MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

st2000

I can't believe people's reaction to this thread, there is nothing immoral about asking this question. Euthanasia is far better than an uncertain future.

I believe firmly that putting these animals to sleep is the best thing to do, both for her own sake and for the sake of the animals given they are old and infirm. It is unrealistic to think that all unwanted animals can be accommodated in sanctuaries, and far better to take responsibility for them and guarantee they will not fall into the wrong hands or be treated badly in the future. Death is not the worst thing.

As a vet, I would provide support to rehome animals that were healthy if this was the owners wish, but if this was not appropriate and they were ill/old I would have no qualms about putting them down.

aliasojo

cindyted wrote: »

How come I fit in here??? I wasnt talking about you Aliasojo

Ah, I see your edit. I understand now. Sorry.

aliasojo

reluctantworkingmum wrote: »

sorry alias ojo - you got that one wrong - afraid it is not an old AE...is actually my only ID.. have never needed more than one ....why do you have others????

Lol, I offer my post count as a defence. I talk a lot under my one and only guise.

You don't chat much in 3 years, do you?

Edit: Or 2 and a half.

st2000

Markob, that would be illegal and quite messy, particularly in the case of the pony. Not something I'd recommend.

The_Wise_One

The short answer is "No".

Anne should take advice from the RSPCA or her local animal sanctuary. All avenues for assessing the animals' chances of a comfortable life, free from cold, pain, fear and hunger, should be taken with a view to their being re-homed.

Indeed, the decision should be taken out of Anne's hands if possible and the animals signed over to one of the above agencies who would leave Anne with hope for her pets and spare her any painful decisions.

claire5005_2

markob wrote: »

As far as I'm aware it costs alot to get the animals put down so you should put a towel over their heads and hit them with a hammer.

It might not be illegal to put down healthy animals but there are laws relating to animal cruelty. If you think this is a good way to put down animals I don't think I will like you as a person.

harryhound

Talent wrote: »

If you take animals in, you are responsible for their welfare, whilst you can afford it. Having said that, always keep a top predator, that way you can feed it with the rest of them....
I cannot believe people are putting animals welfare ahead of a human. They had a good home while it lasted, now it's gone. Full stop.

I think there are laws against that sort of thing?

I seem to remember going to a local pet farm to buy a gerbil.
"What sort do you want?"
- A cheep one - the runt will do.
"Are you going to feed it to a snake?"
- What me;)
"We get a lot of people in here, looking for snake food"
..................
.................
It is very sad - the poor old python died anyway - just seemed to have lost the will to live, even when a gerbil scampered through his "jungle".

st2000

The_Wise_One wrote: »

The short answer is "No".

Anne should take advice from the RSPCA or her local animal sanctuary. All avenues for assessing the animals' chances of a comfortable life, free from cold, pain, fear and hunger, should be taken with a view to their being re-homed.

Indeed, the decision should be taken out of Anne's hands if possible and the animals signed over to one of the above agencies who would leave Anne with hope for her pets and spare her any painful decisions.

Why should it be taken out of her hands? They are her animals and she has cared for them well but is no longer able to.

For many people knowing an animal has been put to sleep offers far more peace of mind than wondering if it is being passed from pillar to post and cared for properly, and is in my opinion far more responsible than avoiding this difficult decision by palming animals with problems off on the nearest charity.

It would be wrong to effectively villify someone for considering this as a reasonable way out of very serious problems.

Clive_Woody

aliasojo wrote: »

Thank you. Should I call you cindy? :rotfl:

I've been called most things over the years, but that is a new one on me :beer:

You can call me Cindy if you like I shall not take offence :rotfl:

aliasojo

Clive_Woody wrote: »

You can call me Cindy if you like I shall not take offence :rotfl:

That made me smile.