Gyroscopic Investing

Greetings all. My mother-in-law is in the process of scheduling to put down a family pet that is on its last legs. It got me thinking about how normally in the past I've considered euthanasia of pets to be an end to suffering and hence, good for the pet. I've started then thinking about whether you can compare this to humans, or if this is an unfair comparison. I was interested in the group's thoughts on this below:

"Why is it okay to euthanize a dying pet but not a dying human?".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... re-compare

Looking forward to your thoughts since we all come from different perspectives. Thanks!

I think euthanasia of a suffering human can be absolutely moral, especially if we're talking about the case where someone is lucid enough to request it themselves. I've known a lot of people who talk about how it would be nice to be able to choose their time and place of death if the alternative were a slow, lingering degradation.

Euthanizing someone who is incapable of making the decision due to advanced age and infirmity is a whole different can of worms, of course. But I think if a person wants it and is mentally capable of expressing as much, it seems like granting that request is only humane.

Pointedstick wrote: I think euthanasia of a suffering human can be absolutely moral, especially if we're talking about the case where someone is lucid enough to request it themselves. I've known a lot of people who talk about how it would be nice to be able to choose their time and place of death if the alternative were a slow, lingering degradation.

Euthanizing someone who is incapable of making the decision due to advanced age and infirmity is a whole different can of worms, of course. But I think if a person wants it and is mentally capable of expressing as much, it seems like granting that request is only humane.

I can understand your point above. Regarding the 2nd paragraph though, I'm assuming a pet would fall under your "Euthanizing someone who is incapable of making the decision due to advanced age and infirmity". Wouldn't this state it's an ethical gray-area for euthanizing a pet because they can't ask for it themselves?

It's true that pets can't ask and wouldn't have the self-awareness to consider it. But I don't consider an animal pet to be on the same moral plane as a human. I have a 10 year old dog. She is wonderful, but let's face it: she is my slave. I bought her for money. I am referred to as her "owner." I control everything about her life, and she lives at my pleasure. I love her to death, but she's not morally equal to my kids. She's my enslaved animal companion. I don't see it as much of a gray area to euthanize her when she becomes too old to do any of the things she considers fun.

Interesting viewpoint and understandable. I guess then the gray-area as you spoke about perhaps like the Terri Schiavo case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

I remember the Terry Schiavo case well.

Even euthanizing a pet can be a difficult choice (as it should be). When my parents had to put down their beloved 16-year-old cat, he suddenly woke up and looked them in the eye before he was taken away. My Dad thinks that's because the cat knew what was happening. I think that was all in my dad's head, although the cat could certainly read human faces and knew that his owners were upset.

There doesn't seem to be any right answer except, you do what you think is right, or the closest to right, whether it's a pet or a person.
I take some solace in the fact that none of us are immortal anyway.

I guess to remove the gray-area, it makes the case for why it is beneficial within your Will, etc. to state what you'd like to happen to you based on various different scenarios that could happen, such as being an organ donor, not wanting to be kept alive by machines or feeding tubes, etc. This then gives the person the ability to control their own destiny a bit more. Without this, you then leave the burden of choice to your loved ones, who will feel probably bad regardless of whatever choice was made because they are making it versus you.

My ex-wife was essentially euthanized by her brother. She was found on the floor of her apartment by a cleaning woman and it was determined that she had both non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and dementia. She watched her mother die slowly from Alzheimer's and told me (and I assume her brother also) that she would never want to go that way. So he told them not to treat the lymphoma, and she died a week later.

I would have done the same in his place, which I very well might have been in if I had still been married to her at that point.

A new National Geographic came in the mail today. There's a whole section on people coming back from the dead after many hours without a heartbeat. I'm sure there are pages on feeding tubes and DNRs.

Pointedstick wrote: It's true that pets can't ask and wouldn't have the self-awareness to consider it. But I don't consider an animal pet to be on the same moral plane as a human. I have a 10 year old dog. She is wonderful, but let's face it: she is my slave. I bought her for money. I am referred to as her "owner." I control everything about her life, and she lives at my pleasure. I love her to death, but she's not morally equal to my kids. She's my enslaved animal companion. I don't see it as much of a gray area to euthanize her when she becomes too old to do any of the things she considers fun.

I prefer "caretaker" since you can't literally own animals or any other life form for that matter.  Reframing how you view and feel about your relationship to animals opens up wonderful new insights, such as cloned meat or a stuffed likeness of your dog (j/k).

dualstow wrote: A new National Geographic came in the mail today. There's a whole section on people coming back from the dead after many hours without a heartbeat. I'm sure there are pages on feeding tubes and DNRs.

Death is pretty tricky to define with the way science is pushing the limits these days.  There must be some kind a waiting period or some kind of organic finality to snap the astral cord once and for all, otherwise it should not humanly be possible to bring pigs or dogs back to life 30-60 minutes after you literally "kill" them.  Or what about those seeds that are a million of years old that still sprout?  How is that even possible?  Are they conscious of their eternal hell or is it just a empty shell up to the point it detects water?  How can it even detect water without being alive after a million years?  Was it technically dead for a million years or just in semi-alive stasis?  Madness.