To think people should not use 'we put pets to sleep' as an argument to allow assisted dying?

So (out of interest) if you had a cat come in that needed expensive medication from that point on, which would keep it alive with a reasonably good quality of life, would you refuse to euthanise?

I use it in the context that we wouldn't allow our pets to suffer a long, drawn-out, painful and undignified death. Having seen infirm and terminally ill relatives with no quality of life, effectively just lying in bed waiting to die... I wish they had a choice in being able to end it sooner, if they wanted to, rather than having to prolong their suffering.

You could be right about some owners thinking of saving costs, though a reputable vet would not euthanise for those reasons, I have seen vets refuse. In my case euthanasia has been entirely for the animal's sake and I have stayed with them and watched them die, which is excruciating. It's not an easy way out.

I agree that the pets argument is not a good one, as animals aren’t rational so can’t make a decision that they’d rather live as long as they can even in pain etc

I think the argument re assisted dying is a very difficult one all around, and I agree with the PM that we have to sort out palliative care first.

The danger is, that people will feel they have to go for assisted dying for the sake of their families - both emotionally and financially - when actually they’d prefer to live. Some people can find quality of life in the mere fact of living however much pain they’re in. That is unlikely to apply to animals.

For some people, it’s against their religion- and I’m assuming people who have thought this through not just been told “this is against your religion” - or other moral beliefs. But they again might feel under or pressure from family who don’t share their views.

On the other hand, it’s awful for people who are in terrible pain or otherwise dealing with an incredibly undignified final part of their lives to be told “we can’t/ won’t help you to die peacefully”. To have to sneak around to end their own lives or have those who have decide to help them, through compassion, risk prosecution.

It’s undoubtedly a difficult problem but I agree that at the moment it would be putting the cart before the horse to have it decided now.

I don't think we should have the death penalty, not because I feel sentimental about violent criminals but because you only need one miscarriage of justice and you have killed a person who shouldn't be killed. I also think humans should avoid killing humans as much as possible.

Assisted dying is so much more vulnerable to all sorts of mistakes being made that I think it is problematic. Especially when you consider things like having it for mental health problems. like depression, that some people are heavily controlled by their partner or family member, and we have an aging population with an increasing pressure on medical services to save money.

The Pet argument really isn't very robust as a pro euthanasia argument because people put pets down for things like broken legs or because they can't afford the treatment. Also, noone actually thinks sane people love their fur babies like they love their children, so it is all a bit irrelevant.

I fail to see how we are expected to allow our pets to die with dignity and not suffer but this does not apply to humans that are considered 'superior' to animals. My dog and my father have recently passed away. My dog was allowed to go peacefully and quickly in my arms. My father had a massive bleed on the brain at 95years, I had to sit and watch him die over a period of 12 hours. Watching each breath wondering if that was the last, knowing it was going to happen but not whether it would be 1 hour, 12 hours or several days. I dont know if he was in pain but all i could think of was my dog had a kinder death. What is the point of prolonging an imminent death, it makes me sick thinking of it and cannot imagine how those with terminal illness cope. I do not think politicians should make the decision for us.

It's a tricky parallel to draw, because we also euthanise animals for exactly the kinds of reasons that critics of assisted dying are concerned about: when their care is uneconomical or the benefits don't outweigh the cost, when their behaviour is problematic, when their health problems become inconvenient. It's a legitimate response for a pet owner to consider putting an ill pet to sleep for all kinds of reasons that would be unacceptable for a human patient, and while the dignity and pain relief arguments are valid, we should be careful of drawing direct comparisons.

My dad died of lung cancer. Just to preface incase i get asked if i've ever watched someone I love die.

I am against assisted dying. If somebody still has capacity and wants to end their own suffering while they can there are ways and means. Although I fully accept that this usually has a huge emotional impact and in some cases financial (some insurances won't pay out for suicide).

My issue is how quickly the laws get watered down and the impact on those with severe disabilities. The act that didn't get through the lords had been amended removing some safeguards and some countries that do have euthanasia already allow for people who aren't terminal to end their life (Canada and the Netherlands).

The Netherlands euthanised a severley disabled toddler last year who couldn't give consent. Their parents did, the toddler wasn't terminal but did have multiple severe disabilities due to premature birth. I also have a severely disabled child (different conditions and situation) and can fully empathise and understand the parents but have discussed with my husband friends who also have profound and severely disabled kids, we have all wondered how much is to end the childs suffering and how much of the decision was about ending the parents suffering. I can't imagine the anguish they went through and it isn't a position i ever want to be in.

Canada have had a high profile case where a gitl with autism was allowed assisted dying after her father fought in court to stop it. There have been cases raised of people seeking AD because of poverty and homelessness too.

I do worry about these laws and how easily they maybe applied to people like my son when i'm no longer here to fight for him. The disabled in this country are already viewed as a burden and ofyen discussed in terms of how much money they cost the country. People who want to end their own suffering can do that now, just not with state agreement.

I'm so sorry for your mum's experience. Sadly I think not uncommon and no easy answers. I'm not arguing that there should never be euthanasia with consent I'm just agreeing with the OPs comcern about using pets as a comparison, because if euthanasia is legalised we are going to need some absolutely watertight laws that align with the ethical arguments, and that's one ethical argument I think is dangerous and could lower the bar at which we judge someone is suffering and should be 'put out of their misery'.
We need to think all these things through properly now, before change is made.

Edited to clarify I am agreeing with the OP and probably go further as in we should probably examine the 'pet suffering-> euthanasia good' idea much more if people are drawing any comparisons with humans.

We're not imposing suffering though. It links to a massive longstanding ethical debate (utilitarianism, the trolley problem etc). We are choosing to end a pet's life because they have reached our current societal threshold of 'unacceptable suffering for an animal' which is usually at the point where they'd need pain relief, are immobile and incontinent.

OP is right to raise the potential danger of using pets as a comparison.

And there's the issue in your final line, "at least to some of them". And for those people, they can continue to have the life/death they want. But that choice should not be imposed on those who don't want it. My mother died in a hospice (a fantastic place run by amazing people - no doubt like your mum), but her long and drawn out death was physically and emotionally agonising despite their best efforts. It was, quite literally, torture, imposed on her by the state.

I do think it’s an appropriate comparison. If anything, I believe human assisted dying is more ethical than animal euthanasia. Both my nan and my cat are in intolerable pain and don’t have any prospect of getting better. But my nan is not just consenting but requesting someone help her die, the cat hasn’t any idea at all.

I’d say there’s a stronger ethical argument for banning pet euthanasia than there is for not allowing human assisted dying (but I believe both should be legal).

Everyone understands this but it's the same as saying we won't let people have sex in order to protect people from rape or we won't let women have access to abortion in case they are coerced into it. We can't always deny informed adults the ability to do things because someone could misuse these rights.

You could say the same about abortion. Lots of women are particularly vulnerable when the fall pregnant and there are people that stand to gain from them not proceeding with the pregnancy (most notably the father that can escape all parental responsibilities). You also don't get to unabort a fetus so it's a final event too. Do you agree with abortion?

We aren't assisting those who benefit from someone's death. We are assisting the person that is giving their informed consent to die. You have no idea that a lot of people will die via AD that actually want to live. Do you think that's happening with suicide now? Should we make that illegal? Afterall a lot of very ill and disabled people could be coerced into suicide if there are so many people out there with the motivation you suggest.

But we're not talking about euthanising people without their knowledge or consent. Literally nobody is asking for that. So your comparison is flawed. The comparison to animals - as others here have said - is that we recognise the cruelty of imposing unnecessary and pointless suffering on animals, yet we are fine with doing it to humans.

It’s a bit odd to use the argument ’we are responsible and pets don’t understand’ as if we would be making choices to put other humans to sleep. Assisted dying is about giving the individual control, not about taking it from them. The reason we use animals for comparison is because it is a kind thing to do to end the suffering of a living thing, not because it would be the same.

