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

[quietann]

Just a comment (this issue is very large, there are no easy answers...)

I don't know a lot of you in person, but it seems that the strongest "I wouldn't euth a horse just because it isn't useful to me anymore" advocates are people who own their own land for the horses... if older, probably own it outright. Economics DOES make a difference if you're in dire financial straits and you're boarding... especially in a higher priced area. I love reading about the $125/month pasture board places, but that happens somewhere else, not where I live. I would not judge someone in that position.

However -- if the horse is useful to someone else, find that person and sell the horse...

(For the record, I own one horse, possibly permanently unsound but we don't know yet. Her unsoundness wouldn't put her in great pain or require a lot of special care. And I have the means to pasture board her if it comes to retirement. She's a lifer for me, at least partially because she could slip into bad hands very easily -- bad hands here includes someone who'd breed her just because she's beautiful, ignoring her leg conformation which is what got us into this mess in the first place. But she has a "DNR" for serious emergencies like colic needing surgery, broken bones requiring extensive stall rest, treatments with very limited possibility of a good outcome, etc. I am leasing another horse, with help from my father, for up to a year, and putting some money into her training so if I do have to give her up, she has a better chance of getting a good home.)

[amadeupfakename]

A thought for those of you who say that value of a horse, economics, or finances should not come into play, and fair warning that this may drive this topic a bit astray. This is a very interesting thread and I hope we can maintain civility while exploring the many thoughts brought up.

Several of those who have said economics should not be a factor are folks who are in the horse biz whole hog. It's frequently discussed on CoTH that being in the biz requires a bit of emotional separation; affection for the animals in your care cannot cloud the fact that you are in this to make a living. That doesn't preclude doing right by the animals, and it doesn't mean doing anything to make a buck; just analytical evaluation of the circumstances and how they may affect your bottom line.

With that in mind, what would your response be to the following scenario? Barn with large lesson program purchases a younger grade semi-fugly but talented gelding as a lesson horse for more advanced students. Within short order, gelding develops chronic problem that makes him unusable for his intended purpose. His condition is managed with expensive medication and careful shoeing. Horse is not really suitable for less advanced riders, not able to perform more advanced tasks, would be a prohibitively expensive pasture ornament, isn't very friendly or charming, too small for most adult pleasure riders. He is not in any way earning his keep, but he is not suffering. Has off days but 98% of the time is happy and comfortable. He has many years of natural life left.

Where do you draw the line?

[Lori B]

I have read a lot of this thread, and want to thank evp for posting it.

amadeupfakename, that is a tough, excellent and realistic question. For which I don't have an answer. I think that the best such a business could do would be to have space for a few retired but no longer work-worthy animals, so as to not be dumping their retirees continually. Not all lesson barn retirees are made equal, though; some are far easier to rehome than others, and what you describe is the toughest type of situation. I'm not sure euthanasia would be a terrible option for such an animal, but I'm equally certain that 5 people on this board could post stories of acquiring horses that other professionals had given up on for health or behavioral problems who came around with different care and handling and had productive relationships with future owners as a consequence.

I think it's safe to say that while we abhor the kind of dimwit owner of any animal who keeps a suffering animal around for selfish reasons, it is also not right to be trigger happy with inconvenient or hard to care for animals.

It's also safe to say that every cautionary tale of unexpected equine difficulty and expense should make everyone on this board who isn't already one of those dementedly frugal and judgmental types -- the ones who scream at you like a psychopath if you have a balance on a credit card -- save a few extra dollars away against bad luck, because so many sad horse stories would be less dire with a few more bucks ahead.

I particularly agree with the point made earlier that most well-meaning but less experienced animal people have not spent anywhere near the time and energy thinking through this question (or bundle of questions). People are afraid of death and mentally squeamish about it. We think about it because we have to, and if we haven't had to answer those questions yet, we know people who have.

[cnvh]

At the end of the day, I can't really fault an owner who, for WHATEVER reason, chooses to spend the $$ to have a vet out and humanely euth an animal, when the alternative is auction, abandonment, indetermined future safety, etc. The animal has no awareness of it-- just some drugs, go to sleep, done. It's not as if it's thinking, "my owner is such a horrible person" or "I'm going to miss my pasturemate" or "I have so many more good years left in me." The only ultimate morality here is, does the animal have a compassionate and painless ending of its life? If it's humanely euthanized, then that answer is YES every single time.

I guess I've just known too many animal owners who expect someone else to make the decision they aren't willing to make, and they're too cheap to pay to have a vet out, or put a bullet in its head.

