Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lawrence
    MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 10, 7:24 PM
    MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down? 6th Apr 10 at 7:24 PM
    Here's this week's hypothetical situation for you to cogitate on:

    Should Anne put the animals down?

    Anne's always been an animal lover and over the years has acquired many strays. She's got a pony, two goats, four dogs, three cats and a hamster - many getting on in years and with medical problems. A year ago she lost her job - her savings have gone, and she's struggling to keep her home. Her biggest cost is the animals' welfare & food. Nobody wants to take them.

    Click reply to have your say

    Previous MMDs: View All



    Update Note From Martin

    A quick response on the "this shouldn't be discussed its not appropriate" notes a few have listed.

    This is a more common situation than you think it originates from a similar (though no identical) question posed to me about what the options were for pets when the money had run out.

    In the past I once did a money makeover on a woman who's was massively overspending due to her animals and causing financial problems. As some in the thread have said they have been put in severe debt due to animal costs.

    Just because the consequences of this aren't nice - doesn't mean we don't need think how to deal with it.

    Being open to debate is important

    This is a pure money moral dilemma - putting animals down is not illegal. Financially not having the animals adds up, yet is it morally acceptible. It's a moral v a money situation - exactly the type of MMD many people need face.

    We live in a meat eating society - animals are killed for food all the time - the moral difference between that and putting an animal down so someone can afford to eat - is a relatively fine line. Different people draw conclusions on both sides of it. It's also worth noting at some point if she loses her home and is declared bankrupt the animals may be homesless and without food too.

    Of course its to be hoped sancturies and animal welfare charities would take the animals - indeed she is very obviously an animal lover as are many - and no one wants to think of animals suffering - and it will cause great emotion to get rid of them. Yet I've heard reports that especially old and sick animals can't always be catered for (though have no empirical evidence).

    Would it be different if it were a farmer who had livestock that couldn't sell and thus his choice was to cull them in order to cut costs?

    Why debate it?

    The point of the MMD is to make people think - to come up with a situation where different people will have opposing views and learn from each other.

    Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.

    Please lets try and have a sensible rational debate about what some people face as a real economic and ethical reality.

    Martin

    PS Some animal shelters to help anyone in this position provided by people in this thread.

    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...s/default.aspx

    CATS

    Helping the Harder to Home Cats ('Top Cats' section) - Most rescues find they have a few cats that always seem to be overlooked, and often stay in care for months or even years. They may be elderly, have a medical condition, be very shy, or are simply passed by in favour of prettier or younger cats. Rescues can feature any 'harder to home' cats on our Top Cats section. This section has been very successful in finding new homes for many cats, some of whom had almost given up hope.
    http://www.catchat.org/adoption/index.html

    RODENTS

    Special notice should be given to Paws Here in Edinburgh - I support and regularly donate to this shelter and I take in their elderly rats when I can.
    http://www.animalrescuers.co.uk/html/rabferr.html

    FARM ANIMALS

    I am less familiar with farm animals but I have these links which may help:

    http://www.farmanimalrescue.org.uk/f...ry-history.htm
    Middlesex

    http://www.thefarmanimalsanctuary.co.uk/
    Worcestershire

    http://www.animalrescuers.co.uk/html/farm.html
    UK

    This site in general is really good for around the country shelters:
    http://www.animalrescuers.co.uk/





    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers

    Last edited by MSE Martin; 08-04-2010 at 9:22 PM.
Page 5
    • Enchantica
    • By Enchantica 7th Apr 10, 2:28 PM
    • 548 Posts
    • 1,308 Thanks
    Enchantica
    Right I'm done, I will reitterate - IF ANYONE IS ACTUALLY IN THIS SITUATION PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH ME BECAUSE I HAVE OTHER SOLUTIONS FOR YOU AND CAN FIND YOU A NO-KILL SHELTER. IF YOU ARE IN SCOTLAND AND HAVE UNWANTED RATS PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH ME BECAUSE I WILL GIVE THEM A LOVING HOME.

    Can't be bothered repeating myself over and over again.

    Killing a healthy pet is wrong. If you can do that and live with no regrets... well... take a look at yourself in the mirror and see what you have become.

    Goodbye and goodnight 'debate'.
    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 7th Apr 10, 2:29 PM
    • 8,116 Posts
    • 42,310 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    A quick response on the "this shouldn't be discussed its not appropriate" notes a few have listed.

