Why is it accepted practice to "put down" dogs?

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but i doubt most pets are being put down because of health. shelters seem to do it because they simply run out of space!

no protests about them being murderers eh?

They're not the real culprits. It's all the stupid people out there who don't spay/neuter their animals or who buy a pet on the spur of the moment, get sick of it and take it to the shelter.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but i doubt most pets are being put down because of health. shelters seem to do it because they simply run out of space!

no protests about them being murderers eh?

I just got my puppy from a no kill shelter, but when we were looking, we went to a kill shelter in Brooklyn. It was about the most depressing thing I have experienced in years.

One family brought in their dog because they were moving and didn't want it anymore. The shelter told them the dog was not adoptable and that they would probably have to put it down. They didn't care... :disgust:

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but i doubt most pets are being put down because of health. shelters seem to do it because they simply run out of space!

no protests about them being murderers eh?

Even the SPCA in my town has become a non-kill shelter now. They do turn down pets though..which they didn't use to do.

 

[Geekbabe]

I've had pets put down because they were gravely ill and in horrible pain.I've also had a couple of occasions where a pet had developed bad habits that made life with that pet impossible and that no amount of behavioal modification could change.A dog that randomly goes after people,a cat that marks every place it walks is not going to find happiness in a new home,what's going to happen is that they're going to be cycled in and out of shelters or end up out in the street.

Not all animals can be rehibilated and "no kill" shelters have such limited space and resources that they even will recommend putting some animals down after careful review of the problem and whatever steps the owner has taken towards resolving them,they don't just accept any/all animals.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: calpha

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
but i doubt most pets are being put down because of health. shelters seem to do it because they simply run out of space!

no protests about them being murderers eh?

Even the SPCA in my town has become a non-kill shelter now. They do turn down pets though..which they didn't use to do.

dunno, sounds like a poor solution. they only get to be nonkill by transfering their burden to the kill shelters


kinda like making yourself feel clean by hiring a hitman to do your dirty work.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
Woah, woah, woah. Defensive aren't we? Perhaps its because the decision to kill them doesn't sit so well after all? All I was saying is that there are people (And here is my evidence) close to me who have put down dogs on the grounds that they were suffering, when it was clear that their suffering COULD have been alleviated to a large degree by operation or therapy. They real "suffering" was on the owner, namely that he'd have to spend a few hundred, even up to a thousand dollars to perform that surgery, an amount I'm sure would fly out of their pocket if it was required to help one of their sons in the same situation. Is it fair then for me to say that he didn't treat the dog like family? That on some level it was inferior and less deserved of such a surgical procedure?
This is what I was getting at. For those of you who would euthanize your human family as well, I applaud you for your consistency. To me that shows that it is truly the suffering and not checkbook accounting that is guiding your decision. I hold the same position.

An animal above all is still an animal. Although we are emotionaly attached to them that does not put them on equal status with other human beings. Cost is a factor in any vet decision I make. The thousand dollars spent saving one sick pet can be spent much more effectively in saving many more pets or even providing more for your own family. Why would I waste a thousand dollars saving a sick pet and putting it through a painful surgery with extended recovery time that it doesn't understand? It is much more humane in my opinion to end the suffering and not subject a pet to extensive medical procedures. I think people that put their pets through chemotherapy or other expensive invasive surgeries care more about their own feelings than that of the animal involved.

Above all an animal is still just an animal, it does not equal a human or the same protections we afford humans.

Yup... The protection to suffer through an intense illness until you "naturally" die. Thanks modern medicine!

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Its an accepted practice because in many cases, its the humane thing to do.

 

[teddymines]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?


Also (not related to your post), the fact that we call it "put down" is a nice way of insulating the owner from the fact that they're electing to have someone kill their pet. That's what they're really doing: killing, not putting to sleep, putting down, or letting go. Killing.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

ah, nothing like a innane thread to bring out the dumbasses.

 

[KC5AV]

I think if an animal is suffering with no chance of recovery, it is the humane thing to do. I agree that people should treat animals like family, but to say that killing a suffering animal is on par with a suffering person is a bit silly. A person is capable of understanding the pain they are in. An animal doesn't have that luxury(?). If the animal were "out in the wild", it wouldn't live very long, anyway. I think the owner should do as much to make the animal comfortable, but if there is no hope there is no hope. End the suffering.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

1. As already stated in this thread, I was a vet tech for years.

2. This was a 14 year-old greyhound, already at the very upper end of their life span.

3. This was acute failure, not chronic slow progression that can be remedied somewhat with diet and meds.

4. The vet and I did everything we could to save her, but she didn't respond to the treatment.

5. You have no idea what you're talking about with regard to an animal I owned for longer than you've probably been alive so shut the f*ck up unless you actually have something to contribute to this thread.