See, I actually think sometimes animals are euthanized partly because of the expense and inconvenience of keeping them alive when ill, incontinent etc. The 'its a kindness' is a story we tell as a society to make us feel less guilty. As a pp said, the animal probably wouldn't choose to die.

YANBU OP. Ethically it's a poor comparison. This debate is so oversimplified. My mum who works in a hospice always talks about how people who from the outside have no quality of life still so often visibly want to live. Life is sweet to at least some of them... or at least better than the alternative.

My mum had a DNAR in place while she had capacity. She exercised her right not be treated and her wishes were adhered to. She died peacefully rather than be blue lighted to hospital and resuscitated and medicated.
She was 86, frail and riddled with advanced dementia x

We don't hold the same power to even decide between life and death over people that we do over pets, and rightly so!

Very true. But no one is suggesting that we should be able to choose that other people should die, only that we should choose an easier, slightly earlier death for ourselves, that may need facilitating by other people.

Though doctors did use to hasten the end of patients in their final days, sometimes without the patient's consent as they were no longer able to give it. I could be wrong but I don't believe they ever did it for patients who had weeks or months to live.

I think that if you have mental capacity and you have an incurable illness that will eventually kill you in excruciating pain, then you should be allowed to pass away quickly and peacefully.
Its just not that simple from an ethical point of view. Who would administer the fatal dose? Even at Dignitas you have to be capable of drinking the dose yourself, which takes away any responsibility from the medical staff

When the Dr told the family that intervention after resuscitation would only ever mean that Mum was well enough live in a nursing home and probably only for a short time, my Dad said "I wouldn't do that to my dog, so I'm certainly not doing it to my wife".
We did know Mum's views, having had lots of conversations when GM had dementia.

You think thats fair? We as his family almost willed him to die because he was in so much pain - he died last year.

It's horrific and I am so sorry. But literally noone is saying it's "fair" or a good thing though. People are acting as if we all want people to suffer - literally noone does.

As this poster says: Its not about letting people suffer. Its about protecting people from essentially being murdered

Oh that poor man, 😢 Glad he is at peace now, but how awful that he suffered for so long......

My uncle had mouth and stomach cancer. He also partially loss his sight. Towards the end, they cut his tongue out as it had spread and he had to be fed through a tube, he could not swallow and he could not speak, he then lost his ability to walk due to muscle loss, so had to crawl if there was no one to help him. He asked to die EVERY DAY for the best part of two years. You think thats fair? We as his family almost willed him to die because he was in so much pain - he died last year.

100% disagree. It's a fact that you can get prosecuted (by the high and mighty RSPCA) if you let a pet suffer and have zero quality of life, yet we let humans suffer with zero quality of life.

A woman I know (aged 78) has a daughter who is 56, (Lyn) and Lyn is 35 stone. She has been morbidly obese for about 15-20 years, and has multiple health issues. Everything under the sun. She has a cocktail of meds, and only ever goes out in the car to GP appointments and to take her mum shopping ... Lyn sits in the car while her mum does the shopping. She lives with her mum after losing her house 2 years ago (when the landlord sold it.)

3 months ago, her gall bladder burst, and she also had a stroke, and she spent 2 months in hospital. She can no longer walk, she struggles to talk, she needs to be spoon fed, she can't dress or shower herself, and she needs help to go to the toilet. She can't do anything for herself. Her 78 year old mother is her carer. He 35 year old adult daughter (who is single/no kids) visits every day and spends 2 hours there, helping her mum and gran.

They have 4 carers a day there for Lyn, (20 to 30 minutes each time,) but they can't be there all the time, and Lyn's mum and daughter have to look after her for the rest of the time. Her mum does most of it.

I genuinely think Lyn would be better off if she had just died 3 months ago. She should have died, and she would have died, if they hadn't brought her around with treatment and meds... The stroke should have killed her because she has ZERO quality of life, and now her mum and daughter don't either, because they are having to look after her. Lyn wishes every day that she was dead.

Euthanasia would be perfect for this woman. It's outrageous that her almost 80 year old mother is having to be her full time carer.