MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I am in very good health thank you.

You suggest I am lacking in compassion because I dare point out there are two sides to the discussion.

Can I suggest you get a grip my dear.

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.

Munkee2 wrote: »

His reply was

"We find these cases a bit of a dilemma. An ethical stance would be to rehome the dog through one of the charities and generally we would advice people to do this. However, if the owner insists on the dog being put to sleep then from a legal point of view we have to abid what the owner decides as the dog is considered a chattel or property. If we do any action that the owner has not consented to then it is considered as trespass and we could be arrested and charged as such. I give the owner the options and the pros and cons and leave the decision up to them. If they decide euthanasia is action they want to take then I will euthanase the animal. There was one case of a vet who said he would euthanase a dobermann but rehomed it where upon the original owners saw the "deceased" dobermann. He was struck off and not allowed to practice for 2 years."

Last time I had an animal put down (Cat with Cat Flu), there was no Vet's dilema (ethical or otherwise), about the £160 they releived me of....:mad:

tobiascurious wrote: »

maybe she needs to take the decision to stop any expensive medical care and let them pass away naturally

but if they are requiring medical care surely to stop it could maybe be considered cruel??:(

kutsu119 wrote: »

Eat them. They're animals - cheap chicken, cheap dogs, all the same.

Amazing how many trolls are attracted to these kinds of threads.

lorne57 wrote: »

Also please note from Martin's opening post

She's got a pony, two goats, four dogs, three cats and a hamster - many getting on in years and with medical problems

where in the opening post did it say the animals were healthy?

Many getting on in years and with medical problems, equally does not mean some are not young and in full health.

Medical problems doesn't necessarily mean high cost either, and neither does getting on in years. Obviously the costs full stop are too much for Anne to deal with, without a job, however that doesn't also necessarily mean they're costing her thousands in vets fees either and costs may be perfectly manageable by others.

My main point is, where there's a will, there's a way. If you've taken on responsibility for an animal's welfare, you should indeed be responsible for their welfare. e.g. a dog's for life, not just for when you have some spare cash etc etc

To me, the getting rid option just smacks of what's wrong with today's society - no-one taking ownership of anything and responsibility ends when things get a bit tough.

If you have an animal that you can no longer care for, I don't think it's too much to ask you to do some research about your options in re-homing or find out what help there is out there. I think as a pet owner you OWE that to the animals you're responsible for, or you shouldn't be a pet owner at all in the first place.

pippitypip