Ana, thank you for answering, this is a very interesting subject for me.
Ana said:
Eva said:
I'm not imposing a hypothetical formula on a 'real' situation by what I'm discussing. I'm simply sharing my way of thinking while at the same time aknowledging that I will act according to each situation seperately and respecting everyone else's decisions on their own personal situations. That doesn't although prevent me from trying to think on a deeper level and evaluate my actions or non-actions beyond their face-value, which in this case has to do with the real benefit that exists - if any- and the reality of killing as an STO action. These, for me, are difficult questions that I can't readily reply for myself.
When I say hypothethical formula I am refering to this statement of yours:
Eva said:
We really have no idea whether a dog or a human is suffering in this life is karmic and whether it is there for a reason that we will never find out, in this lifetime.
That's something We don't really know, this is something beyong our scope now, We just can act based on the knowledge of the situation is presented to us.
When you said that I'm imposing a hypothetical formula on a 'real' situation I understood that there's something 'real' that I'm not seeing or taking into account while contemplating my hypothetical formula. On the other hand, now that you admit that there's something we Don't really know but promote deciding to act simply from what we Know, it seems that you accept the hypothecal formula but simply decide not to add it to the equation. Acting only from what we know and pretending that we have found our answers or freely accepting that we're not interested for more answers is nothing new in a material society.
Ana said:
You are right your words were exactly:
Eva said:
We really have no idea whether the pain a dog or a human is suffering in this life is karmic and whether it is there for a reason that we will never find out, in this lifetime.
And I thougth you were trying to imply this was one of the reasons preventing you from considering euthanasia in some instances because that was something they should endure for reasons we don't know?.
Sorry if that was not the case, maybe you can clarify what was the point then?
Indeed, this is the reason that stops me from defining euthanasia as an STO action that is done for the benefit of the animal. Yet, the difference between not knowing why something happens and declaring that it happens because they 'deserve it' is gapping. It's a religious moralisation that I never included in what I wrote. Someone that performs euthanasia without second thoughts, being certain she's performing a lofty STO action could be equally misguided, in my eyes, as someone that lets an animal suffer endless pain because it 'deserves it'. Aknowledging that there are forces at work for which we cannot account and allowing them to take their toll as is in the case of natural death is a
completely different matter.
Ana said:
It is safer for them to endure suffering? We are speaking of situations with animals in wich there is suffering and no hope for them to heal, aren't we?
No, we are not. If you read my posts thoroughly you would have seen that my main concern is about animals that are old and going through the process of dying without acute and excruciating pain. I was plainly clear saying that I could never and would never bear to see an animal suffer extreme pain and allow it to continue. Do you think that the natural process of death is in need of speeding up ? Do you think it an STO action to spare an animal from its last breaths because you imagine it's suffering, while all you see is a natural process at work ?
Ana said:
Eva said:
Please keep in mind that I was vegan for years because even the thought of animals dying to sustain me was too much to bear, so my thoughts don't come from lack of empathy but I admit they could come from emotional thinking.
No one is saying you are lacking empathy here and sure, you are not the only one feeling this way but you are not vegan now, are you?
Of course no one was saying that I lack empathy, neither did I think so, I was simply adding some info about me in order to make it a bit easier to understand my thinking. I'm not vegan anymore but that took a whole lot of reading and even more contemplating untill eventually I saw it as a logical decision with means of dealing with the emotional aspects of it. I managed to face the fact that killing in order to survive is a horrid necessity. What does this have to do with euthanasia though?
If you meant to imply that my way of thinking changed, yes indeed it has, and if I saw equally logical reasons for euthanasia or for anything for that matter, I would change my views accordingly.
Ana said:
Eva said:
I took the time to discuss euthanasia with some friends and my mother last time I saw her. After all these years she admitted to me that when my cat suffered for a week before dying, she felt it would have been kinder to put it down. Although I still fail to see killing as an STO action it was food for thought nonetheless.
My view is that enduring constant suffering in terminal cases has no aparent benefit for the animal.
Thank you for sharing your view. Mine, in the case of my cat that suffered for one week (from acute respiratory issues) was that his breaths were HIS and not mine to dispose of at will. What I could do was be by his side and support him while at the same time not try to either hold on to him with 'extraordinary measures' nor dispose of him before his time on earth had concluded.
It was the same principle that led me to operate on the 'old' dog I found that is now living a happy life, yet when I found her she was in excruciating pain and 'nothing could be done'.
Principles are not the same thing as blind beliefs and I'm not ready to play the third force or the particular situation card when it comes down to them. The same principle may make one act in completely different ways regarding a particular situation but it needs to be there in the first place in order to filter each situation accordingly.
My principle, here, is that I respect life (and death as it is part of life) and try to act accordingly. In my - possibly utterly wrong - view, anyone that kills for the benefit of the victim, when that victim is not grasping for death as a liberation from excruciating pain/bleeding, is either under a subtle form of the messiah syndrome or subconsciously normalising death so that it looks less frightful. I ask you to look past the possibly insulting nature of that statement - if taken personally - and consider whether there could be a trace of truth in it.
The hospitals are full of people at the last stages of terminal diseases, undergoing extreme suffering not as a step toward death, but as a step toward a couple more weeks or months of living. There are bodies deprived of thought and feeling attached to a machine that breaths for them.
Yet, this same society is so quick to aleviate the suffering of an old pet by providing a 'good death'. There's such a huge gap between these two ways of dealing with death that to me, it seems they both stem from the same emotional and not rational reaction, which is extreme fear of death. And just as I see nothing remotely selfless or STO into keeping a person or animal alive against nature and putting them through even more suffering in the name of prolonging life, I see nothing selfless into killing an animal prematurely to spare it of 'suffering'. In both cases what we do is deny a natural process and in both cases, I think we're not doing anyone any favors except ourselves.
I wrote a while back about my cat, whose organs were shutting down. At first, I wanted to let him die naturally, but those here convinced me that letting him continue to die slowly for God knows how long was not in his best interest. Looking back, I didn't want to do euthanasia because I was afraid of letting go of him; I was being selfish while he was suffering. Thus, I really do not regret taking him in at all. However, as has been mentioned, give the extra money to be with your friend if you can. I believe that it's just too traumatic for them to die with a complete stranger, where the serum is injected straight into the heart.
