PDA

View Full Version : The Difference between Euthanasia and Killing


krazy[_2_]
March 4th 09, 07:22 PM
The Difference between Euthanasia and Killing

Millions of cats die in U.S. animal control pounds and shelters every year.
The pounds and shelters say these animals are “euthanized.” But they’re
not—they are killed. An animal is only euthanized when she is terminally ill
or untreatably injured.
Euthanasia n. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual
suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal
injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. The American
Heritage Dictionary

Genuine euthanasia is a medical decision and is always done in an individual
animal’s best interest. It can be an important part of end-of-life care. But
most animals who die in pounds and shelters are killed for very different
reasons. Facilities kill animals to make room for new ones, to manage
disease, or to compensate for inadequate staff or funding. Decisions to kill
reflect the operating interests of facilities, not the best interests of
animals.

Using the word “euthanasia” masks what really happens to cats in pounds and
shelters—they are killed.




--
X-Signature: Default
************************************************** ***
E-mail address altered to foil spam.
Reply to news groups for all to see please.
_
/ )
(\__/) ( (
) ( ) )
={ }= / /
) `-------/ /
( /
\ |
,'\ , ,'
`-'\ ,---\ | \
_) ) `. \ /
(__/ ) )
(_/

(\__/)
)oo(
={ >}=
************************************************** ***
..

March 4th 09, 07:40 PM
On Mar 4, 2:22*pm, (krazy) wrote:

> Genuine euthanasia is a medical decision and is always done in an individual
> animal’s best interest. It can be an important part of end-of-life care.. But
> most animals who die in pounds and shelters are killed for very different
> reasons. Facilities kill animals to make room for new ones, to manage
> disease, or to compensate for inadequate staff or funding. Decisions to kill
> reflect the operating interests of facilities, not the best interests of
> animals.
>
> Using the word “euthanasia” masks what really happens to cats in pounds and
> shelters—they are killed.

Actually, consider the alternative: These same millions of animals
living in cages, in crowded conditions with limited stimulation, no
possible hope of adoption excepting a tiny minority - "euthanasia"

(Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos
death)

is likely a better choice.

Rather than ranting against the use of a particular word - and, comes
to it, one hopes that these animales do experience an 'easy death' -
you might do better to address the causes of all these extra animals
in the first place. Energy spent along those lines might actually safe
one or two animals from such a fate. One here, two there, one
somewhere else, prevent an unwanted litter - pretty soon you are doing
some real good. Individuals save the world one tiny piece at a time.
Humans are not given to the big picture. That is reserved to the Diety-
of-one's choice.

As an aside, I wonder how no-kill shelters are doing these days? I
know several that have gone from capture/neuter/hold to capture/neuter/
return for lack of space. And at least a couple that have or are
planning to close down altogether due to lack of support.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Bill Graham
March 4th 09, 07:54 PM
> wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 2:22 pm, (krazy) wrote:

> Genuine euthanasia is a medical decision and is always done in an
> individual
> animal’s best interest. It can be an important part of end-of-life care.
> But
> most animals who die in pounds and shelters are killed for very different
> reasons. Facilities kill animals to make room for new ones, to manage
> disease, or to compensate for inadequate staff or funding. Decisions to
> kill
> reflect the operating interests of facilities, not the best interests of
> animals.
>
> Using the word “euthanasia” masks what really happens to cats in pounds
> and
> shelters—they are killed.

Actually, consider the alternative: These same millions of animals
living in cages, in crowded conditions with limited stimulation, no
possible hope of adoption excepting a tiny minority - "euthanasia"

(Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos
death)

is likely a better choice.

Rather than ranting against the use of a particular word - and, comes
to it, one hopes that these animales do experience an 'easy death' -
you might do better to address the causes of all these extra animals
in the first place. Energy spent along those lines might actually safe
one or two animals from such a fate. One here, two there, one
somewhere else, prevent an unwanted litter - pretty soon you are doing
some real good. Individuals save the world one tiny piece at a time.
Humans are not given to the big picture. That is reserved to the Diety-
of-one's choice.

As an aside, I wonder how no-kill shelters are doing these days? I
know several that have gone from capture/neuter/hold to capture/neuter/
return for lack of space. And at least a couple that have or are
planning to close down altogether due to lack of support.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I agree with this....Actually, it isn't our fault. Long before man appeared
on earth, millions of small furry creatures died miserable deaths of
starvation and exposure every Winter....Let's put the blame where it
belongs...On God. (assuming you believe in such a thing) or "Nature" if you
don't....At least man can neuter many of these animals so they don't
overpopulate their environment, and euthanize those that would suffer for
lack of food, warmth, and water. Sure, we're top dog, so we take whatever we
want or need. But many of us have compassion, so we can choose to do what's
best, and/or whatever causes the least suffering. God/Nature, on the other
hand, is completely indiscriminant.

Adam[_3_]
March 4th 09, 08:09 PM
wrote:
> As an aside, I wonder how no-kill shelters are doing these days? I
> know several that have gone from capture/neuter/hold to capture/neuter/
> return for lack of space. And at least a couple that have or are
> planning to close down altogether due to lack of support.

I'm a volunteer cat socializer at the Dutchess County (NY) SPCA, and for
several decades we have been a no-kill shelter. We also handle the
county Humane Law Enforcement, so when the local paper prints "70 cats
seized," that's where they end up. Strays are held, not returned. The
only animals euthanized are those with terminal medical conditions.
However, space /is/ limited, and anyone who wants to surrender an animal
has to make an appointment at least a month in advance. Not perfect,
but pretty good IMHO.

Adam

Bill Graham
March 4th 09, 08:36 PM
"Adam" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> As an aside, I wonder how no-kill shelters are doing these days? I
>> know several that have gone from capture/neuter/hold to capture/neuter/
>> return for lack of space. And at least a couple that have or are
>> planning to close down altogether due to lack of support.
>
> I'm a volunteer cat socializer at the Dutchess County (NY) SPCA, and for
> several decades we have been a no-kill shelter. We also handle the county
> Humane Law Enforcement, so when the local paper prints "70 cats seized,"
> that's where they end up. Strays are held, not returned. The only
> animals euthanized are those with terminal medical conditions. However,
> space /is/ limited, and anyone who wants to surrender an animal has to
> make an appointment at least a month in advance. Not perfect, but pretty
> good IMHO.
>
> Adam

That is pretty good....As long as you spay/neuter every animal that passes
through your place, you're OK in my book.......

MaryL
March 4th 09, 10:55 PM
> wrote in message
...

As an aside, I wonder how no-kill shelters are doing these days? I
know several that have gone from capture/neuter/hold to capture/neuter/
return for lack of space. And at least a couple that have or are
planning to close down altogether due to lack of support.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Another problem is that many (perhaps *most*) no-kill shelters are so
crowded that they have to deny "admission" to any new pets, at least for a
significant period of time. Many will only accept an animal if a fee is
paid. That is understandable because it is expensive to care for a cat or
dog in a no-kill environment, but both of these scenarios means that the
burden of caring for *most* unwanted pets falls to kill-type animal
shelters. And the majority of those animals are not adopted, so they only
survive for a limited period of time.

MaryL