, of course, you have the flipside: those selfish cows who keep the horse going long, long, long past the point of cruelty. Too bad a lot more don't buck up. Time to put the horse first.

[Lieslot]

Euthanasia for economic reasons is such a tough one to comment on.
I'd love to be able to say 'not' a valid enough reason, but are we realistic?? when we say so or judge those who have to.

Howabout a person with the forever lame navicular horse that needs expensive shoeing to stay pasture sound, the horse no one wants to have for free, no rescue is willing to pick up and the owner that just lost his/her job, and is being foreclosed on as a result of finances going pearshaped with a teenage child hoping to get a future education or a child with special needs. Should the unemployment benefit $'s go to the retirement package of the horse or to the attempt of regaining a better security in life for owner & child?

Or should all of us before taking that decision of owning a horse ensure one has $xx K in a frozen account which would guarantee x amount of vet treatment and a 30 yr retirement package?

[sisu27]

[QUOTE=mvp;4928981] For what it's worth, I feel safer thinking I have lots of control over life, death and money. QUOTE]

Yes. I think people that have this mentallity are the last people to throw up their hands and say "I can't" and euth a healthy animal. I see the people who euth for economic reasons as those in society that are always the victim. They probably could find a solution but they aren't "solvers" are they? Sorry, this may piss some folks off but that is my opinion. And trust me....I have experienced some economic difficulties of late myself which I am not used to in my life but never did it cross my mind that I could eat better if I offed one of my animals.

I also agree with the comment regarding people who's egos allow them to think that their animal is better off dead because nobody else on earth could possibly give it a good living situation. And "snookums only loves me....he/she would never survive without me". Please.

Liselot....we could all come up with situations that may call for a different course of action then we would nomally find acceptable ("I just got diagnosed with a deadly disease, lost my husband and my job and my 13 yo is pregnant....what else should I do with my 30 yo 3 legged horse who will only allow me within 100' of him?"). Is that what this conversation is about?

I think the point is that in this society we all have different qualifiers for when the time is right to make that final decision for our animals. We may strongly disagree with someone elses reasoning but so what? I am quite sure that the residents of the USA would not want that freedom taken away.

Human euthanasia? It sure is a slippery slope for the reasons stated above. However.....if I could give legal permission to someone to make that decision on my behalf? I sure would.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

"We should not consider whether or not we like the animal."

I would have to say I disagree.

I am drawing on my personal experience that if the animal is 'unliked/unlikable' etcetera, by several people/riders/trainers, then it is not likely you will find someone who does like it. And I don't think it is reasonable to risk the health/safety or FINANCES of 99 more people in a search for the 1 out of 100 who will be the perfect 'human buddy' for said animal.

I know some folks who take tremendous pride in their dedication to their unsuitable, not-so-borderline dangerous animals. But I categorize this dedication under the fault of human EGO.

"I, the ultimate loving, motherly, human WILL save this animal. I WILL be victorious against naysayers who tell me NOT to. I WILL achieve super duper spiritual status for my heroics. I will make up for the errors of other humans who are not fantastic mother figures like I am. I WILL be vicorious...."

Obviously, how much we 'like' a particular animal/person weighs very heavily into how much $ we invest in them and how hard we work to ease their lives or continue their suffering.

And wouldn't we go insane if this were not the case ?

There are millions, if not billions, of humans and animals suffering horribly at this very moment. Can we really live every moment of every day weighing in on their fates ? By and large, we are concerned with those closest to us. We will spend MILLIONS of (public) dollars on a set of multiple premature, artificially conceived human babies. But it is harder to get that much money to FEED RICE to thousands of babies in a far away land we don't know. Heck, it's hard to get sufficient $ to feed the hungry children of citizens in our own country. We will take immediate, drastic, life saving measures for those premature babies, but will be much slower to act for the hungry babies even though the outcome we are working to prevent (death of the babies) is the same.

Drama plays a (way too big) role in these decisions.

BP doesn't want to spend half a million dollars for a safety feature that is mandatory on oil rigs in the EU. According to the NY Times article I read, they lobbied Congress heavily to make sure they didn't have to. How much is that costing, not just them, but thousands of other people (and animals) now ? Lacking the drama of the big spill, they were able to convince people that the precaution wasn't 'necessary.' Indeed, it was an undue burden on their multibillion dollar business !

(According to the NY Times) a dancer injured in the Haitian earthquake had 3 different hospitals/service agencies all but fighting over who would get to treat her. She was not the only person to lose a limb in the tragedy, but she got a lot more care, attention, options, and hope for return to a normal life than hundreds of others. The 'others' were not so well 'liked' or valued. Ugly fact.

It's been suggested that 'personal liking' should play a role. But, as of yet, we humans have not come close to figuring out any way to judge the value of living creatures equally. Indeed, how could the standards of any one culture, community, or household be make to hold sway over EVERYONE ? And who's going to get to decide that THEIR WAY is the way everyone is going to do it.

Yes 'personal liking' does play a role.