Being merciful to pets, but not to parents

[Hitetlen]

About 5 years ago my mother passed away. She chose to come over to the States (from our original country of Hungary), and spent her last 11 months with us. It was a great gift from her, she gave us the opportunity to hold her hand in her last minutes.

After her death, my wife’s stepfather (not a blood relative, obviously) decided to move in with us, too. He spent 5 wonderful years in our home (it became his home, too, we considred him also a full member of the family). About 3 months ago his health deteriorated rapidly, and a month ago he died. The same way as mother did, we had the chance to hold his hand.

Niether of them was in any great pain, their body just shut down gradually, they were quite old (82 and 89, respectively) and there was nothing unexpected in the process.

Of course this shut-down process was very frustrating for both of them - at least while they were lucid enough to know what is happening. At the end they were in deep sleep (not really a coma), and they were unaware of what was happening. Since both of them were very independent minded, and they were unable to take care of themselves (bedside commode and other humiliating experiences) I could understand their frustration.

They both asked us if we could “hasten” the process, to help them to die. Obviously we could not, because there are some laws against that. If I would have had the opportunity, I would have done it. Life without hope, without dignity is not worth living.

Now, I know what the church says and what the law says. I am not interested in re-hashing those arguments.

When a pet is at the end of its life, the humane way of treating them is gently putting them to sleep, so we could spare them of pain and misery.

I am just interested in your gut feelings. Do you feel comfortable with condemning your parents and relatives to discomfort (sometimes even pain - horrible pain) lack of dignity while giving an easy way out to your pets.

Does this feel right to you? Do we treat our pets better than our parents?

 

[Madia]

First, animals are not persons. To equate the two in dignity would be insulting to the dignity of a human person. As stated by Pope John Paul II “the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being [does] not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a “vegetable” or an “animal”. Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a “vegetative state” retain their human dignity in all its fullness.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_en.html

Now, you may not interested in what the Church says about the dignity of a human person but want a clearly secular argument. Perhaps a history lesson would help:
pregnantpause.org/euth/nazieuth.htm

You cannot understand suffering apart from the Cross so I recommend meditating on it when you think of suffering.

 

[BlindSheep]

You have a different understanding of what “dignity” is than we do, I see. I would say that your position that the worth of a human being rests on his independence is far more destructive to dignity than any disease or disability could be.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

You have a different understanding of what “dignity” is than we do, I see. I would say that your position that the worth of a human being rests on his independence is far more destructive to dignity than any disease or disability could be.

I simply don’t understand what you say. I did not talk about the “worth” of human life, but if I would, then I would say that suffering definitely subtracts from its “worth”.

Dignity is important, but suffering is important, too. To allow someone to suffer when there is a way to alleviate suffering is cruel, not compassionate. Physical and mental suffering do not differ in kind.

When we shorten the time of pain and suffering for the pets, it is an act of compassion. When we prolong the pain and suffering for our parents, it is cruelty. Why should animals be treated with more compassion than humans? And as I said, I know the “official” answer, so there is no need to repeat it. I am interested in you feelings about it.

Madia:

First, animals are not persons. To equate the two in dignity would be insulting to the dignity of a human person. As stated by Pope John Paul II “the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being [does] not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a “vegetable” or an “animal”. Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a “vegetative state” retain their human dignity in all its fullness.”

Nowhere have I insinuated that animals are persons. I did not compare their dignity.

I did compare, however their pain and suffering. We treat our pets (in the cases above) with compassion. We treat other humans with cruelty.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Hitetlen:

Life without hope, without dignity is not worth living.

I disagree. All life is precious. Period.

Now, I know what the church says and what the law says. I am not interested in re-hashing those arguments.

When a pet is at the end of its life, the humane way of treating them is gently putting them to sleep, so we could spare them of pain and misery.

**I disagree with that too. I would also wager that most of the time it has less to do with compassion for the animal and more to do with the owners just not having a desire to watch it happen. We have had pets die slowly and we have never put them down for it. We have comforted them, held them, and loved them to the very end. **

I am just interested in your gut feelings. Do you feel comfortable with condemning your parents and relatives to discomfort (sometimes even pain - horrible pain) lack of dignity while giving an easy way out to your pets.

