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 10
    • PhiltheBear
    • By PhiltheBear 8th Apr 10, 10:07 AM
    • 270 Posts
    • 310 Thanks
    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".
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    And the answer has been an emphatic 'Yes'.

    Yet by definition the aim here is to find views and opinions and hopefully learn from others view points.
    ??? The 'definition' of dilemma is "is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable." You offered two solutions only - this wasn't a discussion of other solutions, it was a stark choice between two alternatives.

    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?
    Actually, I can see all the points of view. My argument is that this was a sloppily researched question which didn't allow for any 3rd alternatives. If it had been posed as a question - e.g. "What should Anne do in this situation?" that would have been completely different. But it wasn't. It was simply a question which was always going to provoke an intense argument.

    Your reputation as an investigative journalist is now tarnished. If you couldn't be bothered to show that the question posed isn't restricted to one answer then that's just laziness. To cop out by saying 'it allows people to express their point of view' is just a weak excuse for that laziness.

    The result - there are a number of people who've posted real, viable alternatives (although they don't answer the yes or no question posed) and there are a number of people who have posted 'troll' type messages simply for the sake of being annoying.

    Judging from some of the responses this thread has upset a fair number of people - and it brings this whole forum into disrepute. That's sad.
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 8th Apr 10, 11:08 AM
    • 4,909 Posts
    • 5,487 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    ??? The 'definition' of dilemma is "is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable." You offered two solutions only - this wasn't a discussion of other solutions, it was a stark choice between two alternatives.

    Actually, I can see all the points of view. My argument is that this was a sloppily researched question which didn't allow for any 3rd alternatives. If it had been posed as a question - e.g. "What should Anne do in this situation?" that would have been completely different. But it wasn't. It was simply a question which was always going to provoke an intense argument.
    Originally posted by PhiltheBear
    The question posed: Should Anne put the animals down?

    Two possible answers, yes or no, but there are countless variations on what she could do if the anwser is no. Many people have managed to respond without restricting their answers to one word responses.

    This wasn't a yes or no poll, it was a discussion, the only limitations being those of the people involved in the discussion.

    Your reputation as an investigative journalist is now tarnished. If you couldn't be bothered to show that the question posed isn't restricted to one answer then that's just laziness. To cop out by saying 'it allows people to express their point of view' is just a weak excuse for that laziness.
    With all due respect please try to avoid being a drama queen. Clearly you are getting quite emotional about this subject but getting hysterical will add nothing to the debate.

    The result - there are a number of people who've posted real, viable alternatives (although they don't answer the yes or no question posed) and there are a number of people who have posted 'troll' type messages simply for the sake of being annoying.

    Judging from some of the responses this thread has upset a fair number of people - and it brings this whole forum into disrepute. That's sad.
    So as you state many people managed to avoid yes/no responses and posted reasoned arguments, that kind of kills off your claim that this debate was limited to two options.

    If people get upset discussing issues such as this then perhaps they should turn off the internet and go and look at pretty flowers in the garden instead. If grown ups cannot manage to discuss difficult issues without becoming overly emotional then we really are in a sad state.

    "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
    • pippitypip
    • By pippitypip 8th Apr 10, 11:15 AM
    • 962 Posts
    • 1,476 Thanks
    pippitypip
    If people get upset discussing issues such as this then perhaps they should turn off the internet and go and look at pretty flowers in the garden instead. If grown ups cannot manage to discuss difficult issues without becoming overly emotional then we really are in a sad state.

    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    Clive, whilst I totally agree with you on this point, the fact remains that threads on this forum do get deleted all the time for exactly those reasons - offence taken, abuse, overly emotive reactions and troll comments.

    I think this was always going to be an emotional topic but wording the OP slightly differently and more open ended, would have been a bit more responsible coming from the MSE team, that's all.

    pippitypip
    I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here!
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 8th Apr 10, 11:27 AM
    • 4,909 Posts
    • 5,487 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    Clive, whilst I totally agree with you on this point, the fact remains that threads on this forum do get deleted all the time for exactly those reasons - offence taken, abuse, overly emotive reactions and troll comments.

    I think this was always going to be an emotional topic but wording the OP slightly differently and more open ended, would have been a bit more responsible coming from the MSE team, that's all.

    pippitypip
    Originally posted by pippitypip
    I agree and know how keen our mods are to hit the delete button, but the number of people who immediately posted on here demanding the thread be closed/deleted really was disappointing.

    I personally have no issue with how the question was phrased and feel that some people have tried to play the 'outraged' card to try and avoid allowing the discussion to go ahead.

