From: rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Who decides to pull the plug? (was Re: Letter to John Robinson)
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:18:30 GMT
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Pharmaceutics


     [much deleted]
>In <Brwz6E.36G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl >A few months ago I came across a woman, with tears in her eyes who
   >>was ambling down the sidewalk in slow motion.  When I asked her if I
   >>could be of service, she explained that her dog friend had been
   >>suffering from cancer and that she had decided to have the animal
   >>euthanized after the vet explained that his pain was no longer
   >>controllable.  Just a few minutes previously, she had left the
   >>vet's office, clutching her dead friend's leash and collar tightly
   >>in her hand.

In article <viking.712036267@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Soren
son) writes:
ds >    I had my ferret euthanized, due to a tumor in her stomach.  I
   >was full of sorrow, but I know I did the right thing and felt much
   >better only a few minutes later.  Grieve I did, but not at having
   >ordered her execution.  That, I felt, was humane.

rl >I'm sure that most of us would agree that her decision was an
   >>ethical one, in view of the fact that it was based on her
   >>understanding of the facts and her selfless concern for the dog
   >>individual's well-being.  ...
       [deleted discussion of hunting, which is where this thread started]

rl >>..Most AR advocates that I know support the concept of euthanasia, but not
   >>the concept of murder.  There's a difference between putting an animal
   >>out of his misery, and justifying sport killing because the victim
   >>might otherwise, at some undefined point in the future, be subjected
   >>to pain.

ds >    On the other hand, what if this pain could be guarenteed?  Let's
   >say your dog gets AIDS, for the sake of example.  There's no cure.  Do you
   >let him die of pnuemonia, or do you kill him humanely first?

This is a thought-provoking exchange -- beyond the fact that we seem to
find a point of agreement from both sides of 'the fence' -- because
it brings up an issue with human parallels as well. Humans also encounter
intractable pain with no hope of cure, and 'quality of life' is a major
question. In the case of humans (in many instances) the affected individual
is competent and is a central part of the decision-making process.

   In my opinion, the affected individual is the *only* person who can
weigh the value of a day of life against the pain that they feel. They alone
can say when the suffering they feel is greater than they are able or
willing to stand. Clearly, there may be great variability in the how the
equation adds up; some people price life dearly, even life with great pain.

   When it comes to euthanasia of animals, we are deprived of the animal's
opinion as to the balance between the degree to which it values its life
and the amount of suffering it is willing to endure while living. Despite
the love of and empathy for animals many of us feel, it is impossible
for us to know how *they* add up this equation.

    How is the philosophy of animal rights consistent with the fact that
humans make this decision on behalf of animals? What is the ethical basis
for euthanasia?

Bob Straubinger
Dept. Pharmaceutics
University at Buffalo   "Opinions above are mine, not SUNY's"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals