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

Have you seen someone die of cancer? We give more dignity to animals than we do humans

Have you ever seen someone being killed who really didnt want to die?

Because that is just as fair a question

Yes I witnessed my sisters death from cancer. She was on a high morphine dose, the end was fairly rapid but it was awful to witness.
I am "sort of" for assisted dying but there would have to be very strict protocols.
There will always be those who have a rich old granny/Auntie whose money they want to get their hands on

It really is. Either way is awful. As a cat lover, the only cat of mine who has died was struck by a car, so it wasn't my choice – but now my two cats are indoor cats, and I would definitely PTS if they were suffering. But I know a big part of my motivation would be to spare myself from the pain of seeing them suffer. It would break my heart, but it feels like the least bad choice.

@Itchthescratch Many very old and very disabled / ill people are particularly vulnerable to pressure by those they depend on, and whom they may love. And their death is very profitable, both to the state and to their family members. Unlike sex, death is a once only, final event. In this context, I don't think we should be assisting those who benefit from others' deaths. I think that if we introduce assisted dying / euthanasia, a lot of people who don't genuinely want to die, will.
Suicide is freely available. No, it's not available to absolutely everyone (to someone who is very disabled, or in the last stage of a terminal illness), and it's not a nice or easy option, but it is available to most people.

People keep not understanding the real issue here.

Its not about letting people suffer. Its about protecting people from essentially being murdered

My father spent almost two years paralysed from a stroke, he also had cancer. For the last six or seven months of his life he was incontinent, literally screaming from pain and begging us to end it. He wanted to die but because of the stroke he wasn't physically able to do anything himself. For proud man, the incontinence and paralysis would have been enough. But add to all that the brutal pain he was in. I dont think comparing euthanasia with the right to die is unethical.

We don’t let pets suffer. We should be able to put ourselves out of our misery as a
‘superior species ‘.

Of course the comparison is silly.

It would only be a legit comparison if we asked the pet if they wanted to die and then ended their life if they said yes- therefore carrying out their express wishes.

But we dont do that- humans decide when the pet's life ends and some dogs, for example, are put down due to aggression rather than poor health. That would be the equivalent of killing a person due to their poor mental health.

Neither pets nor humans have a choice over whether they live or die so actually, they are exactly the same- neither has control over when they die.

It's a reductionist, trite expression that is wheeled out every bloody time this topic comes up and it's really tiresome because it doesnt in any way explore any of the depth or complexities of this subject. It's become a lazy platitude akin to "everything happens for a reason".

This.

Dog lover.

I can see your side of argument of what you have just said and also other side. I really dont know where I stand. I am dreading the day where I would be making such a decision for my dog.

I dont knownif I cpuld forgive myself for PTS , and I dont know if I could forgive myself for NOT PTS.

It's a terrible business all round :-(

Many times that presumption is right

Do you support the law that allows abortion?

This is a very paternalistic perspective. The obvious difference between pets and humans is that humans can provide informed consent to AD. Your argument basically assumes that nobody is capable of providing this consent and that people actively choosing to not be a burden for their loved ones or even wider society is an unacceptable reason for them to give this consent.

Lots of people don't want to be a burden for good reason. Many feel that it takes away their pride and dignity which is completely subjective but also valid. Many feel that they don't want to have a negative impact on others. Many simply don't want to live a life where they are so dependent on others and perhaps don't trust the standard of care they would offer. There are all totally valid perspectives and can legitimately inform consent.

I feel very wary about people trying to use these kind of arguments to undermine the concept of informed consent. The same goes with the potential for coercion and manipulation. This risk exists in so many areas of life like sex, money and most notably abortion. Just because some women are coerced or manipulated into abortion does that not mean no woman can consent to one and should be allowed one? Should we never be allowed to have sex because we know that coercion is relatively common here?

I've never really understood the "coercion" argument regarding assisted suicide. Most people don't require assistance to commit suicide. Suicide happens without assistance all the time. So if there really are these numbers of people willing to push an unwanted sick/disabled/elderly relative into suicide them we should be seeing those deaths now. Are we? And why would they be more likely through a system that would at least have the benefit of scrutiny and oversight?

How we treat our pets is, to me, very much a reason for voting against assisted dying and euthanasia. Because some people would die not because they genuinely want to, but because they are an inconvenience to their relatives and/or to the state

This is why I am very uncomfortable with an Assisted Dying bill in this country.

On the one hand, I absolutely would like to have a choice should it come to it, because I have seen both my Grandmother and Father die awful, drawn out, deaths from MS (and with a Mother with MS too and currently waiting test results myself, I am very much expecting to this to be almost an inevitability for me). However, I also 100% believe that any legislation passed would lead to coerced deaths and death to those who are an inconvenience either to the state or family. And legislation, no matter how tight, will inevitably lead to more legislation once everyone’s more comfortable with it.
I am appalled by the euthanasia of a two year old child in the Netherlands, who was disabled but not dying, and for whom alternative treatments were deemed to be possible by doctors. But the legislation allowed that if a second opinion could be found to agree, then that was enough. I can’t support law that could and would lead to this.

So do you think that everyone with dementia should be euthanised once the disease reaches a certain point? What point, in that case? Would the decision be made by medical professionals, the state, or their family? I can see the argument for it, but it also seems deeply contrary to what people usually advocate for.