The worst was a neighbor cattle farmer who had two perfectly sound and healthy riding horses; they were his daughters' horses, but the daughters had outgrown their interest by the time they left home for college. There was not a THING wrong with either of them-- no lameless issues, no behavioral issues, not aged—they were well-broke, sane quarter horses. And for some inexplicable reason, the farmer DELIBERATELY chose to send both horses to slaughter. Not to an auction, not to a vet for euth-- TO SLAUGHTER. His rationale was, the horses were "too nice" to risk them ending up in bad homes, and he figured slaughter was the best answer, and he opted to send the horses on a one-way trip to a Canadian slaughterhouse rather than just put bullets in their heads himself. (I was a young teenager at the time and the farmer was a family acquaintance, so I wasn’t in much of a position to do anything about it then, but the thought has haunted me for years.)

So, to be perfectly honest, it doesn’t really matter to me WHY a person decides to put down a horse (though I reserve the right to form a pretty strong opinion, make no mistake), as long as it’s done quickly and humanely, and the horse does not suffer… ultimately, that’s what’s important.

[magnolia73]

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.

I don't think that is true. Look at all the QH's and OTTB's that end up at auction. There literally are not enough homes for them, even rideable horses. It's the same thing that happens with dogs and cats. Our nations pounds euthanize thousands of nice cats and dogs daily.

Yes, there is always probably going to be a home for a sound, rideable, pleasant horse. But for a horse who is not rideable or not pleasant, there is not likely to always be a home. We certainly should do our best to retire these animals, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. I think this will be a growing issue.

Above all, I think it is our duty to minimize suffering. I'd rather see my horse euthanized than risk selling her at auction and a death by slaughter or seeing her starve.

And in general, I think you see more cases of people euthanizing too late rather than too early.

[casper324]

Economics

With the economy in the toilet as it is today, it is OK IMHO to euthanize an eligible horse with eligible I mean a lame, old, ill or horses past their useful lives. I also believe it is the responsible thing to do to a dear old friend vs trying to pass it off on Craigslist. Come on why would some one want to take on your 28 year old mare that is only pasture sound with a chronic condition????????????? That ad was on CL this week. OTOH I can't fault an owner for trying as a last alternative before putting a animal down. Animals live for today and today only they don't think about death or contemplate it.

Great topic

[mvp]

Well, we're all very nice, smart people trying to think broadly and not blame anyone for what they do.

Looking at my own thinking and realizing I was a Money Sissy, I think it's time to spice things up and lay blame. Or we ought to talk about when it's reasonable to trade an animal's life for a better balance sheet for a person.

That's because in this discussion people are bringing up the really clear cases. As far as I can tell, there are distinct types of f-ups.

The people who make animals suffer because they have more money than realism and balls and do have the ability to keep it alive.

Their opposite-- the people who euthanize drive-through style. It's the first, or too-soon method of choice for people who would lose money if they tried harder/longer to find the horse a new owner.

The size dent the horse makes in their wallet is what we disagree about. We get pissed because the usual horse owner is relatively well off. In other words, paying his horse's bills will not render him homeless, freezing and hungry. He'll lose something for spending his money this way, but we don't think it's enough to justify taking a life. As someone who rents rather than owns, I'm always surprised when people draw the line at not making mortgage payments. I think there is an acceptable standard of living below owning a house AND I can see why others would disagree. A house is more than a nice place to live, but also an investment that will take its owner off the dole later.

Another bad type is the one who must ask (or would merely like) someone else to pay the cost of keeping their animal. The easy responses here are: Tighten your belt and do the right thing. The other is: If you can't tighten any more, you should not have owned an expensive hobby-type animal in the first place.

I opened this thread for a couple of reasons. Others posters who have pointed here and elsewhere in COTH that those with land often make different decisions than those without, have a point. To me, this fact and the many horses sent to meat auctions each week means we have collectively have already passed the point where the money factor can be taken off the table. It appears to figure into decisions a lot, and if we can't change that, we might as well talk about it.

The other inspiration was a hard last week with a friend of mine who has an old cat circling the drain. I told her about how horse people make euthanasia decisions and sometimes arrange them in advance so the animal can stay at home. Though she is a long-time small-animal pet owner, this was all news to her. The best advice she got was from the kind vet tech who said "You don't think so now, but you WILL know when it's time with certainty." But she really had no big set of conversations and experiences with euthanasia decisions like COTH offers to help her even figure out how she'd know when it was time or not think of herself as a bad person for opening the question.

[Lori B]

most of us are not just making decisions for ourselves and for our animals

We are member of families. The other members of our families may or may not particularly support or endorse our expensive animal-keeping (whether it calls itself a business or not, it is usually a net money-burner). And so when the shit hits the fan and things get laborious and expensive, we aren't just up against the wall with the care and interests of our animal and trying to do right by them, but we are trying to balance the interests of other people who may think they have a senior claim to our money and time.

What I would do by myself money wise is not the same as what I'd do when I have obligations to others, even though those others are humans that can on the whole take care of themselves. That's just the way it is.

[wendy]

Quote:
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.

I don't think that is true. Look at all the QH's and OTTB's that end up at auction. There literally are not enough homes for them, even rideable horses. It's the same thing that happens with dogs and cats. Our nations pounds euthanize thousands of nice cats and dogs daily.

I'm not convinced the problem is "lack of homes". I think it is more that animals are considered disposable. Most of the dogs and cats turned into shelters around here were deliberately purchased as babies, did have homes, and were sent to uncertain futures not because their homes "mysteriously disappeared" but because their owners, for whatever reason, decided to get rid of them.
The QH and TB industries are deliberately set up to produce large numbers of animals, crank them through the system, and discard most of them out the end to death.

But that isn't what I was talking about- I was talking about people who own an animal. It has a home. It doesn't have any glaring flaws like permanent lameness or it kills people. The owner decides he can't afford it or whatever, and rather than attempt to find a re-home, has it killed because of some vague fear it may end up in a bad place in the future, or is certain no one can care for the animal well enough other than them.

[dalpal]

Just a comment (this issue is very large, there are no easy answers...)

I don't know a lot of you in person, but it seems that the strongest "I wouldn't euth a horse just because it isn't useful to me anymore" advocates are people who own their own land for the horses... if older, probably own it outright. Economics DOES make a difference if you're in dire financial straits and you're boarding... especially in a higher priced area. I love reading about the $125/month pasture board places, but that happens somewhere else, not where I live. I would not judge someone in that position.

However -- if the horse is useful to someone else, find that person and sell the horse...

(For the record, I own one horse, possibly permanently unsound but we don't know yet. Her unsoundness wouldn't put her in great pain or require a lot of special care. And I have the means to pasture board her if it comes to retirement. She's a lifer for me, at least partially because she could slip into bad hands very easily -- bad hands here includes someone who'd breed her just because she's beautiful, ignoring her leg conformation which is what got us into this mess in the first place. But she has a "DNR" for serious emergencies like colic needing surgery, broken bones requiring extensive stall rest, treatments with very limited possibility of a good outcome, etc. I am leasing another horse, with help from my father, for up to a year, and putting some money into her training so if I do have to give her up, she has a better chance of getting a good home.)

I don't own my own land and I wouldn't euthanize my older horse unless he was in pain.

[Coanteen]

I'm honestly not sure why "professional philosophers" are actually being brought up at all, since none of us here are arguing within specific logical frameworks used for this type of discussion. Even medical ethicists - yes, not the ivory tower PhD's but the random advisers - would use the common beneficence/justice/autonomy/non-maleficence framework. In many ways formal philosophy is like math, it has very strict rules. It doesn't mean it can't deal with very grey-area issues, but it deals with them within a certain framework.

There are reasons why, in philosophical discussion, we can't actually conflate animal and human euthanasia unless we're talking strictly about humans who are unable to communicate with others. That's because the principle of autonomy applies to humans, but not to animals - my grandmother could be in terrible pain every day of her life, but still choose not to want to be euthanized (if such were legal here) for any number of reasons, like religious convictions, wanting to see a grandkid married off, whatever. If she were my mare, I would make that decision for her. My grandmother can self-determine; my mare can not.

[Blugal]

I'm not surprised past relationship isn't a critical part of the equation simply because very few people actually want to take a life. Even if I have an animal that I completely despise, I don't want them dead, and I sure don't want to have to make that decision.

This is why horses end up being abandoned "to fend for themselves in the wild", tied to farm gates, or sent to auction. The people don't want to be responsible for taking a life - and the animals can end up suffering much more horribly.

[wendy]

This is why horses end up being abandoned "to fend for themselves in the wild", tied to farm gates, or sent to auction. The people don't want to be responsible for taking a life - and the animals can end up suffering much more horribly.

yes, also why "rehoming to a horrible slow death" is so popular for dealing with problem wildlife rather than stepping up and taking responsibility.

[mvp]

Bluntly philosophical

I agree with the "judge a society by the way it treats it's animals."

But I wonder why. There's nothing that says that how we treat animals must say anything about how we treat powerless people or the environment or anything else. I assume people do assume we'll do as badly for people as we do for animals. We have already made distinctions between the way we treat people and pets and livestock, and then also different classes of livestock. Apparently we do draw divisions all the time and can roll with that.

