You can put down a suffering animal (being humane) yet you have to prolong the life of a suffering human or be thought of as barbaric.
But why do you think that's the case? Are human lives given more value than those of cats? Why do people do all they can to keep people alive yet are quick to put an animal to sleep?
(Sorry, I think this is taking the thread off-topic)
But why do you think that's the case? Are human lives given more value than those of cats? Why do people do all they can to keep people alive yet are quick to put an animal to sleep?
(Sorry, I think this is taking the thread off-topic)
Because if we starting putting down humans, family members may be upset or may have ulterior reasons such as money for wanting that person to die.
But why do you think that's the case? Are human lives given more value than those of cats? Why do people do all they can to keep people alive yet are quick to put an animal to sleep?
(Sorry, I think this is taking the thread off-topic)
Yes humans are greater than cats just as cat owners believe cats are greater than the chickens, fish, rabbits etc that they are fed on.
Because if we starting putting down humans, family members may be upset or may have ulterior reasons such as money for wanting that person to die.
It opens up a big can of worms.
A few years ago my Aunt died of terminal cancer, she basically withered away in a hospice and not even morphine could relieve the pain. So if a person chooses to end their life then I can understand why as eventually the most powerful drugs don't work.
In contrast we had a Bull Mastiff who had terminal cancer and we made the choice to have him put to sleep when the medication he was own was not helping. My parents had the choice of chemotherapy but it would have extended his life but we choose to not as it would made things worse in the long run.
Ulterior motives can be prevented by the people leaving wills before they die and the estate can be divided up with a solicitor.
A few years ago my Aunt died of terminal cancer, she basically withered away in a hospice and not even morphine could relieve the pain. So if a person chooses to end their life then I can understand why as eventually the most powerful drugs don't work.
In contrast we had a Bull Mastiff who had terminal cancer and we made the choice to have him put to sleep when the medication he was own was not helping. My parents had the choice of chemotherapy but it would have extended his life but we choose to not as it would made things worse in the long run.
Ulterior motives can be prevented by the people leaving wills before they die and the estate can be divided up with a solicitor.
I do agree with assisted suicide for terminally Ill patients but I can also see the other side of the argument, that it might be a slippery slope to go down.
I don't think ulterior motives can ever really be ruled out as families would know that they were included in the will.
I do agree with assisted suicide for terminally Ill patients but I can also see the other side of the argument, that it might be a slippery slope to go down.
I don't think ulterior motives can ever really be ruled out as families would know that they were included in the will.
The problem that the right to die with dignity is being labelled suicide so there will always be groups with disagree with because of that alone.
If a person has a terminal illness then they should have the option at some point in time to be allowed to die or when the pain become unbearable then be put in an induced coma.
Whether the person dies naturally or by assisted dying they will only entitled to what is stated in the will as it's legally binding.
Do you suppose that, up until the bible was written, animals enjoyed more rights on this Earth?
10 seconds on google reveals that, according to THIS site, we were farming animals 11,000 years ago.
As is often the case, it seems the bible was just justifying existing practices.
.
Exactly. Now the Bible and religion give people who believe in it a justification for ignoring animal rights. So - as I said before - religion has a lot to do now with the unethical treatment of animals.
I guess a lot depends on who gets to decide whether an animal is "unwanted" or "surplus".
THIS is Ollie. Up until about 2 weeks ago, he was an unwanted/surplus animal.
He's just spent this morning keeping my 3 year old niece entertained by fetching a tennis ball for her and now he's busy keeping my feet warm by lying on top of them.
He's definitely not surplus or unwanted any more.
Oh that's lovely he's so cute. What a lovely story.
Exactly. Now the Bible and religion give people who believe in it a justification for ignoring animal rights. So - as I said before - religion has a lot to do now with the unethical treatment of animals.
I think you'll find that you were arguing with somebody who claimed the bible wasn't responsible for denying animals any kind of "rights".
The bible certainly supports existing prejudices but it wasn't responsible for creating them.
I think you'll find that you were arguing with somebody who claimed the bible wasn't responsible for denying animals any kind of "rights".
The bible certainly supports existing prejudices but it wasn't responsible for creating them.
Precisely.
Go to pretty much any non-Christian society and you'll see exactly the same farming and hunting of animals for sport and food. Nothing to do with the Bible. The Romans enjoyed slaughtering wild animals for entertainment in the Colosseum long before Constantine adopted Christianity.
This comment caught my eye. Our cat is going through the wars at the moment and we have some tough decisions ahead.
