Surely any person who has observed an animal threatened with harm can attest to its preference for survival over death. This is in accord with the upward development of the human instinct in mankind for the preservation of life of all kinds, not only of human life but of the life of lesser species. Man has come to realize that he has an ethical duty to preserve all life, human or not, unless the destruction of such other relief is an absolute necessity. These poor souls are in your hands, please, do not allow people to grant death wishes in their will, especially when those being killed are helpless creatures without a voice. . . That is the essence of inhumanity.
States presently regulate human use and interaction with animals through anti-cruelty statutes.
Consequently, public policy and Vermont law should operate to allow these animals the opportunity to continue living. Having stated all of the foregoing, the court turns to consider the best means by which to carry out Howard Brand's stated desire for his animals. If the court does not permit destruction of the horses, the next best option would assure the animal's continued existence in a manner which closely resembles the life they enjoyed while Howard Brand was living. This may be accomplished through use of the doctrine of cy pres, by which the intention of the party is carried out as near as may be, when it would be impossible or illegal to give it literal effect. The court is mindful of the fact that animals may be sold or given away by an owner at will, and thus their lives may be subject to change for the worse as time goes by, potentially culminating in just the sort of neglect or cruelty Howard Brand sought to avoid through the terms of his will.