You color this issue with wording that expresses your views - which is not the true case. The assumption is that suffering = no dignity and this is not so. That is how YOU see them, that is not neccessarily how they actually are.

---

My mother died of cancer years ago. She was in horrible pain and could not complete any body functions on her own. But she could enjoy the pictures my 2yr old son drew her while sitting on the sofa near her bed. She was able to hold my fathers hand and hear that he loved her for nearly 40 years. It was not pretty. She was bald, down to 72 lbs, with tubes everywhere, often crying in pain towards the end because no amount of morphine could satisfy her pain without just killing her. She did not just “slip away” quietly.

---

**My mother was not “condemned” to anything. She was given life for however long the Lord saw fit. Pain and suffering are a part of life. They don’t rob us of dignity or the right to life. It should also be noted the number one reason patients claim to want to hasten their death as very little to do with pain - they do not want to be a burden or a hardship on their families. I say SHAME on their families for treating their loved ones like burdens and not embracing them with joy in their last days!:tsktsk: **

Does this feel right to you?

YES!

 

[BlindSheep]

If you can’t understand my point about dignity the way I explained it, I can’t think of any way to communicate it to you.
I’ll also say that there is a difference between not taking a particular action (killing) in order to relieve suffering, and causing suffering.
I suppose the basis for this distinction is also outside your worldview, though. No, I wouldn’t consider euthanising a human being for one minute, and I wouldn’t consider this inaction an “act of cruelty” either.
Why? You say you know why, but you really can’t understand. Your world view does not include these:
value of suffering
inherent value of life
existance beyond physical life
responsibility, free will
absolute good and evil
therefore, one can’t expect you to think like someone whose world view does include all these. But when you call us “cruel”, you show your inability even imagine our perspective. If it helps you create a coherent mental picture of us to attribute to us cruelty and a lack of compassion, you will coninue to do so.

 

[ReginaNova]

How is it being merciful to communicate that a dying loved one is a burden to be terminated? We put a pet to sleep not to be merciful but also to save us money. Euthanasia is playing God. We are not God and have no right to play God. Contrast the dignity and grace of the Pope’s final illness and death with the travesty of Dr. Kevorkian’s “mercy killings” in his van. God bless John Paul for his example. I was profoundly moved by his final years.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

I’ll also say that there is a difference between not taking a particular action (killing) in order to relieve suffering, and causing suffering.

But I understand the difference between omission and comission just fine. Sometimes the difference is relevant, sometimes it is not.

What is the difference between pushing a child into a crevasse and not preventing a child falling into one, when you can see that the child is about to fall in and you can prevent it without any harm coming to you?

BlindSheep:

I suppose the basis for this distinction is also outside your worldview, though. No, I wouldn’t consider euthanising a human being for one minute, and I wouldn’t consider this inaction an “act of cruelty” either.

Would you consider allowing an animal to suffer if you could help it?

BlindSheep:

Your world view does not include these:
value of suffering
inherent value of life
existance beyond physical life
responsibility, free will
absolute good and evil

Of these I do understand responsibility and free will. The rest I don’t accept, you are right.

BlindSheep:

…therefore, one can’t expect you to think like someone whose world view does include all these. But when you call us “cruel”, you show your inability even imagine our perspective. If it helps you create a coherent mental picture of us to attribute to us cruelty and a lack of compassion, you will coninue to do so.

Causing pain is not exactly the same as not alleviating pain, but if the process of alleviating pain is neglible, the difference is miniscule.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

But I understand the difference between omission and comission just fine. Sometimes the difference is relevant, sometimes it is not.

What is the difference between pushing a child into a crevasse and not preventing a child falling into one, when you can see that the child is about to fall in and you can prevent it without any harm coming to you?

And what if you have to kill to prevent it?

 

[JCPhoenix]

I’m going to oversimplify this to make a point.

God created both pets and humans, yes? If you disagree with this statement as it refers to God, then do you at least accept the fact that human beings are higher on the food chain?

Yes, good.

We have dominion over the animals of the world. We are higher beings, therefore, we also have the authority to make decisions which affect them and in some of those cases, which also affect the good of the human race…ie, a dog with an expensive terminal illenss that the family cannot afford to treat with various veterinary remedies…etc. So rather than treating the pet, we opt maybe to put the pet down right away, or maybe just try to keep the pet comfortable, let the disease run its course, and then put the pet down when the time comes.