So far he has pulled through some very serious conditions and clearly wants to live. He is in pain (which cannot be completely managed with drugs) and hides away/sleeps for a lot of the time. But he also loves to come and sit with us, show how much he loves being with us, is happy and enjoys his food.
But I do think many others would have had him put down by now (due to his serious medical condition, age of the cat and financial considerations).
Would you euthanise a child rather than put them through a long series of painful treatments which might extend their life by a few years? Our cat is like a member of our family and is a real medical miracle. Surely he's earned the chance to fight for his life.
Sorry to hear about your cat and I hope he pulls through, and I suppose that depending on how serious my cats' illness was, I think if I thought they were in pain a lot of the time, I'd have to make that decisión to end their life. Although it hasn't happened to me yet, so I could never say for sure. I have taken semi wild/stray cats to be put down when they were ill and had leukamia (which i believe is untreatable still) and that was quite bad, knowing that when I had captured them and taken them to the vets, I was in effect taking them to their death, I still think that was preferable to leaving them to fend for themselves outside whilst suffering from an illness.
Euthanasia for children is extremely difficult to answer as i don't have any, so it'd be purely hypothetical. But there have been times when I've seen on the news, a baby has been born, severely handicapped, or very very ill, and will have to undergo countless operations in their life, and suffer pain, and even then nothing is guaranteed, and I've thought during those occasions that it would be kínder for the baby to pass away instead of going through a terrible ordeal and pain with no guarantees that they'll be ok afterwards
Comments
But why do you think that's the case? Are human lives given more value than those of cats? Why do people do all they can to keep people alive yet are quick to put an animal to sleep?
(Sorry, I think this is taking the thread off-topic)
Not specifically, just making a counter argument about using medicine /surgery to keep an animal alive IF it were not in it's best interest.
That then lead onto contrasting "putting down suffering animals as quickly as possible" with "keeping suffering humans alive as long as possible".
We can be humane to animals but must be (seemingly) inhumane to fellow humans.
Because if we starting putting down humans, family members may be upset or may have ulterior reasons such as money for wanting that person to die.
It opens up a big can of worms.
Yes humans are greater than cats just as cat owners believe cats are greater than the chickens, fish, rabbits etc that they are fed on.
A few years ago my Aunt died of terminal cancer, she basically withered away in a hospice and not even morphine could relieve the pain. So if a person chooses to end their life then I can understand why as eventually the most powerful drugs don't work.
In contrast we had a Bull Mastiff who had terminal cancer and we made the choice to have him put to sleep when the medication he was own was not helping. My parents had the choice of chemotherapy but it would have extended his life but we choose to not as it would made things worse in the long run.
Ulterior motives can be prevented by the people leaving wills before they die and the estate can be divided up with a solicitor.
Yes this is a good point
We have rescue cats but I would prefer to have only vegetarian pets in the future!
I do agree with assisted suicide for terminally Ill patients but I can also see the other side of the argument, that it might be a slippery slope to go down.
I don't think ulterior motives can ever really be ruled out as families would know that they were included in the will.
The problem that the right to die with dignity is being labelled suicide so there will always be groups with disagree with because of that alone.
If a person has a terminal illness then they should have the option at some point in time to be allowed to die or when the pain become unbearable then be put in an induced coma.
Whether the person dies naturally or by assisted dying they will only entitled to what is stated in the will as it's legally binding.
Exactly. Now the Bible and religion give people who believe in it a justification for ignoring animal rights. So - as I said before - religion has a lot to do now with the unethical treatment of animals.
Oh that's lovely he's so cute. What a lovely story.
I think you'll find that you were arguing with somebody who claimed the bible wasn't responsible for denying animals any kind of "rights".
The bible certainly supports existing prejudices but it wasn't responsible for creating them.
Precisely.
Go to pretty much any non-Christian society and you'll see exactly the same farming and hunting of animals for sport and food. Nothing to do with the Bible. The Romans enjoyed slaughtering wild animals for entertainment in the Colosseum long before Constantine adopted Christianity.
Euthanasia for children is extremely difficult to answer as i don't have any, so it'd be purely hypothetical. But there have been times when I've seen on the news, a baby has been born, severely handicapped, or very very ill, and will have to undergo countless operations in their life, and suffer pain, and even then nothing is guaranteed, and I've thought during those occasions that it would be kínder for the baby to pass away instead of going through a terrible ordeal and pain with no guarantees that they'll be ok afterwards