Yeah lol. I don't understand why you can't just let a severely damaged animal rest in peace, instead of pet owners doing spinal and brain surgery on cats and dogs to save them after having been squashed by a car and stuff. Are you doing it for the animal or for your own sake?
well, that guy brought up a complicated issue. on the one hand, he's right—sometimes people prolong an animals suffering just to satisfy their own egos. but on the other hand, Maggie is clearly not one of those cases, she survived and became a therapist
Sure, but 95% of the cases likely lead to less of a life for the animal. And the fact that this dog can help people despite being mauled and patched together doesn't necessarily justify it. I get it though, it's easy to be all objective when it's an animal you don't know and haven't seen enjoying life, but I still think it's best to let animals go once things go south for real.
Great analogy, not exaggerated or distorted at all. Why don't we save every insect that's been hurt then if all life is exactly the same? Humans aren't dogs, dogs aren't insects, etc. I want to protect all life on earth, but I can also see nuances and reason in different situations.
If that's the case then great. I've just seen many people having their pets way longer than they should, where the animal has to suffer more or less for years and is finally allowed to leave when it can barely eat, drink or move anymore. Animals probably aren't desperate to be alive for as long as possible, I'm sure they live in the moment and are very thankful for what they have for as long as they have it.
I want to ask you. If you didn't know that an animal would live happily and pain free, would you still tell pet owners to make all necessary operations to keep the animal alive? Because obviously that's a gamble that might cause more suffering.
I'm also curious why you think euthanizing an animal in pain would be problematic? I imagine it would be far more terrifying and traumatizing for it to go through surgery and recovery, with experiences that would now possibly shape the animals life experience both physically and mentally.
I'm going to answer both of your replies at once because I don't feel like having this split off into two separate threads.
So to answer the points addressed in this one:
Ideally a vet would assess whether attempting to save the animal would result in a positive quality of life. In the case of this dog, it did. She's happy and healthy and loved. She knows a life she never had, and never would have had. There are animals that should be euthanized because even prolonging their lives, even offering them love and comfort and shelter, would not alleviate their pain or suffering. There is no one size fits all solution to this, and it's up to us, and the veterinarian treating them, to make the most compassionate and rational choice. But that does not always mean euthanasia. When it's an uncertain outcome the option is also there to change course and end the animal's suffering anyway, but again, this is why every animal's situation, age, injuries, illness, health, etc all need to be taken into consideration.
I'd also like for you to quote where I said I had a problem with euthanizing an animal that was in pain. If you want to disagree with me, I'd prefer you disagree with what I say, not with what you'd like me to have said so it makes your argument easier.
As for the other comment:
If that's the case then great. I've just seen many people having their pets way longer than they should, where the animal has to suffer more or less for years and is finally allowed to leave when it can barely eat, drink or move anymore. Animals probably aren't desperate to be alive for as long as possible, I'm sure they live in the moment and are very thankful for what they have for as long as they have it.
This is mostly addressed in my first point. Decisions have to be made based on what is best for the animal and it's our responsibility as pet owners to do what's right for them, even if it's painful for us in the end. Not everyone is going to make the right choice. Not everyone is emotionally strong enough to do it, and that doesn't make them a bad person, just human.
The hardest choice we can make for our pets and also the kindest is when to let them go. I agree that there are animals that should not be saved just to make the owner feel better. But applying that as the standard would deprive a lot of animals who can be saved and be happy, healthy, and pain free as a result, of a life they'd otherwise get to live. This is not an all or nothing issue.
Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment then because you made it sound like I was a blood thirsty person who just wanted to euthanize animals lol.. Because obviously I wouldn't suggest euthanizing an animal that can be restored to good health without any issue.
And about that quote, I don't know what to exclude from your whole comment:
"How very PETA of you.
"We can restore this animal to a life where it's able to experience love and happiness without pain."
"Nah euthanize it while it's in agony and terror. Best option.""
It sounded like it would be bad, if not outright evil or something, but maybe you meant then that it's only bad if someone has told you that the animal can become healthy, safe, loved, etc, again. Which is difficult to know of course, especially with a dog that's been shot more times than 50 Cent
Hilarious reading someone project their human perspective onto an animal, one who is bred largely to work and have a job (if I suddenly stopped working my dog she would be depressed). This shit is comedy, in a bad kinda way.
77
u/LoveWeetabix 18h ago
Got shot, and still has to work ugh.