But horses who can't see death coming or participate in the decision, or bear the burden of knowing they must earn their keep don't require *this* kind of careful treatment. They do require *another* kind of careful treatment that relates to day-to-day quality of life. I really think the most-dependent person who does understand death person and the animal who doesn't are different. Both deserve that which makes their lives good by their separate standards.

The reason I brought up the piss-poor performance of actual philosophers is because they are the cultural group formally charged with being good at stuff like this. You don't have to look to them for advice about what to think or how to think. God knows that modern analytic philosophy looks more like math than anything else. Not all branches of philosophy do. You can still find people fussing about metaphysics. But if you don't like how the supposed experts-- people working on bioethics-- do it, who else to do want to consult? The point was not to defend philosophers' right to set the rules for how we talk about euthanasia. My question was about how they set up their discussions and rules, and whether we wouldn't have better ones if some of those people had been walking-the-walk horsemen.

Getting back to economics and ethics. I initially would have said something like "Well, it's usually expensive to do the right thing." Now I don't think so. It's a question of spending what you have in order to buy one experience and kind of world or another. To me, it turns out that not having made a horse into a dixie cup is worth some money. It's a pretty subjective value judgement.

[KaraAD]

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

Sometimes, I think that money and your relationship with a horse do come into the decision. I currently have 3 horses - 1) my 19 yr old partially retired mare - she is more than pasture sound and did everything I ever asked of her for the 14 years I have had her but is no longer up for the level of competition I would like to do, 2) my current show horse who I have now had for 2 years who has turned out to be my true love and 3) a fully retired 29 year old horse who I adopted - I never rode him but he was a lesson horse back in the day when I taught lessons / camp. He is only just pasture sound - not in too much pain to get from the water to the food but he gets uncomfortable sometimes and we work hard to keep weight on him. I found him by pure luck - on the way to the sale/ auction - not doing particularly well. When I recognized him, I couldn't stand the thought of him going to the sale and maybe to slaughter (and all the horror that trailer ride implies) so I brought him home to give him a nice life until the end. Right now, I have him in a situation where his special needs are cared for and the board is reasonable. I have had him for about 3 years now.

As long as I can afford it and he is doing ok, I am happy to be able to give him a nice home and take care of him. I suspect that his health and age are ultimately going to be the reason I have to decide to put him down. But if my situation changed and I couldn't afford all 3 horses or if I couldn't find a situation for him where he gets the care he needs for a reasonable board fee, I think I would put the 29 yr old down before I would sell my show horse. Neither the mare nor the 29 year old will ever go to another home. (Not knowing what happened to them and the possiblity of them taking that long trailer ride to the slaughter plants is not a possiblity). Because they both have issues, if I can't take care of them, I will have them put down.

But I do think my relationships with the horses does come into play. Frankly, I would never consider putting the mare down before her health/ comfort required me to. I would beg, borrow or steal to keep her happy for the rest of her life. I wouldn't be happy about it but I would sell my show horse to keep the mare (because I would be able to get the show horse a good home). But if something happened to my show horse, I would go broke keeping them both. I owe that to them for everything that have given me. Would I be willing to go broke keeping the 29 year old? Probably not.

Perhaps I feel that way because as a practical issue, the 29 yr old, due to his issues, is coming near the end of his life. We have already started to talk about when it may or not be time to keep him from suffering. If I decided to euthanize him now, due to the cost of keeping him (rather than his health), I wouldn't be shortening his life by much. If my mare was older and closer to the end of her comfortable / usefull life, perhaps I would be less adament about it. I don't know. But while I feel bad that I may be willing to sacrifice less for the 29 year old than the mare, it does seem to be the way I feel. Perhaps this makes me a bad person.

Luckily, finances are okay (knock wood) and I don't have to make this decision ... but long post to get to my point, I think that money and your relationship with the horse do come into play in the decision.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

With that in mind, what would your response be to the following scenario? Barn with large lesson program purchases a younger grade semi-fugly but talented gelding as a lesson horse for more advanced students. Within short order, gelding develops chronic problem that makes him unusable for his intended purpose. His condition is managed with expensive medication and careful shoeing. Horse is not really suitable for less advanced riders, not able to perform more advanced tasks, would be a prohibitively expensive pasture ornament, isn't very friendly or charming, too small for most adult pleasure riders. He is not in any way earning his keep, but he is not suffering. Has off days but 98% of the time is happy and comfortable. He has many years of natural life left.

Where do you draw the line?

