Newsweek: Veterinarian Says We Should “Treat People Like Dogs”

Out of all the newsweeklies on the market, Newsweek has published some of the most outrageous pieces regarding people with disabilities and euthanasia.  This week’s “My Turn” column by veterinarian Karen Oberthaler isn’t the worst thing they’ve published, but it immediately brought to mind one their “classic” pieces.

Oberthaler’s essay attempts to make a case that humans would be a lot better off if our health care was delivered in the same way that veterinary care is for household pets.  Oberthaler is not your average vet – she’s an oncologist who says “pet owners routinely rack up $10,000 bills” to pay for saving the lives of their pets.

Oberthaler obviously doesn’t practice veterinary medicine in my neighborhood.  I don’t think there are many people in my neighborhood with that much extra money on hand – and very fewer who would dip that far into savings in our middle-class corner of the city to save the life of a household pet.

But someone whose human clientele “routinely” pay large amounts of money to save and extend the lives of their pets might see the following as reasonable, I guess:

When facing the death of a loved one—human or animal—the real challenge is coming to grips with the reality of the situation. Since my approach draws me closer to families, it’s easier to suggest that the best course of treatment may be relieving pain rather than fighting a disease. Owners are less likely to fear that you’re giving up on their beloved pet if they trust you. When I’m asked about performing tests, and I know the results won’t change the outcome, I say so. If your golden retriever’s cancer is too far advanced for surgery, getting a biopsy may be a pricey—and superfluous—exercise.

No family wants to subject its already sick pet to uncomfortable tests or dump thousands of dollars into dead-end diagnostics. So why do we do that to our grandparents?

Oberthaler stops just short of the most obvious comparison in an essay advocating human health care should be more like the care for household vets and doesn’t mention euthanasia – but I’ll bet the majority of readers got there without her help, especially if they are long-time readers of Newsweek.

In 1992, the magazine published a “My Turn” column by Katie Letcher Lyle titled “A Gentle Way to Die.”

Lyle also thought we did better by pets than by some humans.  After first giving a tender account of having her cat euthanized, she moves on to give her view of what she obviously feels is a life not worth living.  “Henry” is a man with intellectual disabilities who has been abused and abandoned by the system for most of his life.  He’s in a group home now and she doesn’t see much joy or purpose in his life:

I know the arguments about the abuses of kindly death, and I know mental incompetents were the Nazis’ first victims. The money is certainly not the point; I believe strongly that one can judge any civilization by how decently it treats its sick, its elderly, its disabled. But money is a reality, and adding up all the institutional, medical and social services, Henry has already cost American taxpayers roughly $1.5 million. But my point is, what does life hold for Henry now? I’ll tell you: either a drugged hell of an existence behind bars; or, more probably, deinstitutionalization, street life, an agonizing death in a filthy alley. It happens to others, everywhere, every day.

I don’t like the conclusion I’m forced to. But is a gentle death for a human being always the worst answer? Laws can be implemented to prevent abuses. It seems patently untrue to me that any life is always preferable to no life. I wish, more than I can say, that there were some place on this earth where Henry could live happily and freely and be loved and understood. But since there isn’t, I find it disgraceful, as well as ironic, that we cannot bring ourselves to treat our fellow humans as humanely as we treat our pets.

The original article described Lyle as some sort of “advocate” for the “handicapped.”  I hope she’s no longer allowed anywhere near people with intellectual disabilities.

****

Getting back to the current “My Turn” essay, I suspect the vets in my neighborhood would tell Oberthaler that a lot of pets they euthanize could be cured, but owners don’t have the money for the treatment.  Others balk issues like amputation of a limb or the loss of vision in an animal – many owners see death of a pet as a better outcome than having to live with a disabled pet.

Some even have reasons that are harder to wrap my head around.  Just about a week ago, a story found its way into my newsfeed that raised a lot of eyebrows:

Dog euthanized to be buried with owner

March 5, 2010 — One man’s last request has animal lovers questioning his state of mind and motives. The Arkansas man asked that his dog be buried alongside him — a dog that was only 2-years-old and perfectly healthy. 

Fifty-four-year-old Donald Ellis was buried last week at Oakland Cemetary in Monticello, Arkansas. But not before he made an unusual request: that his 2-year-old Yorkie “Tom Tom” be buried alongside him.

Ellis’ sister Marilyn McDaniel told reporters the family wanted to fulfill her brother’s desire, so they took the Yorkie to the vet and had it euthanized.

According to McDaniel, Ellis said he wanted the dog to go with him because no one would love him like he did. 

BTW, the vet in the story hated putting the dog down, but was afraid that if he refused the dog would be killed in a way that wasn’t as humane as the death he could provide.

That’s the reality of health care for our pets.  We pay what we feel we can afford for the results that meet our satisfaction.  If it costs too much or we don’t like what the outcome would be, we choose a “merciful” death instead.  Not that we tell ourselves and our friends that’s how we make those decisions – like Mr. Ellis who made sure his dog didn’t outlive him – we tell everyone it’s all about love.  –Stephen Drake