    Good for Martin for sticking with it and not being disuaded by the hysterical fluffy bunny mob.


    "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
  • itsclair
    Putting the animals down would just get you even more in debt, do you know how much it costs!

    A dog costs around £100 hate to think how much for the larger animals!

    If me if things were that bad, I would do everything possible to keep my animals, jumble sales, car boot sales etc to raise the money for them.
  • jamesyy
    It's almost as if PETA has raided the thread
    Let me suggest that loving your animals/pets is not the same as caring for them. I know many cases where people have literally loved their pets to death. I am a farmer and have lived on my farm all my life and have pets too.

    Having an emotional response to a situation like this (as many here seem to be) often leads to the worst decisions being made for the animal. An emotional response is satisfying what YOU want, which is not always the same as what the animal needs. If you can give an elderly and/or frail animal an instant death (or as near as possible), is that not better than giving it the stress of rehoming (possibly twice - from home to shelter to new home) and in the case of a pack animal like a dog separating it from it's owner before dying anyway?

    You may not want to have your pet put down but that is not the issue. What would be the best outcome for the animal? If this woman had some healthy animals then by all means try and rehome them otherwise lethal options should be considered, ask your vet for their opinion if you can't make one yourself.

    To the people who are saying this woman shouldn't have had pets because she couldn't look after them, get real. Loosing a job would have been unexpected. Besides, some people make bad decisions in life, even if she shouldn't have had these animals and she has them, the decisions are the same. Also you can get people who do free putting-downs.



    PS. [random flame meant to be light hearted if possible] To the animal lovers I hope you don't watch the grand national at the weekend, are vegetarians (definitely don't eat fish), don't eat kit kats, don't drink milk or eat chocolate (...what was in that easter egg I just ate?), definitely don't have anything leather and don't have a cat (it eats birds/frogs/rabbits). Otherwise you are literally paying for the death of animals. :/. [/end of random flame]
    Last edited by jamesyy; 08-04-2010 at 1:13 PM.
    • aliasojo
    • By aliasojo 8th Apr 10, 12:11 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    I agree and know how keen our mods are to hit the delete button, but the number of people who immediately posted on here demanding the thread be closed/deleted really was disappointing.

    I personally have no issue with how the question was phrased and feel that some people have tried to play the 'outraged' card to try and avoid allowing the discussion to go ahead.
    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    As you know (or at least would have if you'd been paying attention ) I was one of the ones who thought this thread shouldn't have been here in it's original guise.

    I just wanted to clarify that my reason for this was because the topic (imo) was a magnet for troll comments and argument. It's incredibly boring these days as things do tend to follow the same route usually. I know a number of people feel the same way about MSE 'discussions', they've lost their appeal since they're now usually just a playground for bored people. In the case of train seat discussions, it's no big deal...who can get emotional over a train seat? But in the case of much loved animals, it's a different story and could invite more emotional responses rather than reasoned discussion, hence the disapproval.

    I felt MSE were being hypocritical, given their stance on certain topics that are discouraged from being discussed simply because the nature of them invites 'heated' discussion, yet this could easily fall into the same category and it was initiated by MSE themselves. How many times has it been mentioned that the Arms might simply shut due to arguments? It kinda seemed like the MSE team handed over the loaded gun and sat back. (Yeah ok, I'm indulging in a little dramatising here but it illustrates my point. )

    I wasn't outraged at you put it, I just thought it was something that may have had merit as a worthy discussion but was initially poorly thought through and could have been posted in a better way. A point that's been made by several people.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope I've posted my thoughts fairly and not in an 'outraged' manner.

    Anyway, as it happens, I'm happy to accept I was being too cynical. Apart from a couple of near knuckle comments, by and large the thread has been less antagonistic than I had expected.
    Herman - MP for all!
    • Clive Woody
    • By Clive Woody 8th Apr 10, 12:39 PM
    • 4,909 Posts
    • 5,487 Thanks
    Clive Woody
    As you know (or at least would have if you'd been paying attention ) I was one of the ones who thought this thread shouldn't have been here in it's original guise.

    I just wanted to clarify that my reason for this was because the topic (imo) was a magnet for troll comments and argument. It's incredibly boring these days as things do tend to follow the same route usually. I know a number of people feel the same way about MSE 'discussions', they've lost their appeal since they're now usually just a playground for bored people. In the case of train seat discussions, it's no big deal...who can get emotional over a train seat? But in the case of much loved animals, it's a different story and could invite more emotional responses rather than reasoned discussion, hence the disapproval.