Or some people just take the poor beast out back and shoot it. (I do NOT condone this, but I understand in some cases).

In any case, as the higer being, we have the authority to end the life of a lesser being, within particular moral boundaries.

Now, lets discuss humans. I think you would agree that you are not a higher being than your older relatives, and in fact, likely hold them in high esteem.

How, then, by following the natural order of things, is it dignified to end their lives? Who gave you that authority? Are you higher than they are in creation?

((Disclaimer: “You” is not necessarily directed at the OP, these are rhetorical questions.)))

Do you think that because that person suffers, then automatically you are now relegated to a position of higher creation and thus have the power to determine whether they live or die?

Let’s say that you do…what’s to stop you from putting them out of their misery when they just express a little depression at getting older? Maybe have the flu and can’t eat for a couple days? Retire due to an expensive heart condition? Cancer?

What if your own child suffers from a terminal illness…what’s to stop you from determing that he/she should just die rather than drain resources or risk being “undignified” when their hair falls out or they vomit several times daily?

Life is beautiful at all stages, as as we cannot create ourselves, we likewise have no authority over the deaths of others.

I realize that this does nto stop people from taking this “authority”, but that does NOT make it right.

God is our Creator. He is the only one who gets to saw who lives and who dies…and he has NOT invited our participation in the form of democratic process.

By “assisting” someone’s death, you relegate them to the “dignity” of a lower form of creation, and thus, you undermine the person created in God’s own image…and thus, you undermine God.

Just because somone is dying, or suffering, does not mean that it is time to die. Mentally ill people ask for death, too…and we do everythign we can to help them live. Should we just hand them some drugs and a bottle of whisky and some razor blades because they express suffering and the desire to die?

Would that be dignified? What if it’s an incurable or untreatable mental illness?

Suffering does not equate a loss of dignity. Sure, there are “cosmetic” concerns, but then, if one focuses on that, the one denies the immortality of the soul…and herein lies the inherent dignity given by God.

Dignity is eternal, not temporal, as popular culture would have us believe.

 

[contemplative]

Hitetlen:

Of course this shut-down process was very frustrating for both of them - at least while they were lucid enough to know what is happening. At the end they were in deep sleep (not really a coma), and they were unaware of what was happening. Since both of them were very independent minded, and they were unable to take care of themselves (bedside commode and other humiliating experiences) I could understand their frustration.

They both asked us if we could “hasten” the process, to help them to die. Obviously we could not, because there are some laws against that. If I would have had the opportunity, I would have done it. Life without hope, without dignity is not worth living.

Now, I know what the church says and what the law says. I am not interested in re-hashing those arguments.

When a pet is at the end of its life, the humane way of treating them is gently putting them to sleep, so we could spare them of pain and misery.

I am just interested in your gut feelings. Do you feel comfortable with condemning your parents and relatives to discomfort (sometimes even pain - horrible pain) lack of dignity while giving an easy way out to your pets.

Does this feel right to you? Do we treat our pets better than our parents?

I feel that every able bodied person should spend at least one year working in a nursing home…work…volunteer. Work as a nurse, nurses aid, activity volunteer, volunteer feeder. Do it regularly for a year to gain insight into the dying process. All of these questions Hitelen asks are quickly answered if you have a strong Catholic background. As a worker or volunteer your time spent with the aged and dying turns into one long prayer…a prayer for the people you care for…a prayer for yourself and loved ones.
We are all going to die…our bodies will turn to ash. We must learn to profit from every single moment God gives us in our flesh. When life ends our flesh ends and so do all the opportunities to bear fruit. Waste not a moment of your time or do not consider wasting/extinguishing the moments of anybody’s life. The last moments of suffering maybe the most crucial to preparing oneself for all of eternity.
Call your local nursing home and ask how you can help. Start a Rosary hour once a week or once a month. Volunteer to bring elderly residents Holy Communion. Help feed when the home is short staffed. Knit or crochet much needed leg blankets. Find out how you can help show you love and care. Bear much fruit while you have some time.

Hitelen,
You have questions that are yet unanswered. Ask God to help you find what you need. Your love and care for your mother and stepfather is beautiful yet you still are left wondering because God has more for you to do. Ask Him for guidance and He will lead you to where you need to be.
Contemplative

 

[newf]

JCPhoenix,

That was a really good post…thank you.