    This is a more common situation than you think it originates from a similar (though no identical) question posed to me about what the options were for pets when the money had run out.

    In the past I once did a money makeover on a woman who's was massively overspending due to her animals and causing financial problems. As some in the thread have said they have been put in severe debt due to animal costs.

    Just because the consequences of this aren't nice - doesn't mean we don't need think how to deal with it.

    Being open to debate is important

    This is a pure money moral dilemma - putting animals down is not illegal. Financially not having the animals adds up, yet is it morally acceptible. It's a moral v a money situation - exactly the type of MMD many people need face.

    We live in a meat eating society - animals are killed for food all the time - the moral difference between that and putting an animal down so someone can afford to eat - is a relatively fine line. Different people draw conclusions on both sides of it. It's also worth noting at some point if she loses her home and is declared bankrupt the animals may be homesless and without food too.

    Of course its to be hoped sancturies and animal welfare charities would take the animals - indeed she is very obviously an animal lover as are many - and no one wants to think of animals suffering - and it will cause great emotion to get rid of them. Yet I've heard reports that especially old and sick animals can't always be catered for (though have no empirical evidence).

    Why debate it?

    The point of the MMD is to make people think - to come up with a situation where different people will have opposing views and learn from each other.

    Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.

    Please lets try and have a sensible rational debate about what some people face as a real economic and ethical reality.

    Martin
    Last edited by MSE Martin; 07-04-2010 at 2:45 PM.
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 7th Apr 10, 2:29 PM
    • 4,936 Posts
    • 5,516 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    The basic point of this is that Anne kept those animals for a reason. If it was for food then the question posed doesn't arise. However, the implication of the question is that she has an emotional attachment to the animals - hence the dilemma.

    I'm pretty sure that many people are as emotionally attached to their animals as they would be to a child (some more so) - therefore the idea of killing either is repugnant. The issues of people giving more money to animal charities than children's charities is irrelevant.
    Originally posted by PhiltheBear
    I don't doubt some people form an emotional attachement to their pets, but to start comparing pets with children is in my opinion utterly ridiculous and without reason.

    I find this topic objectionable because the question boils down to "is it OK to kill"? People who start by killing animals needlessly are often those who go on to kill people needlessly. And what is occurring here is that there are 2 broad categories of contributor - those who say 'don't kill' and those who say 'kill'. Those in the second category, who can't be bothered to look at any other solution, are seriously worrying.
    Surely by that logic most vets would eventually become serial killers?

    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • tracethereader
    There is absolutely no way in the world that you should even be allowed to consider putting healthy animals down even if it means you go without yourself as a result of having them.. after all you chose to bring them into your life.
    When you take on owning a dog/cat/fish whatever else you are taking on, the responsibility to look after them is yours from that point onwards, and that means being responsible for them on every level.
    They are completely dependant upon you for everything.
    You wouldn't consider having a child or any other family member killed because times were difficult so why should it be an option with an animal that can't look after themselves and has no choice but to depend on you?
    Last edited by tracethereader; 07-04-2010 at 2:34 PM.
    • aliasojo
    • By aliasojo 7th Apr 10, 2:30 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    ...........so what do you all propose, given that the dilemma has already stated that nobody will take the animals. suggesting shelters, the PDSA, neighbours, friends, etc. is not helpful, because as far as we know, there is nobody willing to take the animals. given this restrictive set of circumstances, what do you propose the woman does?
    Originally posted by jpbowley

    She could always become a hooker.

    What?! It's 'only' a hypothetical. Anything goes apparently.
    Herman - MP for all!
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 7th Apr 10, 2:31 PM
    • 4,936 Posts
    • 5,516 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    For those that say "this shouldn't be discussed" I'm sorry I can't agree.

    This is a more common situation than you think (i once did a money makeover on a woman who's was massively overspending due to her animals). As some in the thread have said they have been put in severe debt due to animal costs.

    Now I don't propose a solution - but I do believe it must be open to debate.

    We live in a meat eating society - animals are killed for food all the time - the moral difference between that and putting an animal down so someone can afford to eat - is a relatively fine line and one suitable of being discussed.

    Many people offer solutions such as sancturies - yet others say that their animals have been rejected - so what then?