    I felt MSE were being hypocritical, given their stance on certain topics that are discouraged from being discussed simply because the nature of them invites 'heated' discussion, yet this could easily fall into the same category and it was initiated by MSE themselves. How many times has it been mentioned that the Arms might simply shut due to arguments? It kinda seemed like the MSE team handed over the loaded gun and sat back. (Yeah ok, I'm indulging in a little dramatising here but it illustrates my point. )

    I wasn't outraged at you put it, I just thought it was something that may have had merit as a worthy discussion but was initially poorly thought through and could have been posted in a better way. A point that's been made by several people.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope I've posted my thoughts fairly and not in an 'outraged' manner.

    Anyway, as it happens, I'm happy to accept I was being too cynical. Apart from a couple of near knuckle comments, by and large the thread has been less antagonistic than I had expected.
    Originally posted by aliasojo
    I didn't include you in the outraged gang.

    "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 8th Apr 10, 2:02 PM
    • 22,264 Posts
    • 48,387 Thanks
    aliasojo
    I didn't include you in the outraged gang.

    Originally posted by Clive Woody
    I assume nothing around these parts.
    Herman - MP for all!
    • BigMummaF
    • By BigMummaF 8th Apr 10, 2:38 PM
    • 4,269 Posts
    • 32,002 Thanks
    BigMummaF
    I've only read the first page but have to put an opposing thought to these particular statements. Apologies if I am repeating something already stated, but I am quite worked up about this one!
    ....*Anyone who puts their pet to sleep because they don't want it anymore is heartless. That's all there is to it. **There are options out there, even if it is rehoming or a sanctuary.
    Originally posted by Hokie97
    *Agreed, but that is NOT the case here. There is no suggestion that the person is deliberately & wilfully disposing of a bundle of fur bought on a whim!
    **Again, agreed but read the story-line again--nobody will take them!
    If you are unemployed and on some form of benefits try the PDSA.

    *To even pose this question I actually think is disgusting.

    An animal is not a disposable burden. It is a living creature. Would you dispose of your baby if you were struggling to manage?! (I know many people will feel that isn't a fair comparison, but to me it is - I tend not to differentiate between the value of a life, regardless of species).

    People need to realise when they take animals on that they have to be responsible for them, in any eventuality.
    Originally posted by katehesk
    Again I agree with [mostly] everything you say but please read the original post again.
    I can speak with a little authority on this as I have had many similar family discussions concerning decisions made, when money was not so much of an issue as it is now.
    The fact is, at the time, anyone can take on a commitment that is comfortable & manageable but NO-ONE can see into the future. It is a sad fact of adult life, that $H1t Happens for whatever reason & can destroy the very foundation of everything you treasure & hold dear.
    It is very fortunate indeed if you can still hold an opinion such as this * without ever having to consider the other side of the story. If nothing else, the recent reports on charity events such as Sport Relief are graphic records of just how some people's lives can change in the blink of an eye.

    "Walking a mile in another's shoes" seems a very appropriate saying for this one...
    Full time Carer for Mum; harassed mother of three;
    loving & loved by two 4-legged babies.

  • get me out
    NO Anne should not put the animals down!!

    Perhaps continue to try to rehome or in case of horse's loan out. Which would help with upkeep.

    As for dogs they and cats can be fed very cheaply, if you know which foods to use. Not the tinned stuff, I mean complete foods ok some bags are 30 quid plus. But others are only 13, which is a huge saving. Just read the contents first.

    Smaller pets don't need sawdust and paper bedding, in fact it's better for them to be off sawdust as that can cause health problems. Shread that junk mail and they will love you for it. Just not glossy stuff.

    Keeping pets can be low cost if you know what to look for, and how to save money while keeping them happy.

    I would'nt be without mine, I don't drink/smoke so my pets are my hobby. Currently have 2 dogs, 1 rabbit, 3 g.pigs, 6 hamsters, 5 rats, and fish. Costs about 7 quid a week for all of them. Thats a few pence more than a packet of cig's to many.
    BSC No: 186 There is always light at the end of the tunnel. Unless someone's nicked the candle !
    • BigMummaF
    • By BigMummaF 8th Apr 10, 3:21 PM
    • 4,269 Posts
    • 32,002 Thanks
    BigMummaF
    Page 3
    Saddened. Can't believe that the 'option' of killing animals is even being debated. This is meant to be a MONEY Moral Dilemma. I can't think of a single reason why any animal should need to be killed for financial reasons.