 

[allhers]

I sure am glad that God doesn’t think like you do. There is great value in suffering, it can and did change the world!
Both contemplative and JCPheonix hit the nail on the head.
I was with my mother for the last three months of her life, and daily we prayed together, talked about how wonderful life is and
shared some of the most wonderful memories that will last my life-time.
She showed me the value of suffering, she united her suffering to Christ for the salvation of others. I can only hope and pray that I face death, if given the awesome opportunity, as she was, with as much dignity as she did.
Her only regret was that I had to take complete care of her, feed her, change her, wash her, etc…I found it to be a great grace and thank God that I was able to be there for her.
One day, she was forgetting how to pray the Rosary, as we were praying it. I told her not to worry, as she had taught me how to pray it when I was very small and that I would lead us in prayer (as she had always done.) She said, “Oh, thank God.”

 

[frogman80]

Keep in mind that our friend Hitetlen is an atheist.

 

[ReginaNova]

frogman80:

Keep in mind that our friend Hitetlen is an atheist.

Oh, that is interesting. I hope that he is sincerely seeking to understand or at least willing to consider the Catholic point-of-view.

 

[frogman80]

ReginaNova:

Oh, that is interesting. I hope that he is sincerely seeking to understand or at least willing to consider the Catholic point-of-view.

I am sure that he is, but I just want to make sure people understand that the arguments are going to have to slightly deviate a bit.

I personally do not know much about atheism… besides the fact that they do not believe in God. I assume that science and physical senses take complete place of our religion and God centered faith. (I am not attempting to draw parallels.)

I assume, the most import thing to an atheist would be life itself, and how well it is lived… how much impact a person makes to the rest of mankind and the planet. I would think an atheist would see human life as “sacred” because to them, that’s all we get. Suffering or not, a person should get the opportunity to make that impact to the world up until their last breath. Think of all the people who have made such impact while suffering through their last moments. Take Jesus for example. Even if you don’t believe He is God, most people at least recognize how much impact his final hours had on humanity… all the “religions” that were formed…. All the people who choose to imitate Him. Jesus and religious figure aside, there are many secular people who have made an impact in their last minutes of life.

To me an atheist should want to allow a person to make an impact just in case it is something huge. That person in a comma might wake up… that person in a deep sleep might wake up… and they could say or do something important that affects their family or the community. An atheist in mind, I would also think that a person who wishes to end their life for whatever reason should not be allowed to because it could rob the rest of us from some impact they might make.

 

[Hitetlen]

JCPhoenix:

I’m going to oversimplify this to make a point.

I am going to reply without quoting all your lines, First, it was a very well phrased post.

However, I did not argue for involuntary euthanasia (it might be a different discussion). Both the cases I brought up were related to people who explicitly wished their suffering to be ended.

You may say (and I agree) that their inner dignity was not violated by their suffering, but no one can feel comfortable when their bowels are out of control, when they soil themselves 4-5 times a day, when they have to call and ask assistence to be washed out of their excrement. (Sorry for the explicit wording, but let’s not beat around the bush.)

It is humiliating, very much so. Neither my wife nor I felt uncomfortable doing it, we considered them as if they were our children, and parents have no qualms about cleaning their infants. But these people are NOT infants, they have their feelings, which are uncomfortable (to say the least) being so much exposed.

And, yes, it is my view that everyone should be allowed to leave this world at their discretion and forcing them to live against their explicit wish is not right. My number one priority is permissiveness, and I don’t accept the use of force except in self-defense.

Since I do not believe in God, eternal soul, and other religiously oriented concepts, I will leave those parts unanswered, since we cannot agree there anyhow.

You and others said (either explicitly or implicitly) that suffering has value. I would like to ask one question: Do you practice what you preach? When you go to the dentist for a painful session, do you tell the dentist NOT to give you a painkiller injection? When you have a migraine, do you reject a medication to help you? If you can honestly say that you refuse any pain medication, then you have the right to preach about the “value of suffering”. I will disagree with you, but that is a different matter. However, if you accept medication to alleviate your pain, then do not talk to me about the “value of suffering”. That would be sheer hypocrisy.