Well, actually his "natural life" would be short out in the wild as a stallion looking for food and water 24/7. If he's getting careful shoeing and expensive medication then he is already, in a sense, on life support. Without the shoes and meds his life could be too painful to live, and it sounds like he would be put down. So his "natural life" is already quite over. It's being artificially extended.

Granted theses are "artificial extensions" that we are very familiar and comfortable with. BUT the vets, feed companies, chiropractors, etc are continually working to extend all life and soundness to greater lengths. This is a big part of the problem for people also.

I personally think it's a little ridiculous to get a chihuahua a kidney transplant. But to some people, that's just medical care. Not over the top indulgence of the pet owners own emotional weaknesses.

And by the by, vets will do just about any exam or procedure on your 32 year old just-about-dead-anyway horse (though they often draw the line at surgery with anesthesia risks) so long as you say you can't live without your horse and you will pay them. Really, it does get a bit ridiculous. Meanwhile the human owners keep themselves mired in a fantasy of "I can't live without this horse" and the vets get to practice their craft and get paid.

And we've created this problem ourselves. So the OP topic really is a good one. Mother nature keeps her own balance quite nicely, though as human's we think the techniques she utilizes suck, and we'd rather take a pass on her system and come up with our our.

Fair enough.

We make this problem of "when should the end come ?" And I am comfortable leaving it up to the individual owners to make that decision for themselves.

[Bluey]

---"And by the by, vets will do just about any exam or procedure on your 32 year old just-about-dead-anyway horse (though they often draw the line at surgery with anesthesia risks) so long as you say you can't live without your horse and you will pay them. Really, it does get a bit ridiculous. Meanwhile the human owners keep themselves mired in a fantasy of "I can't live without this horse" and the vets get to practice their craft and get paid."---

The trouble here is that so many are assuming, as above.

The truth is that each situation and horse and owner is different and we can't make decisions until we are there.

According to you, we should have put down our 30 year horse, that had penile cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, blow up on him last february.
The vet operated and treated it with a chemotherapy drug, Cisplatin, all that without ANY discomfort to him.
The cancer came back two more times, treated the same and he has been now in remission, not even a trace of the cancer, for many months, since last fall.
We didn't treat him for us, but for him.
The vet gave him a 50/50 chance it would work.
He has a good quality of life, so why not treat what is treatable?
Because he is "just a horse and a very old one at that"?

Well, you should have seen him running and bucking this morning, for the lenght of the up hill mile long pasture, as they headed to water, right along with the others.
Their pasture is right along the road to the house and I think they were racing the pickup.
As we slowed down to watch them run, they too slowed down and bucked and kicked.

I think that we should not assume and judge many of the ethical issues others go thru, because in the end, pun intended, it is each case on it's own merit.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

---

I think that we should not assume and judge many of the ethical issues others go thru, because in the end, pun intended, it is each case on it's own merit.

And I wouldn't disagree. But I also think someone should be allowed to put down their not so charming/sound/useful horse down if they want to. And that is where I find people who are proponents of unlimited life extension can be accusatory towards those who think differently.

I would say a kidney transplant on a chihuahua is ridiculous, at least until every single person in the world is safely fed and housed, it is ridiculous. And I would say if your motivations for treating an older horse are that you "can't live without him," that you are doing it for the wrong reason. And, to boot, a "wrong reason" that is mentally detrimental for you, and society.

Much as the child that keeps their ailing parent alive and suffering is doing themselves, their parent, the healthcare staff that have to administer the medical torture, and the rest of society a disservice (though I would really use stronger language and say they are abusing all of these people.)

To a certain extent the Euth issue does seem to be strongly tied to what people consider the greater evil. Death or Torture.

Some people are okay with torture (a little discomfort or a lot of agony, depending upon personal limits and experience) so long as it puts off death as long as possible.

The Others ("Lost" pun intended...) may be so horrified by the notion of living anywhere on the scale from "uncomfortable" to "torturous agony" that they want to make sure they can "Exit" rather than be pushed passed their personal limit on the scale. And indeed, in countries where human medical "euthanasia" is allowed, people may not use it because they know they have the power to control, and are not anxious to "Exit" in fear that they will be forced to endure beyond their personal desires.

[Go Fish]

Well, actually his "natural life" would be short out in the wild as a stallion looking for food and water 24/7. If he's getting careful shoeing and expensive medication then he is already, in a sense, on life support. Without the shoes and meds his life could be too painful to live, and it sounds like he would be put down. So his "natural life" is already quite over. It's being artificially extended.

Whoa...I never thought of it like that, but you are absolutely right. Food for thought...

I was raised on a cattle ranch. I have a whole different philosophy on "livestock."