    I'm shocked that the owner of this thread would ever consider putting animals down as being an option in a situation like this.
    Originally posted by BennyTheSnitch
    But it IS a money moral dilemma when it means you can no longer afford to take care of those animals AND yourself. How many times have parents gone hungry to ensure their children have a meal of some sort, so please don't throw the "would you do this to your children?" argument in my direction. If I were completely destitute with a young family then yes! I would seriously consider asking for them to go into care to ensure they had a roof over their heads & food in their bellies. I would loathe & detest every fibre in my being for allowing them to ever get that close to suffering & can fully appreciate why some poor souls consider taking their own lives because of it.
    IMO this is similar as the 'lady in question' obviously cares deeply for the animals she promised to protect, so please can we move from this lunar-high moral ground before I get a nose-bleed!
    Wholeheartedly no, for all the reasons others have said.

    However I'd be really interested in knowing if any of the "Yes"s have ever had family pets?

    I truly believe those who aren't pet owners (and never have been) simply don't understand the concept of pets being part of the family.

    I also think this thread is bound to offend - prob not a wise choice to put up for friendly debate.

    pippitypip.
    Originally posted by pippitypip
    Yes I do have pets & newly so too. I only ever had the occasional fairground goldfish as a child but am extremely protective of our 'babies', now 7 & 2 yrs old. That said, if I had known then that our family financial situation would end up as it is now, I would never have agreed to adopting the pets.
    Also I have already declared that when the time comes, I am NOT going to open my heart to another animal as I could not face the pain of having this kind of decision further down the line--more likely as the chances are the Offspring will have left home by then.
    Full time Carer for Mum; harassed mother of three;
    loving & loved by two 4-legged babies.

    • JayD
    • By JayD 8th Apr 10, 4:01 PM
    • 552 Posts
    • 340 Thanks
    JayD
    It is not sufficient for the dilemma to say "Nobody wants to take them."

    As the responses to this week's problem shows, there will always be animal lovers somewhere who are willing to help - and even take on - unwanted/elderly/rescued animals.

    Anne needs to publicise her dilemma widely and appealingly. Local press/parish magazines/local radio stations would certainly give her coverage.

    She could also contact some of the many animal charities that exist and seek help and advice from them too.

    Noboby may 'want' to take them but I suggest there are some who would help her, financially and otherwise, to keep them and some who actually would take some of the animals from her aswell.

    Things in life are rarely black and white and I think this is not strictly a 'keep them and be homeless or have them put down' situtation at all.
    • pippitypip
    • By pippitypip 8th Apr 10, 4:13 PM
    • 962 Posts
    • 1,476 Thanks
    pippitypip
    I've only read the first page but have to put an opposing thought to these particular statements. Apologies if I am repeating something already stated, but I am quite worked up about this one!

    *Agreed, but that is NOT the case here. There is no suggestion that the person is deliberately & wilfully disposing of a bundle of fur bought on a whim!
    **Again, agreed but read the story-line again--nobody will take them!

    Again I agree with [mostly] everything you say but please read the original post again.
    I can speak with a little authority on this as I have had many similar family discussions concerning decisions made, when money was not so much of an issue as it is now.
    The fact is, at the time, anyone can take on a commitment that is comfortable & manageable but NO-ONE can see into the future. It is a sad fact of adult life, that $H1t Happens for whatever reason & can destroy the very foundation of everything you treasure & hold dear.
    It is very fortunate indeed if you can still hold an opinion such as this * without ever having to consider the other side of the story. If nothing else, the recent reports on charity events such as Sport Relief are graphic records of just how some people's lives can change in the blink of an eye.

    "Walking a mile in another's shoes" seems a very appropriate saying for this one...
    Originally posted by BigMummaF
    Sorry, I've said it before and I'll say it again - where there's a will, there's a way.

    If you take on the responsibility of an animal's welfare, it's up to you to spend the time (and surely you have more time to spare anyway if you're unemployed?), to find out what you can do for your animals and what options are out there.

    Don't just give up because it's a bit hard doing some research and looking into organisations etc to see how they can help you. This doesn't cost ANY money (where Anne keeping them and making her financial situation worse, or putting them down even could).

    I've been in a (cough) bad financial position, and with animals so I do know these shoes well and had wonderful support from the PDSA with vet care for a pet with a medical condition.

    I think the issue is much more about taking responsibility seriously and animal welfare than it is a money moral dilemma.

    pippitypip
    I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here!
    • BigMummaF
    • By BigMummaF 8th Apr 10, 4:29 PM
    • 4,269 Posts
    • 32,002 Thanks
    BigMummaF
    ....This thread isn't easy for some to stomach and some of the responses were not easy to read.....
    ....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
    It is because this subject is so emotive that I haven't been able to let it drop. As has been mentioned, on the whole each opinion has some validation toward the matter being discussed, regardless of what your beliefs are.
    I haven't classed it as a simple 'either/or' kind of situation as I assumed that the 'lady in question' would have already considered the various shelters & re-homing centres, given the level & previous commitment to animal care.
    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). But I am an animal lover & simply recognise that "There by the Grace of...."

