It is clear that however one views suffering, an animal is incapable of viewing it in ANY sort of a human manner - the animal cannot comprehend the Resurrection either.
A very young child cannot comprehend the Resurrection either, but it is not okay to kill a dying child. We are to be there for the dying, sitting patiently at their bedside and enduring the suffering that is involved in that service. It is in that loving service, that mutual suffering together that the suffering is redeemed. The parent can comprehend it better for the child, lifting much of the burden up for the child through their own suffering out of love.
My in-laws euthanized their dog many years ago. My mother-in-law had always allowed her pets to die naturally. Several cats had, but the dog ended up paralyzed. What would have killed the dog would have been malnourishment unless they paid for the type of care you’d only give human beings. No one is going to hire a live-in nurse to help care for the animal. It would be ridiculous if they did.
So the question was only HOW the animal would die. Do we neglect the animal and let is suffer a slow cruel death from neglect or do we hasten the animals death in a humane manner? Either choice reflects that we will not treat the animal with the dignity a human being deserves.
Euthanasia is not mercy killing for human beings because, deep down, will killing them out of a refusal to give more of ourselves in the service of loving them. If we merely neglect our duties to the dying and then insist on an idea of redemptive suffering rooted in an idea that the more they suffer, the shorter their Purgatory or whatever, then what we espouse sounds ridiculous and terribly abusive. But if we recognize the need of our society to provide families with a leave from work to care for their dying, that people shouldn’t have to die on our schedules. Being uncomfortable and suffering with them is a part of the teaching. We have to get beyond our discomfort.
When the dog died, my mother-in-law was still very uncomfortable with viewing her pets as anything less than her children. So rather than take the dog to the vet to kill, the vet came to the house. The family surrounded the animal and petted her. The vet then explained the drugs she was using. The first drug was simply to paralyze the animal. She also said that this would keep the animal from physically reacting to what was happening as much. It would be less disturbing. Even still, the dog did get scared and try to run till she fully lost much of her ability to move. The next drug stopped the dog’s heart. The dog was staring right at me and the shock that her family was killing her was registered. It contradicted all the petting and crying and most certainly a part of it is that the dog wouldn’t have been able to understand the full situation.
Was it a very humane way to kill the animal? Indeed. But anyone who is tempted to do this to human beings needs to comprehend that doing this to a child or any human being would be the opposite of a dignified death because we are called to give more of ourselves to others than we are to animals.
