3·18 days ago- Pets are not intellectually capable of communicating their feelings or desires to humans, so it is up to us as humans to assess the quality of life of our animals in order to prevent them from needless suffering. There is nothing wrong with trying to treat animal illnesses, if you have the resources to do so and can make sure that the animal is maintaining a good quality of life–but that’s sadly not always the case. We love our pets and we all want them to live happily forever after, but the sad truth is that they will eventually get old and sick and (unless they die suddenly) one of the most important acts of compassion that we owe them is giving them a humane end of life without suffering. It is sad. It breaks our fucking hearts. But it is our duty and our responsibility to them, and in a strange way, it is an act of love. We owe it to our pets to take care of them in life and in death.
- Unlike pets, human beings are typically thought to have agency and the ability to express their own wishes regarding their end of life. We can’t really decide that “ok, grandma is lives enough, time to put her down”, because even if we can see that her quality of life has degraded, we understand that it is not our decision to make whether she can continue to try to live.
- In some parts of the world, human beings do have the right to choose when to end their own life via physician-assisted suicide, especially in cases where they have some terminal prognosis where they know that their quality of life will not stay high if they continue to live. I don’t envy being put in this position, and it’s terribly sad to think about, but I do think that it’s ethically the right thing to do to allow for that.