Different Twist on Euthanasia Question

[BigBlueCane]

I ask forgiveness in advance of the possibly perceived silliness of the question I am about to pose. Please believe me that it is sincere.

The question I have is related to euthanasia in relation to animals. I have this book called “concern for animals from a catholic prospective” and it has a passage on euthanasia that I am unclear about. I ask because I do have a pet who is up there in age and I may have to face this question. My initial instinct is to do everything possible to keep it alive. But here is the passage I’m referring to:

“Euthanasia is another case. An animal can be legitimately and humanely administered with painkillers to alleviate its sufferings, even where death is a foreseen and tolerated inevitability. In fact this is the same situation as it is with people (see CCC n. 2279). But this is quite different from ‘putting down’ a healthy animal, which would indeed be cruel and wrong.”

So it mentions painkillers to alleviate suffering. The next 2 sentences throw me off and make it some dubious.

Any clarification?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

“Euthanasia is another case. An animal can be legitimately and humanely administered with painkillers to alleviate its sufferings, even where death is a foreseen and tolerated inevitability. In fact this is the same situation as it is with people (see CCC n. 2279). But this is quite different from ‘putting down’ a healthy animal, which would indeed be cruel and wrong.”

So it mentions painkillers to alleviate suffering. The next 2 sentences throw me off and make it some dubious.

Any clarification?

We should NEVER compare animal life to human life. We can slaughter or “put down” animals as needed. Animals who are suffering cannot understand their pain as human beings can. If an animal is in serious pain, the compassionate thing to do is to end that suffering.

 

[1ke]

I am not sure what your question is. But if it is whether or not it is OK to euthanize an animal, the answer is yes.

 

[Christy_Beth]

A few years ago I had to have a cat put to sleep. It was the hardest thing to do. But she was suffering greatly and wasn’t getting better. The humane thing, for her, was to have her put to sleep. It was hardest on me, who gave up a cat long and well loved. Well, I had her almost 9 years, so she wasn’t that old. But I could tell she was in great pain, even with pain killers. I bawled like a baby for days, but I know I made the right decision.

 

[St_Francis]

It sounds, just from that little part, like the author might be confused. It sounds like he is saying the same rules apply to animals as to humans, bit this is not the case at all, for many reasons, and one different levels. Overall, animals do not have human souls and are not made in the image and likeness of God, so they are not murderable, iyswim.

It would be wrong to be cruel to an animal, but that is because it would be beneath our dignity and be bad for our selves or our souls, but not because it is inherently wrong to hurt an animal. To euthanize an animal which is very sick or in pain is an act of kindness. We treat humans much differently.

And it was not a silly question at all!

 

[St_Francis]

It sounds, just from that little part, like the author might be confused. It sounds like he is saying the same rules apply to animals as to humans, bit this is not the case at all, for many reasons, and one different levels. Overall, animals do not have human souls and are not made in the image and likeness of God, so they are not murderable, iyswim.

It would be wrong to be cruel to an animal, but that is because it would be beneath our dignity and be bad for our selves or our souls, but not because it is inherently wrong to hurt an animal. To euthanize an animal which is very sick or in pain is an act of kindness. We treat humans much differently.

And it was not a silly question at all!

 

[BigBlueCane]

It sounds, just from that little part, like the author might be confused. It sounds like he is saying the same rules apply to animals as to humans, bit this is not the case at all, for many reasons, and one different levels. Overall, animals do not have human souls and are not made in the image and likeness of God, so they are not murderable, iyswim.

It would be wrong to be cruel to an animal, but that is because it would be beneath our dignity and be bad for our selves or our souls, but not because it is inherently wrong to hurt an animal. To euthanize an animal which is very sick or in pain is an act of kindness. We treat humans much differently.

And it was not a silly question at all!

Actually if I could piggyback on that and I do thank you for your response. Just as a matter of disclosure I am going by this booklet that was given to me that apparently details the catholic position on a variety of issues and I wanted to clarify whether or not euthanasia was ok, I thought it was, but the text as you can see was a little dubious…to me anyway. What I’m taking from it is that yes its ok to euthanize an animal that is in pain but not ok to euthanize a perfectly healthy one.

You brought some additional issues though. First as to an animal having a soul. I saw you specified “human soul” which was maybe on purpose because the book I am reading says the following:

“While we cannot know for certain what takes place immediately after death, we do have the assurance that all creatures, and that includes dogs and rabbits[pets], will ultimately enter the glory that is God’s kingdom.”

It then goes on to quote JP2 from 1990 where he declares that “also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethern.” It goes on to say that “It is surely in the power of the Creator to grant salvation to all of his own creation. To think otherwise would be to belittle and confine an infinite God.”