 

[teddymines]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
ah, nothing like a innane thread to bring out the dumbasses.

There's a lot of love in this group, especially from smug idiots.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

1. As already stated in this thread, I was a vet tech for years.

2. This was a 14 year-old greyhound, already at the very upper end of their life span.

3. This was acute failure, not chronic slow progression that can be remedied somewhat with diet and meds.

4. The vet and I did everything we could to save her, but she didn't respond to the treatment.

5. You have no idea what you're talking about with regard to an animal I owned for longer than you've probably been alive so shut the f*ck up unless you actually have something to contribute to this thread.

i knew this reply would be worth the wait.

 

[teddymines]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

1. As already stated in this thread, I was a vet tech for years.

2. This was a 14 year-old greyhound, already at the very upper end of their life span.

3. This was acute failure, not chronic slow progression that can be remedied somewhat with diet and meds.

4. The vet and I did everything we could to save her, but she didn't respond to the treatment.

5. You have no idea what you're talking about with regard to an animal I owned for longer than you've probably been alive so shut the f*ck up unless you actually have something to contribute to this thread.

1. I was aware of your qualifications.

2. You didn't mention the dog's age.

3. You didn't mention the nature of the liver failure.

4. You didn't mention the treatments and subsequent reactions.

5. You make a false assumption about both my experience with animals and my age.

My question was a legitimate one. You chose to react and judge rather than supply more information or ask questions. Do you have issues discussing this topic?

 

[tcsenter]

No veterinarian will euthanize an animal for the sake of 'convenience'.

What you're attempting to ask using an illustrative question is "Why aren't people treated like animals?" or another inflection "Why don't animals have all the same rights as people?"

Because animals aren't people.

 

[tcsenter]

Even the SPCA in my town has become a non-kill shelter now. They do turn down pets though..which they didn't use to do.

Not even 'no-kill' shelters are 'no-kill' in some absolute sense. It simply means they will not have animals euthanized which are reasonably 'healthy' and 'adoptable' animals. However, animals which are not healthy or adoptable are then transferred to other shelters which do euthanize them. So its a little bit of semantics, they get to say "Oh but we didn't euthanize the animal, it was the other shelter we gave the animal to."

My mother does animal rescue, private adoptions, and works with all the animal shelters in and around Stockton/Sacramento area so we know how it works.

Also, SPCAs and other 'no-kill' shelters are a bit arrogant in pretending to be more 'ethical' at the same time they are highly selective about the animals they will take in (only taking in healthy and adoptable animals to begin with). When you're a private or public shelter that will take in ALL animals regardless of health or disposition, you don't have the luxury of being 'no kill'.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

1. As already stated in this thread, I was a vet tech for years.

2. This was a 14 year-old greyhound, already at the very upper end of their life span.

3. This was acute failure, not chronic slow progression that can be remedied somewhat with diet and meds.

4. The vet and I did everything we could to save her, but she didn't respond to the treatment.

5. You have no idea what you're talking about with regard to an animal I owned for longer than you've probably been alive so shut the f*ck up unless you actually have something to contribute to this thread.

1. I was aware of your qualifications.

2. You didn't mention the dog's age.

3. You didn't mention the nature of the liver failure.

4. You didn't mention the treatments and subsequent reactions.

5. You make a false assumption about both my experience with animals and my age.

My question was a legitimate one. You chose to react and judge rather than supply more information or ask questions. Do you have issues discussing this topic?

of course you could of asked for this information before you jump to the wrong conclusion and make an ass out of yourself.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: teddymines

Originally posted by: Fausto1
This thread = flamebait.

Explain to me why an animal that is blind, in pain, deaf, and without bowel control should be kept alive? Hmmm? WTF kind of existence is that? I had to put my last dog down when she went into liver failure. By your logic, I should have let her die a slow painful death as she became more and more jaundiced and went into a coma.

There are plenty of people living with liver failure. They are kept alive by drugs and transplants. Did you check to see if those treatments were available for your dog?

1. As already stated in this thread, I was a vet tech for years.

2. This was a 14 year-old greyhound, already at the very upper end of their life span.

3. This was acute failure, not chronic slow progression that can be remedied somewhat with diet and meds.

4. The vet and I did everything we could to save her, but she didn't respond to the treatment.

5. You have no idea what you're talking about with regard to an animal I owned for longer than you've probably been alive so shut the f*ck up unless you actually have something to contribute to this thread.

