Last week, there was a small burst of the “we’re kinder to animals than to humans” crap in the Australian press, courtesy of Peter Baume, a former Senator and an emeritus professor of Community Health at the University of New South Wales.
Baume was part of a panel discussion on euthanasia in Sydney, Australia. The panelists were covered and quoted in a way that revealed some pretty obvious bias on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald‘s Matt Buchanan. Here’s a relevant example of the less-than-objective wording describing Baume’s remarks:
Professor Peter Baume, speaking with quiet authority, said: “Dogs and horses have it better than us. We don’t let them suffer but we do let humans suffer.”
Just to make sure Baume’s points were driven home, the Herald also pubished an essay by him in the same edition, titled “We do not let dogs and horses suffer as we allow humans to suffer.” In the essay, he makes the same claim that we don’t “allow” dogs and horses to suffer, implying that euthanasia of pets is always an act of relieving the animal’s suffering – when in fact, many, if not most, killings of household pets have to do with the animal being old and harder to take care of, having a condition to expensive to treat, peeing indoors – or outside the litterbox, or maybe being more moody and prone to snapping once in awhile.
Baume wouldn’t have to ask me for evidence of this, he could have asked fellow panelist Philip Nitschke, affectionately known in Australia as “Dr. Death.” He’s been leading the public charge for legalization of euthanasia in Australia. As the most prominent pro-euthanasia activist in Australia, Nitschke has been personally involved with most of the figures in the movement – including Max Bell, who comes close to filling the role of a “martyr” for the movement there.
For a short time 1n 1996, voluntary active euthanasia was legalized in Australia’s Northern Territory. Max Bell, a taxi driver with stomach cancer, contacted Nitsche. Bell wanted to take advantage of the new law. Bell lived quite a distance from Nitsche and had to drive for 6 days to make the entire trip. Below, from an account by Nitschke, is a summary of Bell’s preparation for his travel to the Northern Territory:
So he put his house on the market, had his two dogs put down, organised himself to drive to Darwin and set out.
Given the current context – from Peter Baume, Gifford-Jones, and even Thaddeus Mason Pope – perhaps we should examine that throw-away line from Nitschke regarding Max Bell and his dogs.
How do we evaluate the “mercy killing,” “euthanasia,” “putting to sleep,” etc. of Max Bell’s dogs? Was Bell the victim of some ghastly cosmic coincidence so that not only he, but his two dogs were suffering from terminal illnesses?
Nitschke doesn’t tell us, but it doesn’t seem likely, does it?
Here are some alternative explanations:
- Max Bell was too sick and pressed for time to find a home for his dogs;
- Max Bell couldn’t find an alternative home for his dogs;
- Max Bell didn’t try to find a home, believing that the dogs would be better of dead than having to live without him.
None of this means that Bell was cold or callous towards his dogs, but, like most people, had different beliefs about his commitments regarding animals than he might (presumably) have toward humans.
Personally, probably most of the people I’ve know have had their pets euthananized when they were neither terminally ill nor suffering. They often involved the increased expense and work that can accompany the chronic conditions aging animals develop. Cats that miss the litter box. Dogs that snap at owners when surprised. Expensive medical treatments. Failing hearing and eyesight. Animals, who live in the moment, don’t spend time dwelling on the “good old days” when they could run like the wind and mourn the loss. That’s a human characteristic – and something we like to project on our pets – so we can tell ourselves and our friends that we had them “put to sleep” because they suffered, avoiding the messier truth.
In the name of thoughtful debate and respect for critical thinking, can we put this issue to sleep? Because when individuals such as the ones addressed in this entry use this argument, only two explanations for the tactic come to mind:
- They’re so entrenched into the myths surrounding pet euthanasia, they’ve set their critical thinking skills aside;
- Their critical thinking skills are indeed intact, but use this argument to exploit the lack of critical thinking in others.
Surely they can do better. –Stephen Drake
I stopped reading the “Sidney Morning Herald” online. Why had I ever read it (online)? A WBAI radio host, Hugh Hamilton, had read excerpts from a really good article about one of the US wars a few years ago, on the radio. It’s very tabloid and sensational in many of its articles, which is why I stopped reading it online. Tabloid-like websites and newspapers like DailyMail online, seem very euthanasia-friendly. Alas, there are days I wonder about the Guardian, since they have been euthanasia-friendly recently, perhaps without ever realizing that the point of view of disability rights activists questions it.
Thank you for raising all these points. That comparison of pet to human euthanasia really does seem to me to be a way of bypassing critical thinking. And even empathy.
Pets, like other animals, even those who are very sick and dying, don’t generally kill themselves, let alone ask to be killed. It is humans who create this wish.
Animals often do seem to appreciate companionship and measures to keep them as comfortable as possible. I say this in part as one who has accompanied some of my beloved animals through to their last breaths without resort to lethal injection and such.
The no-kill shelter movement has done a lot to question and alleviate the high rates of animal euthanasia. It has identified many of the same human- rather than animal-centered reasons for it that you do.
When advocates of human euthanasia bring up the pet comparison, the work and counterarguments of the no kill movement can help call the whole thing into question.
(Some no kill advocates do believe euthanasia is acceptable for animals that are seriously ill and dying, but even then their hearts are in keeping the practice to an absolute minimum.)
In his book War Against the Weak, about the history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black mentions the “lethal chamber.” It was invented during the late 19th century as a way to gas unwanted animals.
According to Black, many eugenicists were captivated by the lethal chamber and sought its use against “undesirable” humans–including & especially people of color, the poor, the crips. The use of the gas chamber in administering the death penalty was but one result of these ghoulish dreams. The call to chloroform disabled babies and older persons was another.
So, when folks say, “Rover gets to, but we humans don’t”–this history also raises some counter arguments.
Marysia,
I’m not sure if all the people writing this stuff are bypassing critical thinking. Some of them, at least, are undoubtedly informed and cynical enough to exploit the lack of critical thinking on this topic they can expect in their audience. –Stephen
Stephen, I agree that some human euthanasia advocates are cycnically exploiting others’ lack of critical thinking.
But some euthanasia advocates have probably not thought through the animal comparison themselves.
They haven’t even thought through *human* euthanasia–so why would they do a better job with animal euthanasia? (:
After all, animal euthanasia is still such a widely accepted practice, and one that many personally deal with.
A lot of vets don’t question it, and when they offer it to their patients’ humans, *they* frequently don’t question it, either. After all it puts one on the spot and one does not want to be callous towards the pet’s suffering…even though often there are other alternatives in the situation that go unmentioned, unthought of, and unexplored.
not to mention that in most usa municipalities, tax dollars pay to kill shelter animals on a massive scale.
And it’s only recently that the institution of animal euthanasia has come under critical scrutiny.
most of the population is not familiar with these critiques–after all animal concerns activists of any sort are so often dismissed as loonies.
nor does peter singer help improve the public image!