Second you brought up that being cruel to animals is not wrong because its painful to the animal but because it affects our own humanity. In this same book I read passages to that affect but the overwhelming notion I take from it is that its cruel because its causing pain and suffering to another being. It basically says that the Catechism requires people to show religious respect for the integrity of creation. It says

“This means that we cannot do just as we please with created beings. To achieve a religious respect implies more than simply following the basic requirements of care for living creatures. It is to acknowledge that, as St. Francis testified, we all have a common Father-Creator. It is God’s rights that are trampled when his beloved creation is misused and abused.”

It goes on to say that according to the catechism people owe animals kindness and that it is against human dignity to allow an animal to suffer or die needlessly…and they define needlessly as required to live.

Anyway I just wanted to get your take on that if that is consistent with how you read the catechism? BTW this might be unfair to you but I’m assuming you’re an expert on this stuff.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I ask forgiveness in advance of the possibly perceived silliness of the question I am about to pose. Please believe me that it is sincere.

The question I have is related to euthanasia in relation to animals. I have this book called “concern for animals from a catholic prospective” and it has a passage on euthanasia that I am unclear about. I ask because I do have a pet who is up there in age and I may have to face this question. My initial instinct is to do everything possible to keep it alive. But here is the passage I’m referring to:

“Euthanasia is another case. An animal can be legitimately and humanely administered with painkillers to alleviate its sufferings, even where death is a foreseen and tolerated inevitability. In fact this is the same situation as it is with people (see CCC n. 2279). But this is quite different from ‘putting down’ a healthy animal, which would indeed be cruel and wrong.”

So it mentions painkillers to alleviate suffering. The next 2 sentences throw me off and make it some dubious.

Any clarification?

First of all, CCC 2279 says nothing about animals. It’s about euthanizing people, and says it’s wrong.

Now, this author opines that “putting down a healthy animal” is cruel and wrong. I don’t know where this person gets that, but it’s done all the time. That’s exactly what happens in most meat processing. Some animals are “culls” that need to be euthanized, but most are quite healthy.

Sounds to me like the author is of the vegan persuasion or something. Otherwise, the proposition is preposterous.

 

[Servus_Tuus]

Just as a matter of disclosure I am going by this booklet that was given to me that apparently details the catholic position on a variety of issues

Who published this booklet? That might shed a little light. To me it has the ring of an agenda shrouded in misappropriated catholic thought.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Who published this booklet? That might shed a little light. To me it has the ring of an agenda shrouded in misappropriated catholic thought.

Jack Chick has booklets with Catholic “teachings” floating around too. Unless you see the nihli obstat impramtur, it could be anything…

 

[PeterGStanley]

Well I wouldn’t want a steak or pork chop from a sick animal - we slaughter millions of healthy animals a year to eat.

 

[BigBlueCane]

First of all, CCC 2279 says nothing about animals. It’s about euthanizing people, and says it’s wrong.

Now, this author opines that “putting down a healthy animal” is cruel and wrong. I don’t know where this person gets that, but it’s done all the time. That’s exactly what happens in most meat processing. Some animals are “culls” that need to be euthanized, but most are quite healthy.

Sounds to me like the author is of the vegan persuasion or something. Otherwise, the proposition is preposterous.

Its called “Concern for Animals” by Deborah M. Jones. On the inside of the booklet it says they are published by the Catholic Truth Society Publishers to the Holy See.

They have different booklets for different topics and someone gave me this one cuz I’m an animal lover.

To your question ridgerunner, when the booklet talks about putting down healthy animals it is talking about Euthanasia. In other words it would be wrong to put a pet down an animal that is healthy because its inconvenient for you or for any other reason other than its suffering basically.

However they do address eating meat as well. It specifically says that the Church has NOT pronounced on the subject of killing animals for food either for or against. However it indicates that there is a catechism requirement not to cause the unnecessary suffering or death of animals. It goes on to talk about the condition of animals that are set to be consumed be awarded proper living space and as close as possible to a natural living environment free of suffering or loss of dignity. In other words arguing against abusive slaughterhouses and farming practices. Finally it says that the cathecism I mentioned in this paragraph “could indicate that, as meat-eating is not necessary for a healthy diet for most people, vegetarianism is recommended.” It goes on to list examples of how the Church has had a tradition of self-denial and this has included not eating meat but it doesn’t make a proncouncement either way.

The way I read it though I think the point is clear, if you can go without eating meat then you should. If you do eat meat then you should ensure that the meat you are buying is that of farm that does not abuse and mistreat the animals before they are slaughtered. So it doesn’t say you have to be vegan or vegetarian but it says you should purchase pasture fed or truly humane certified products.