MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

Well, in light of Martin's update to the original question - I shall try to bypass the moral aspect of this.

There are (fortunately) plenty of welfare sanctuaries - for different types of animals - in this country who would take the beasts in question or who may be able to offer grants to help with vets' fees. And there is also the PDSA or Blue Cross for those in financial need.

I am a meat eater and am not a fluffy-bunny-hugger. However, dogs, cats, horses - probably goats (I'm not sure, so I can't say for certain) are SENTIENT beings - they can look at a situation and consider various factors before making an independent decision as to what action they are going to take. Not all species can do this. For such sentient animals, I don't believe that they have less of a right to a full life than humans.

If it is essential that Anne must get rid of the animals, and she really cannot find any shelter willing to help her (which I doubt, considering the shelters up and down the country), then she would need to think about whether she can live with herself. It rather sounds like she's in such a financial pickle that she'd lose her home with or without the animals. I was in a slightly similar situation with crippling vet bills a few years ago. I sold all I could (my Dr. Who video collection netted me a few hundred quid ) to pay the bills until I got a new job. I couldn't have put a happy, vibrant dog to death and faced my conscience. She did pass away some years afterwards - but at least I could sleep at night...

I don't think there's a definitive answer to this MMD - it's down to the individual's conscience.

Personally, I would rather be destitute and hungry WITH my dog (which I have been for most of the last year... I'm now in my eleventh "one meal per day" month), than able to financially get by WITHOUT him. He brings joy and companionship and is the one good thing I have at the moment. But I do know that some people find this position ludicrous, and that's not necessarily wrong; just their viewpoint.

So - if I was Anne; no, I wouldn't put them to sleep. That's my conscience though, which is more important to me than money. Not necessarily wise - but the right answer for me, personally.

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Well, in light of Martin's update to the original question - I shall try to bypass the moral aspect of this.

There are (fortunately) plenty of welfare sanctuaries - for different types of animals - in this country who would take the beasts in question or who may be able to offer grants to help with vets' fees. And there is also the PDSA or Blue Cross for those in financial need.

I am a meat eater and am not a fluffy-bunny-hugger. However, dogs, cats, horses - probably goats (I'm not sure, so I can't say for certain) are SENTIENT beings - they can look at a situation and consider various factors before making an independent decision as to what action they are going to take. Not all species can do this. For such sentient animals, I don't believe that they have less of a right to a full life than humans.

If it is essential that Anne must get rid of the animals, and she really cannot find any shelter willing to help her (which I doubt, considering the shelters up and down the country), then she would need to think about whether she can live with herself. It rather sounds like she's in such a financial pickle that she'd lose her home with or without the animals. I was in a slightly similar situation with crippling vet bills a few years ago. I sold all I could (my Dr. Who video collection netted me a few hundred quid ) to pay the bills until I got a new job. I couldn't have put a happy, vibrant dog to death and faced my conscience. She did pass away some years afterwards - but at least I could sleep at night...

I don't think there's a definitive answer to this MMD - it's down to the individual's conscience.

Personally, I would rather be destitute and hungry WITH my dog (which I have been for most of the last year... I'm now in my eleventh "one meal per day" month), than able to financially get by WITHOUT him. He brings joy and companionship and is the one good thing I have at the moment. But I do know that some people find this position ludicrous, and that's not necessarily wrong; just their viewpoint.

So - if I was Anne; no, I wouldn't put them to sleep. That's my conscience though, which is more important to me than money. Not necessarily wise - but the right answer for me, personally.

You say you will try to bypass the moral aspect of this debate, then base your whole argument on people's consciences. I am not quite sure how the logic of this works?

Good grief .. what a question to ask .. of course you don't put innocent animals down .. and a good vet wouldn't do it either .. there are loads of charities that will take animals and rehome them or keep them .. I'm amazed you even thought to ask such a question .. !!

Clive_Woody wrote: »

:wall: You just cannot get past the point that other people have different opinions to you and in this case there is no right or wrong as both options are valid and legal.

Can I also suggest you re-read the original dilema on page 1.

In which case, if you take your own advice, that people are entitled to their own opinions, isn't Enchantica entitled to the opinion that it's wrong to put an animal down in this scenario?

I agree with Martin that this is certainly a worthwhile discussion to highlight the options to people in dire financial straits who have pets, but I also agree it should have been worded better, "to kill or not to kill" (paraphrasing "Should Anne put the animals down") isn't a helpful debate at all and preys on people's sensitivites. imho, it's almost inevitable that at some point this thread will need to be closed because of offence caused.

pippitypip

no she should absolutely not put the animals down. she should contact every animal sanctuary or rehoming place there is, even if this takes ages. The animals are not to blame for her losing her job.