How many pets are put to sleep when, if given the choice, they would have wanted to carry on living? But they had stopped being a fun pet for their owner and had become an inconvenience.
I took my pet to the vet recently. She has an ongoing issue which the vet was not able to diagnose. The vet said that I could have her put to sleep whenever was convenient to me. This is a pet who is still in good shape most of the time, and is clearly still thoroughly enjoying her life.
How we treat our pets is, to me, very much a reason for voting against assisted dying and euthanasia. Because some people would die not because they genuinely want to, but because they are an inconvenience to their relatives and/or to the state.

Yes I am thank you. The insidious nature of dementia has meant I grieved for my Mum, who was she was and what she has lost years prior. Unfortunately for people like my Mum the assisted dying bill will never be an option for her or fellow suffers. In a way I agree with this as at what point in the dementia journey can we say ‘that’s enough suffering’.

i highlighted my Mum’s plight alongside my grandad and aunt situation though to show the difference. They were both on the very end trajectory, and both suffered needlessly. At the point where a person can only have death to ease their suffering, and that death is coming soon (within 6 months) and they can choose that option, then assisted dying should be an option for them.

I'm in favour of assisted dying, but I don't think the pets argument is particularly compelling. I say this as someone who has had two beloved pets euthanised - when they were clearly suffering.

Animals are different - firstly it can be very difficult to administer medication, they have no concept that an unpleasant-tasting thing might relieve their pain. Secondly, they can't tell you what is hurting. Thirdly, they can't give you any indication whether they'd want euthanasia.

Humans can tell you whether they'd want it - it's a sensible conversation to have with your nearest and dearest, so you know their feelings even if they later lose the capacity to express their wishes. If someone has said, when they are of sound mind, that they want euthanasia in particular circumstances, they should be allowed to have it. They should leave instructions with a solicitor so there can be no doubt - and similarly, they could leave instructions if they categorically did not want it.

Absolutely this.

I have nursed both my Mum and Gran through terminal bowel cancer. People have a very strange misconception about end of life care. They seem to think people drift off on a fluffy cloud of morphine,
dying peacefully. That may happen for a few people but a lot of people - like your friend and my Mum and Gran suffer horrifically. I think unless people have personal experience of these kinds of deaths things are unlikely to change.

I think the argument IS that animals are ‘lesser’ that humans - it acknowledges this.

And then goes on to say we yet afford these ‘lesser’ beings a grace and mercy we don’t extend to people. Even those who desperately want it.

People who CAN consent to it, incidentally. Animals cannot.

I’m somewhat torn on assisted dying but I can see how the logic of denying a terminally ill person who can consent whilst allowing it for a creature who can’t, seems topsy-turvy.

I don’t believe that this is said out of any sense of legality OP…it’s said because of the depth of feeling people have for the pain and suffering their loved ones are going through, and they are using that as the comparison, not the laws around it.

We don’t ‘consult the law’ when deciding that our much loved Labrador, who is , for example, suffering with terminal and (incredibly painful) osteosarcoma should sadly be put down. We take the incredibly difficult, but ultimately right decision to let him go. That’s what people mean when they say ‘we don’t do this to animals’.

Of course there would always have to be legal consultation regarding human life…always…I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But what people would like, is the chance to have ‘some’ choice to make a decision, within the law, so that human suffering is not prolonged unnecessarily. Because that’s just cruel…and a dog with osteosarcoma can, at least, be let go with care and dignity.

A few years ago we had several deaths in the family in a very short amount of time.

My dad died of end stage COPD, slowly suffocating over several days as his knackered lungs tried to get enough air. He was extremely distressed and I will never get the image of him at the moment he died out of my head.

My nan fell and suffered a brain bleed. She started to recover in hospital but then suffered another devastating bleed which was unrecoverable. She was put in a side room on this allegedly marvellous palliative care we have in the UK to die. It took nearly two weeks. She lay completely immobile, tears streaming down her face, often in her own bodily fluids for hours, making that awful death rattle. She was 96.

My beloved spaniel finally reached the point where he was in pain from his arthritis and the treatment was no longer working effectively. We took him for a burger at McDonald’s which was his favourite treat, he had a sniff around at his favourite park then we went to the vets. He died peacefully a minute or so after the vet injected the medication. On my lap surrounded by people who loved him.

Who do you think had the best death in these circumstances. It certainly wasn’t the humans.

I'm a vet. We do not use paralytic drugs for euthanasia. The regimes used for lethal injection in America are not particularly humane because they have great difficulty in sourcing appropriate drugs, and giving a good death is not the primary goal, so that really isn't a valid comparison. Veterinary euthanasia usually provides a peaceful death; since the animal is not paralysed, we'd see signs of distress if not. Very occasionally things don't go smoothly, but that's the exception, not the rule.

I would say that, having carried out countless pet euthanasias during 30 years in practice, it is a very frequent thing for the owners, many of whom are total strangers, to say "I so wish my mum/dad/partner could have gone like this, they suffered terribly". Many of them are deeply moved not just by losing their pet but by seeing a "good death", often for the first time. We need far better palliative care and also a solution to the desperate suffering of people trapped indefinitely inside failed bodies with conditions such as advanced dementia. We would never leave a dog in such circumstances.

If not actually possible to offer much in the way of relief for some conditions without risking killing the patient. In such cases patients tend to be given less relief than they need.

Besides which I don't want to spend my last days incontinent, struggling to breath or wasting away and drugged up to the eyeballs whilst I crawl off the world by inches. Should I get to that condition I'd like to just be helped to stop.