 

[Hitetlen]

ReginaNova:

Oh, that is interesting. I hope that he is sincerely seeking to understand or at least willing to consider the Catholic point-of-view.

That is my aim here, seeking understanding, even if I cannot promise agreement. But I value polite, respectful disagreement, and so far everyone was very nice and polite - in one word very civilized.

 

[TarAshly]

Just to be clear, Euthanasia of an animal is not to save money. At least that is not the intention of it, though there are those who would treat like double coupon day to get rid of the sick old dog who isnt cute and playful anymore! We have only ever put a dog down because it was in miserable pain and we couldnt bear to watch her suffer. It was her time and St. Francis of Asisi was there with her the whole time. anyway to the point of the thread, the big issue I have with it, (besides it’s immorality, playing God and essentially murder) is where do you draw the line? should those with Downs Syndrome have the right to die? how about those confined to wheel chairs? or the paralyzed? Who decides whos life is valuable and whos is not? If a person who is overall healthy and “normal” but just plain doesnt like life should they be allowed to die? no of course not. Euthanasia quite honestly reeks of Hitleristic views and Nazism.

ReginaNova:

How is it being merciful to communicate that a dying loved one is a burden to be terminated? We put a pet to sleep not to be merciful but also to save us money. Euthanasia is playing God. We are not God and have no right to play God. Contrast the dignity and grace of the Pope’s final illness and death with the travesty of Dr. Kevorkian’s “mercy killings” in his van. God bless John Paul for his example. I was profoundly moved by his final years.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

You may say (and I agree) that their inner dignity was not violated by their suffering, but no one can feel comfortable when their bowels are out of control, when they soil themselves 4-5 times a day, when they have to call and ask assistence to be washed out of their excrement. (Sorry for the explicit wording, but let’s not beat around the bush.)
It is humiliating, very much so. Neither my wife nor I felt uncomfortable doing it, we considered them as if they were our children, and parents have no qualms about cleaning their infants. But these people are NOT infants, they have their feelings, which are uncomfortable (to say the least) being so much exposed.

I can’t speak for JC, but I think that you are making a distinction between “humiliation” and “suffering” when humiliation is a form of suffering. Humiliation also can be either exacerbated or alliviated by the attitudes of the people around us.

And, yes, it is my view that everyone should be allowed to leave this world at their discretion and forcing them to live against their explicit wish is not right. My number one priority is permissiveness, and I don’t accept the use of force except in self-defense.

So you don’t consider killing someone “force”, but rather refraining from killing them is “force”? Are you responsible for the fact that they exist? Perhaps you consider yourself responsible for their continued existance because you continue to feed them; but if they are far enough from death that food and water will keep them alive, by withholding these you are not living up to your responsibilities as a caregiver, and if you attempt to block anyone else from doing so you are actively inflicting further suffering on the person.

You and others said (either explicitly or implicitly) that suffering has value. I would like to ask one question: Do you practice what you preach? When you go to the dentist for a painful session, do you tell the dentist NOT to give you a painkiller injection? When you have a migraine, do you reject a medication to help you? If you can honestly say that you refuse any pain medication, then you have the right to preach about the “value of suffering”. I will disagree with you, but that is a different matter. However, if you accept medication to alleviate your pain, then do not talk to me about the “value of suffering”. That would be sheer hypocrisy.

I don’t speak for everyone, of course, but:
I do not (or at least, I do by best not to) do anything immoral in order to spare myself suffering. If suffering is inevitable, I “offer it up”. I don’t go around inflicting suffering on myself at every opportunity, or avoiding avery pleasure, and our beliefs don’t call for such a thing. However, if there is a good reason I am willing to suffer. I fast when it is required (and sometimes only suggested) by the Church because I defer to the wisdom of this and many other faiths which claim it is spiritually beneficial to do so. I gave birth to three children without any type of pain medication because I didn’t want to take the small risk that it would harm them; though it was not my reason for doing this, I also feel the experience made me stronger and more confident.
I rarely take medication for colds, flu, headache etc. because I find that when I do so the illness usually lasts longer.
Basically, I accept suffering, and believe has value, when there is some problem with the possible method of avoiding it. I suppose this comes down to submitting to something greater than humanity, whether God, or simply nature, evolution, the universe…