    The point of the MMD is to make people think - to come up with a situation where different people will have opposing views and learn from each other.

    This question came because it a similar real life situation was relayed to me. Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.

    Yet to simpy not discuss it because its an unpleasant concept seems a little 'brush under the carpet' to me.

    Martin
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    100% agree

    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
    • aliasojo
    • By aliasojo 7th Apr 10, 2:32 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    Yet to simpy not discuss it because its an unpleasant concept seems a little 'brush under the carpet' to me.

    Martin
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    That quote might come back and bite you on the bum one day.
    Herman - MP for all!
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 7th Apr 10, 2:33 PM
    • 4,936 Posts
    • 5,516 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    She could always become a hooker.

    What?! It's 'only' a hypothetical. Anything goes apparently.
    Originally posted by aliasojo
    That's the spirit, all options should be considered in any serious debate.

    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
    • PhiltheBear
    • By PhiltheBear 7th Apr 10, 2:35 PM
    • 270 Posts
    • 310 Thanks
    PhiltheBear
    so what do you all propose, given that the dilemma has already stated that nobody will take the animals. suggesting shelters, the PDSA, neighbours, friends, etc. is not helpful, because as far as we know, there is nobody willing to take the animals. given this restrictive set of circumstances, what do you propose the woman does?
    Originally posted by jpbowley
    I'm afraid the dilemma as proposed is too simplistic. There are always animal charities that will take animals. The Dog's Trust, for example, will always take in dogs. Always. So the dilemma posed is faulty. Therefore, trying to give an answer is a bit like asking someone to say yes or no to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" It's a nonsense question.
    • aliasojo
    • By aliasojo 7th Apr 10, 2:36 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    That's the spirit, all options should be considered in any serious debate.

    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    It'll be interesting to see how serious this debate gets later on when the night shift gets here.

    Ach maybe I'm wrong and everyone will play nice.
    Herman - MP for all!
    • PhiltheBear
    • By PhiltheBear 7th Apr 10, 2:40 PM
    • 270 Posts
    • 310 Thanks
    PhiltheBear
    to start comparing pets with children is in my opinion utterly ridiculous and without reason.
    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    And I find your opinion quite ridiculous. Na na na na na.

    So, that's that evened out.
    • crin
    • By crin 7th Apr 10, 2:42 PM
    • 3,464 Posts
    • 32,680 Thanks
    crin
    I really don't think this type of question has a place on this website/forum.

    Most people have pets because they love them or love animals in general. The thought of having one put to sleep is one that would torment someone who truly cared for their pet.

    There are lots of rescue and shelters around who would either help with vets bills or find suitable homes that this 'dilemma' shouldn't even be given the time of day.
    I am glad that some one has reported this thread as offensive and some of the replies are truly obnoxious.
    If at first you don't succeed try, try, try again.

    Eleventh Heaven # 550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    • PhiltheBear
    • By PhiltheBear 7th Apr 10, 2:44 PM
    • 270 Posts
    • 310 Thanks
    PhiltheBear

    Being open to debate is important

    This is a pure money moral dilemma - putting animals down is not illegal. Financially not having the animals adds up, yet is it morally acceptible. It's a moral v a money situation - exactly the type of MMD many people need face. <snip>

    Hopefully anyone in a similar position will be able to learn from the tips, solutions and options given above.

    Martin
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    No Martin, it isn't a pure money moral dilemma. Because it cuts off the very real alternative of being able to find homes for the animals. The question posed gave two alternatives and doesn't allow for any third way.

    In this case the question posed is flawed (badly) and reflects that way on this forum.
    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 7th Apr 10, 2:47 PM
    • 8,116 Posts
    • 42,310 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    No Martin, it isn't a pure money moral dilemma. Because it cuts off the very real alternative of being able to find homes for the animals. The question posed gave two alternatives and doesn't allow for any third way.

    In this case the question posed is flawed (badly) and reflects that way on this forum.
    Originally posted by PhiltheBear
    No it doesn't its not multiple choice poll - it allows people to express their view, just as you have, without necessarily staying within the constraints of the dilemma.

    Many people have answered it with "find a shelter" what's had limited discussion is "is a shelter always available for all types of old sick animals".

    Yet by definition the aim here is to find views and opinions and hopefully learn from others view points.