    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. The bare fact remains that some HAVE no other option, when all other avenues are closed.

    To those people who simply own an animal, but do not particularly value animals or find value in owning animals....then maybe they could consider this. This is obviously not the case here, for the 'lady in question'.

    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. In all fairness, I don't think people are saying that.Imo, that is simply not a moral solution.
    Originally posted by katehesk
    Your last paragraph or two surely high-lights exactly WHY this is a dilemma?
    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.
    Originally posted by katehesk
    Like I said, a true definition of dilemma.

    For those who wish to pursue the child vs pet angle, have you actually read Mooloo's thread? There is one helluva lady who is fighting the entire Establishment & all in the name of her family. A sobering read, believe me!
    Full time Carer for Mum; harassed mother of three;
    loving & loved by two 4-legged babies.

  • Ginger Nut
    She made the choice to take them in, she needs to find a way to care for them. If that means working in any job that she can get, she needs to do it. She lost her job, but there are other jobs out there, even if it is scrubbing toilets or flipping burgers.

    If it was someone with children you wouldn't suggest they put them up for adoption or kill them, would you? I am so tired of people who think that it is okay to perform "convenience euthanasias." And no well respected Veterinarian would agree to do it anyway. Doing so goes against everything we as animal care professionals believe in.

    I can't even believe that this is a consideration, hypothetical or not.
    Originally posted by Hokie97
    ================================================== =
    Well said.
    I agree with every thing you've said I wouldn't even think about crossing that bridge, even if it is the worst job in the world it's still better than nothing and not being able to look after those poor little animals.
  • aliharris
    She took them in, if they were healthy she should have them re-homed through the RSPCA or similar, however it's on the TV every day that healthy animals are put down because there aren't enough people re-homing. Don't anyone go thinking unwanted pets get 'snapped up' - I for one don't fancy taking on a pair of aging goats needing medication.

    Everyone is ignoring the fact that these animals aren't fit and healthy. When they get to a stage that they're in pain, they should be put down anyway, or allowed to go by natural causes if they're not suffering.

    Although most people love animals, putting animals down can't be compared to human euthanasia.
    £60,000 for a mortgage by 23 (Aug 2012) -
    £28,766 (March '10) £31,112 (May '10)

    • Myrtle77
    • By Myrtle77 8th Apr 10, 9:00 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 303 Thanks
    Myrtle77
    What an utterly non-sensical question this is. There are always alternatives to euthanasia for these reasons, and drawing comparisons to farmers having to euthanase cattle just gets my back up even more.

    The RSPCA has often attended farms where large numbers of animals have been rescued from exactly these circumstances, and they've found somewhere for them. A woman with a handful of animals to rehome is easily achievable by comparison.

    All it takes is the time and effort to call around and find somewhere who can take them. Even at a time when animal charities are under incredible pressure, as they are now - they'll still do their best to help if they can. And eventually, she'd find someone that could.

    It's improbable to suggest that she would ever have 'no other option'.

  • jessicaseven
    No, I don't think it is right to put them to sleep, though I can understand why the thought is there. There are a lot of charities to take animals in and to rehome but most of the time they are full, especially since the recession, so I can give sympathy that the thought of putting to sleep is the only option as being such an animal lover I can imagine her thoughts are not wanting to allow them to not be looked after to the best of her ability.
    There are however, some parks/farms that may take the goat, horse and hamster. Speak to vets for local charities/shelters/foster homes or rspca, & local parks.

    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 8th Apr 10, 9:26 PM
    • 8,116 Posts
    • 42,310 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    Martin,

    I am so deeply offended by this item that I am unsubscribing from your newsletter and will no longer visit your website.

    Very disappointed.
    Originally posted by David_Q-T
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Though I dont' intend to run a website that avoids real situations because the choice may offend some. THis is based on a real persons dilemma. I've actually been contacted by a TV company making a series about 'coping with pets during the recession' and how difficult an issue it has been for many

    This thread has been an education for me and many - lots of interesting view points (of course some reactionary ones or thoughtless ones) discussions over options and many thoughts and varied opinions. If you think that's bad content then I think perhaps it is best you stop getting the email.
    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
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

1,082Posts Today

6,088Users online

Martin's Twitter