Euthanasia Allows Puppy Mills to Thrive
By Mark Whitt - Mark@adaptttoledo.com
I'm always disturbed when I hear "animal people" refer to lethal injection as being a 'humane' solution for shelters to use. Don't get me wrong, gas chambers and other common methods currently used in some shelters are horrible ways to kill any animal. But compared to the even greater harm of completely taking away the animal's life, I really don't see any method of killing as being better than another. Why does no one suggest that maybe we shouldn't be killing any animals in the first place?
I see only one way to break the vicious cycle of puppy mills pumping out animals that the shelters must then destroy, and that is the total eradication of 'euthanasia' from animal shelters.
I put the word 'euthanasia' in quotes because I don't believe that any such thing really exists. Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, is defined as "a pleasant death." There is nothing 'pleasant' about taking the life of a healthy, vibrant being. And I doubt very much that the animals being killed think that it's so pleasant. In my 40+ years, I've never seen any animal exhibit the apparent desire to die. Even those who are very injured or sick still struggle to live. So, I have to assume that they want to live. If we're doing something to the animal that is the opposite of what he/she wants, how can the animal find that pleasant?
But this is beside the point. My first real 'beef' with 'euthanasia' is that it is done almost entirely for convenience. Society has a convenient way to dispose of unwanted animals by taking them to shelters and having them 'euthanized.' If this convenience were not available then there would be a LOT more animals running around -- and it would be plainly obvious to everyone that you don't need to go to a breeder or a pet store to buy an animal. 'Euthanasia' masks the real problem (too many dogs and cats being produced) by making the excess animals disappear from public view.
To put it bluntly, euthanasia enables the breeders to keep putting out more and more animals. The breeders keep making money off the animals they produce while society is saddled with disposing of the excess. Euthanasia is a tax that breeders impose on us without going through the government -- and it allows the breeders' exploitation to continue. If society refused to provide this service any longer, how could the breeders stay in business? Who knows? With all of the animals running around maybe we'd finally see laws passed requiring people to spay or neuter their pets.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any laws come into place until society is inconvenienced enough to demand them. And THAT won't happen until the compassionate people out there working for the animals finally say "ENOUGH! We aren't going to do your dirty work for you any more. You can all swim in cats and dogs until you finally figure out that EVERYBODY must take responsibility for taking care of the animals -- not just the unfortunate and financially strapped few who happen to have a heart."
My second real 'beef' with euthanasia is that it does nothing to help the animal being euthanized. When the animal is dead, he/she is dead. Not only has the ability to suffer been removed, but so has the ability to run, jump, sleep, love, enjoy the companionship of another animal or human, and enjoy life -- as well as any chance that this animal will ever have a better life. I keep hearing people saying things like "well, it was better than letting them starve" or "if we didn't euthanize them then they'd get hit by cars." I've gone hungry before, and while it may not have been pleasant, I certainly preferred being hungry to being dead. And as far as getting hit by cars go, maybe some of them will get hit, but others won't. Why don't the ones that won't get hit deserve to live? And why don't the ones that will get hit deserve to live what life they have up until that time?
I find the attitude that we can avoid animal suffering through euthanasia very disturbing. My response to that is that if what you're doing to the animal is something you would not do to a human, then you shouldn't be doing it to the animals either. Should we euthanize homeless people? Should we euthanize all of the people in nursing homes or hospitals so that they don't suffer? How about our kids? They're going to endure some pretty serious suffering in their lifetimes, so should we euthanize them before they suffer? Why accept a double standard when it comes to animals?
My point is that suffering is a part of life. It's rare when you can deny any being the suffering of life without denying him/her everything else too.
Euthanasia may have a place under some very extreme circumstances. But I suspect that the real reason humans choose euthanasia out of 'compassion' is that we always feel we must do something to help -- because if we don't 'help' then WE feel helpless.
Hello? How is doing the ULTIMATE HARM being helpful? If we're killing because we feel helpless and it's the only way we can think of to help, then we're killing to sooth OUR conscious -- not to help the animals. If that's the best we can come up with then maybe it's better that we do nothing. From an ethical standpoint, doing nothing may well be the only truly moral option we have in a great many cases.
The only way to break the vicious breed/euthanasia cycle is for us to refuse to take part in the euthanasia of any more homeless animals. This is something we can do right now. We don't have to wait for some politician to "get it" to see results
The change won't be fast, painless, or easy. In fact, it will be heart wrenching. However, it will be a public heart wrench that affects everyone instead of the unseen one that goes on in uncounted 'shelters' right now. And that's the real key to change.