we put our ill pets down but not our loved ones?
why is it that when our pets are ill we put them to sleep so they dont suffer and if we dont then we are concidered in-human and can actually be prosecuted for cruelty but when its our loved one`s that suffer the we are concidered barbaric and found guilty of murder if we do the same for them?
do we think less of our loved one than we do of our pets?why should we not be allowed to think of them in the same way.
who wants to see their loved ones suffer for our own pride to keep them alive at the expence of their pain,pets cannot tell us what they want or think but mankind can and even if we beg for release we are still denied the relief it would give us.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
If you live in Oregon, you do have the right to physician-assisted suicide.
The big difference is that our pets and livestock cannot tell us if they think their suffering overshadows whatever joy they get out of living another day, so we have no recourse but to make the call for them. Our human loved ones are usually able to communicate about that, and should do so before they become too infirm to make a considered decision.Source(s): Anyone who wants to discuss issues like this is welcome to join this Yahoo! debate group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VirtualDinnerParty/
- 1 decade ago
The difference is that we make the decision for our pets, but we can't for our humans. Think about it. There's no way you can ever be allowed to make plans for a relative. It's for them only. Only. Do you want to make a decision for grandma when she's had a stroke and can't talk? Sorry. You can't. Who are you to presume that??
And you're wrong actually. It can be the opposite. In severe brain injury cases, the life support is not turned off until all the family is convinced, although the Meds are telling them it's time.
If people are in their right mind, and they do not wish to live any longer with chronic illness,(cancer etc.) then all they have to do is refuse food. They know that, and it's up to them. Not you. You are not in the position of responsibility. Its not your life.
By the way, pain is the easiest of the symptoms to manage , and has been for a long time, if you are talking about suffering in palliative care.
- Rev PhilLv 41 decade ago
When it comes to animals we "put them down" when they are no long of use to us. When watching a beloved pet causes us more unhappiness than happiness we put them down...when a horse can no longer run...it is put down...This is because in the end animals are objects to us...they are things to help us, to accompany us, or to comfort us. Humans however are what is known as an end in themselves. This subject when it comes to people is sticky wicket.
For example, when is one able to decide they can end their own life...how do you account for depression? When it comes to deciding when another should be ended...how old do they have to be...how mentally capable (or incapable)...how physically sick do they need be? Where is the line between legally assisted suicide and legal murder?
There is a contemporary philosopher...Singer I think...who at one time felt that the mentally retarded and infirm were not fully human beings and therefor not really human like we are and thus somewhere more akin to animals and should be put out of their misery...This of course changed as soon as his mother became one of the people he has...philosophized against.
In short the reason is the same as why there is few if any medical experiments done on humans...Human life if valued until the last because we are people are even if we believe in a higher power and/or religion we still cling to life at every turn.
I hope this helps
- 1 decade ago
this is a huge question which has many different angles. i have done alot of palliative care and i am all for euthinasia. but the problems come with diagnosing whether someone is of sound mind or depressed. you say that "victims" can tell you but in reality they cannot always do that and even if they can they can also change their minds. one patient of mine had a muscular degenerative disease (all muscles stop working until your heart stops) anyway at first he said that when he could no longer talk he wanted to go, then he changed that to when he could no longer eat he wanted to go then he changed it again to when he could no longer blink in order to communicate he wanted to go. but once he looses that ablity to blink and communicate he no longer is able to say whether or not he wants to die. can you see that dilema?
and then there is the issue of what is quality of life? it is different for everyone. just because you are dying, unable to move or talk, does not mean that you are not still learning and experiencing things right to the very end.
but yes it does seem a little silly, however have hope. my theory is... and this sounds horrible..... but i think simply from an economic point of view they will NEED to bring in euthinasia. already they are under staffed in the health and aged care areas and this problem is only going to get worse. so yeah, don't worry, it will happen one day soonish. but then you have to ask yourself, would it be what you really wanted?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Actually with DNR orders, we're at the beginning, but you are right. In my opinion, it is the Puritanical law makers that cause the problem. The other little issue is proving said "victim" wanted to be "off'ed" to begin with. How do you prove they wanted to end their lives? How sick they are? How much they struggle to survive?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I agree with you 100%