MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

MSE_Martin wrote: »

If you can post links of shelters which will take animals in regardless of health - i'll happily link to them in the first post - then hopefully some will gain from it.

Dear Martin,

http://www.stokenchurchdogrescue.co.uk/ is where Jasper (and his two late predecessors) came from. To my knowledge, they don't euthanise (unless, obviously, it is in the best interests of the dog). The story of Jasper's time in the shelter is currently ongoing on his blog (link when clicking my username).

Thanks for all you do for Moneysavers.

Ruth (and Jasper) x

cindyted wrote: »

I do not thing the term 'chop them up' is particularly a nice term, and I am sure could have been put in a more sympathetic manner. I agree there a two sides to this discussion. You are are obviously passionate about your Rugby, I am passionate about animals. As for getting a grip, dont patronise me.

A post in response to those comparing animal euthanasia to child murder.

I was posting an equally ridiculous emotive response, but from the other side of the argument. Hopefully that is now clear.

Enchantica wrote: »

DOGS

Founded in 1891, Dogs Trust (formerly the National Canine Defence League) is the largest dog welfare charity in the UK. Our mission is to bring about the day when all dogs can enjoy a happy life, free from the threat of unnecessary destruction.
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/rehoming/searchcentres/default.aspx

From their website "We never destroy a healthy dog"

So dogs with medical conditions as mentioned in the first post on this discussion would most likely be for the chop.

There is obviously two sides to the debate, and there is a lot of sentimentality when it comes to animals, especially pet animals.

Those who suggest that having the animals put to sleep is a viable solution I would postulate that they are simply not animal lovers (and that is not said in criticism, it is just my opinion).

Any one who has had pets AND loved them could simply not consider having their animals put to sleep and would go to any length to find an alternative solution.

To those people who simply own an animal, but do not particularly value animals or find value in owning animals (and these people do exist, my grandma was a little like this and my mum once told me a story that when she saw a dog run over and killed - quite horrifically so - and was hysterically upset, she was told by my grandmother to shut up, get over it and that it was only a dog - yet my mum always had pets growing up) then maybe they could consider this.

I am in the first camp, and could not consider having a healthy animal put to sleep, especially if it was one I had lived ALONGSIDE and LOVED for any period of time.

I stated in the first post I made on this thread that I thought this dilemma was pretty disgusting. I have not read every post but have noticed that Martin has tried to defend the question, and I do appreciate people have different opinions, but at the very least this thread seems to promote irresponsible pet ownership i.e. If you lose your job and can't afford to keep your animals, just have them put to sleep, problem solved. Imo, that is simply not a moral solution.

All I can say in response is that I whole heartedly disagree.

I must admit I struggle to truly empathise with the situation (and that is from a position of having, in the past, lived in relative poverty and kept animals). But I simply cannot imagine having my animals put to sleep, regardless of my financial circumstances, and nor can I understand how anyone could do that.