    You very obviously believe "it is not morally acceptible to put an animal down for financial reasons" - that's a valid view, but it is within the law of the land to do so - and it is a dilemma I have met people who have faced.

    Would it be different if it were a farmer who had landstock that couldn't sell and thus his choice was to cull them in order to cut costs?
    Last edited by MSE Martin; 07-04-2010 at 2:51 PM.
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
    • Enchantica
    • By Enchantica 7th Apr 10, 2:55 PM
    • 548 Posts
    • 1,308 Thanks
    Enchantica
    No it doesn't its not multiple choice poll - it allows people to express their view, just as you have, without necessarily staying within the constraints of the dilemma.

    Many people have answered it with "find a shelter" what's had limited discussion is "is a shelter always available for all types of old sick animals".

    Yet by definition the aim here is to find views and opinions and hopefully learn from others view points.

    You very obviously believe "it is not morally acceptible to put an animal down for financial reasons" - that's a valid view, but it is within the law of the land to do so - and it is a dilemma I have met people who have faced.

    Would it be different if it were a farmer who had landstock that couldn't sell and thus his choice was to cull them in order to cut costs?
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    Sorry, back again, can't keep my mouth shut on this one. There are shelters who take in elderly and sick animals and if anyone needs to find one then I am the one to contact. Personally I take in elderly and sick rats and I can easily find people for other animals. I have many contacts and can help out where needed.

    This thread isn't easy for some to stomach and some of the responses were not easy to read.

    There is your answer. If someone is in this situation then call someone in the know ie. someone like me. If need be I will make up a list of appropriate shelters around the country. This should not be proposed as a kill and not to kill question. It should be "which shelters will take my animals?"
    • pippitypip
    • By pippitypip 7th Apr 10, 2:59 PM
    • 962 Posts
    • 1,476 Thanks
    pippitypip
    imho, as a pet owner you are taking on the responsibility of that pet's welfare.

    To put it/ them down needlessly would speak volumes about you as a person - when times are hard that responsibility you have chosen, doesn't just go away.

    You should ensure all brilliant advice given here is followed - PDSA, RSPCA and other etc will help - you just need to put some time and effort into getting them re-homed.

    I think the concerns about this thread are valid, in that the question itself is almost inviting abuse purely to offend (in some cases).

    pippitypip
    I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here!
    • pippitypip
    • By pippitypip 7th Apr 10, 3:01 PM
    • 962 Posts
    • 1,476 Thanks
    pippitypip
    This should not be proposed as a kill and not to kill question. It should be "which shelters will take my animals?"
    Originally posted by Enchantica
    I completely agree, or maybe, "this is my situation - what should I do?"

    pippitypip
    I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here!
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 7th Apr 10, 3:04 PM
    • 4,936 Posts
    • 5,516 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    This should not be proposed as a kill and not to kill question. It should be "which shelters will take my animals?"
    Originally posted by Enchantica
    So yet again you are demanding that your way is the only way.

    Both options (kill/no kill) proposed are viable and legal and it is an individuals choice which one they choose.

    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
    • Enchantica
    • By Enchantica 7th Apr 10, 3:09 PM
    • 548 Posts
    • 1,308 Thanks
    Enchantica
    So yet again you are demanding that your way is the only way.

    Both options (kill/no kill) proposed are viable and legal and it is an individuals choice which one they choose.

    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    Sigh.

    I was going to just leave it and quit repeating myself but why should I? This thread isn't getting deleted so why bother.

    I shall repeat: if you can choose to kill a healthy animal instead of giving it to a shelter, take a look at yourself in the mirror and decide if you like what you have become.

    If you are in this situation then contact me and I will help.
    • aliasojo
    • By aliasojo 7th Apr 10, 3:15 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    So yet again you are demanding that your way is the only way.

    Both options (kill/no kill) proposed are viable and legal and it is an individuals choice which one they choose.

    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    Sorry but I don't think you're being fair there. Kill or no kill was the crux of the original question. Other's have pointed out that a) those are not the only 2 options and b) the subject is too emotive for sensible discussion in the MSE Arms.

    It's not a case of 'wanting things your own way', it's simply stating that the original question could have been put in a better way, if the intention really was to gain insight and tips on what best to do in a situation such as this.

    A point I completely agree with.
    Herman - MP for all!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,905Posts Today

8,127Users online

Martin's Twitter