1. I was aware of your qualifications.

2. You didn't mention the dog's age.

3. You didn't mention the nature of the liver failure.

4. You didn't mention the treatments and subsequent reactions.

5. You make a false assumption about both my experience with animals and my age.

My question was a legitimate one. You chose to react and judge rather than supply more information or ask questions. Do you have issues discussing this topic?

I have issues with you making assumptions about how far I would go to care for a pet. This is particularly irritating since you already knew I was a vet tech. Who else would be more likely to do everything possible to save a pet and have access and knowledge regarding available therapy? Why would you even ask such a stupid question unless you're just trolling.....as usual.

 

[teddymines]

pm...

 

[Statistic]

I wonder if the real Blip Blop knows his dog types on his computer while he's at work...

 

[Zenmervolt]

There does come a point when it's just not humane to keep an animal alive anymore. We had to put down our old cat a year or so ago because he had problems with his back, his kidneys, and his thyroid. The real kicker was that the thyroid medication aggrevated his kidney condition and the kidney medication aggrivated his thyroid. The cat was worse when he was medicated. In the end he had to be euthanized because he couldn't get better. As for whether or not I would advocate euthanizing a family member, that would depend entirely upon their wishes. As HC said, humand have the ability to choose while the animals don't. I certainly would not euthanize a person whom I knew did not wish to be euthanized, but I would not hinder the euthanization of a person who did wish it.

ZV

 

[ILikeStuff]

dogs != humans I simply do not recognize that a dog's life is as valuable as a human life and thereby find the comparison to be a worthless one.

Personally, I'd rather an incapable owner put their dog up for sale, and put it down as a last resort. But I don't find killing a dog (or ANY animal) to be an immoral action.

EDIT: I think killing animals animals indescriminately and in mass quantities for no particular reason except that it is "fun" is a "Bad" thing

 

[Statistic]

Ya, and how dare those farmers kill their cows to make food and shoes and stuff. Its exactly the same as killing his own daughter!!


Sure, one says, "I love you Daddy" and the other says, "Mmooooo" but other than that it's exactly the same!

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: rahvin
An animal above all is still an animal. Although we are emotionaly attached to them that does not put them on equal status with other human beings. Cost is a factor in any vet decision I make. The thousand dollars spent saving one sick pet can be spent much more effectively in saving many more pets or even providing more for your own family. Why would I waste a thousand dollars saving a sick pet and putting it through a painful surgery with extended recovery time that it doesn't understand? It is much more humane in my opinion to end the suffering and not subject a pet to extensive medical procedures. I think people that put their pets through chemotherapy or other expensive invasive surgeries care more about their own feelings than that of the animal involved.

Above all an animal is still just an animal, it does not equal a human or the same protections we afford humans.

I think you are exactly right. People will spend thousands of dollars to prolong the life of their sick/dying pet and tell themselves that they are doing it so the animal can live. In reality they just can't let go of a beloved pet (which I can understand) but they are looking out for their own feelings not the animal's who they claim to care so much about. If your pet has something stuck in it's stomach for example, sure pay the money to get it removed, but if it has liver failure or some other problem that is not curable, don't pretend to do the animal any favors by prolonging it's life, let it die in peace and not spend the last years of it's life in pain.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: rahvin
An animal above all is still an animal. Although we are emotionaly attached to them that does not put them on equal status with other human beings. Cost is a factor in any vet decision I make. The thousand dollars spent saving one sick pet can be spent much more effectively in saving many more pets or even providing more for your own family. Why would I waste a thousand dollars saving a sick pet and putting it through a painful surgery with extended recovery time that it doesn't understand? It is much more humane in my opinion to end the suffering and not subject a pet to extensive medical procedures. I think people that put their pets through chemotherapy or other expensive invasive surgeries care more about their own feelings than that of the animal involved.

Above all an animal is still just an animal, it does not equal a human or the same protections we afford humans.

I think you are exactly right. People will spend thousands of dollars to prolong the life of their sick/dying pet and tell themselves that they are doing it so the animal can live. In reality they just can't let go of a beloved pet (which I can understand) but they are looking out for their own feelings not the animal's who they claim to care so much about. If your pet has something stuck in it's stomach for example, sure pay the money to get it removed, but if it has liver failure or some other problem that is not curable, don't pretend to do the animal any favors by prolonging it's life, let it die in peace and not spend the last years of it's life in pain.

my dog wasn't in any pain until right before the end. the radio therapy was helping, but when my parents moved with the dog to colombia that was the end of radiology.

my cat had skin cancer on the heel of her back leg. her leg was amputated and she adjusted in about 24 hours since she'd already been limping for a couple of weeks.