Jul 022011
We had our beloved mutt euthanized this week. It is something no one wants to do, but he had end-stage renal disease, was clearly suffering, and had little time left.
Because I am a sentimental old fool and did not want to bear the thought of his dying accompanied only by a stranger, I stayed with him through the process, which was indeed swift and, as far as I could tell painless, at least for him.
And because I am a crank I was led to wonder at how is that we are so much more humane toward our dogs than toward ourselves.
5 Responses to “Wondering at ordinary things”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
That seems to be true in many areas yea… we just generally care a lot more for pets than we do for humans. I think part of that comes from the desensitization we are brainwashed with as children and onwards- human on human violence is accepted as a form of entertainment, but not human on pet violence.
To be honest myself I really can’t fathom how opposition to euthanasia could have come from anything but the Christian lobby, or at least, from Christian morality in general. You know the story – life is a gift from God, humans have no right to take what is not theirs yadda yadda. In our almost secular society, I still don’t understand what all the opposition is about. They can’t surely all be Christian for the opposition is so great, but at the same time, the paradox is, they must all surely be Christian, or at least following an Abrahamic morality in order to think in such a way. I like though, how this is one thing animals got the rights to before us – humans make laws about not killing each other, not eating each other etc., but don’t make the same laws for animals, but when it comes to euthanasia, humans only have the mercy required to euthanise their pets, and not their loved ones.
I wonder how secular the society I live in really is. I am oppressed by a sense that the present-day United States is characterized by a great deal of every-increasingly truculent religiousity. Remember Terri Schiavo?
I think an important reason is this: most people consider life to be good, at least most of the time/usually. If someone doesn’t want to live then people still think that, given the right circumstances, he would want to. If they now allow him to die, then that would mean that they are unable or unwilling to help him achieve these circumstances instead. Of course this often results in people forcing that person to live while still not helping him as much as necessary/possible. But I guess it makes pretending easier if you don’t acknowledge that you have given up on making that persons life worthwhile for him.
All the best,
rob
I strongly sense that people want to signal concern. In many cases there is some benevolence involved (although it might be misguided); there’s probably also a desire to signal to third parties that they are reliable/trustworthy as affiliates or alliies, which migght be easier to do by expending resources on care (even if they are inadquate) rather than letting die.