H
Hume
Guest
The title of the thread is “Is euthanizing my pet training my soul for euthanizing a person?” and I’m simply offering another perspective in support of the other option in the yes/no dichotomy.
D
drjsp
Guest
I don’t see where that was done; it’s part of a discussion. Besides, are all posts supposed to be about or in line Catholic teaching? If all were in agreement, it would be a very boring forum, right?
We might miss chances to help others understand Catholic teachings.
H
Hume
Guest
Nvm, anecdotes are anecdotes.
So Catholic teaching is to do what we can, but she dies when she dies. Is that correct?
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You are in Moral Theology and on a Catholic forum, in a thread started by a recent convert seeking a Catholic perspective.
You posting in favor of human euthanasia is like the Protestants who post in threads about confession telling people that they don’t have to go to confession, just tell their sins to God. Or the people who post in threads about the morality of gay relationships arguing that there’s nothing wrong with them.
It’s inappropriate, confusing to those who are trying to learn the Catholic faith, and disrespectful to Catholic beliefs.
It might be okay in the Non-Catholic Religions forum in a general discussion about euthanasia, but this is not that.
You posting in favor of human euthanasia is like the Protestants who post in threads about confession telling people that they don’t have to go to confession, just tell their sins to God. Or the people who post in threads about the morality of gay relationships arguing that there’s nothing wrong with them.
It’s inappropriate, confusing to those who are trying to learn the Catholic faith, and disrespectful to Catholic beliefs.
It might be okay in the Non-Catholic Religions forum in a general discussion about euthanasia, but this is not that.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the recent convert to seek catechesis in the apologetics section of on an online forum. Perhaps a priest or, if unavailable, something bearing an imprimatur from the chruch might be better?
D
drjsp
Guest
Good question. Very good question.
Not to question or make implications about your personal history, but the answer is a very tough yes. When suffering is unavoidable, it is in a way redemptive.
The other aspect is whether or not a person is actually perceiving pain, which in some situations is impossible to know. A relative of mine had a life-ending stroke, but before he died, the neurologist wiped a swab across his eye, making him jump (as would you or I). However, this was a reflex action and he couldn’t actually perceive pain (to the best of the abilities of the neurologist could ascertain). Of course, he could have been mistaken.
Not to question or make implications about your personal history, but the answer is a very tough yes. When suffering is unavoidable, it is in a way redemptive.
The other aspect is whether or not a person is actually perceiving pain, which in some situations is impossible to know. A relative of mine had a life-ending stroke, but before he died, the neurologist wiped a swab across his eye, making him jump (as would you or I). However, this was a reflex action and he couldn’t actually perceive pain (to the best of the abilities of the neurologist could ascertain). Of course, he could have been mistaken.
H
Hume
Guest
Thank you for your valuable and informed perspective.
C
CRV
Guest
Definitely not! You should ask him where he has gotten this idea from!!
There is value in suffering when we suffer, that is true. But deliberately allowing a pet which is a gift from God to suffer shows callousness and disregard for God’s creatures. We’ve been given care of lesser creation, so our pets deserve to be spared any unnecessary suffering. To do otherwise is just plain cruelty.
If it isn’t for any useful purpose = food, clothing etc. Otherwise it is humane way for us to care for them. Killing them should also be done quickly and painlessly. We don’t prolong an animals suffering.
Euthanasia is wrong - and gravely wrong.
You are preventing the animal any unnecessary suffering. This is a kindness.
CCC Respect for the integrity of creation #2415 - 2418 but especially #2416
Matthew 6:26" Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. "
Daniel 3:79-81 “Bless the Lord, you whales and all that swim in the waters; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. Bless the Lord, all birds of the air; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. Bless the Lord, all wild animals and cattle; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.”
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Maybe make it clear and explicit that you’re offering a non-Catholic perspective then.
This is a Catholic forum and the default assumption folks have is that unless specified otherwise, those who post here are offering perspectives compatible with Catholicism.
Direct euthanasia of human persons is not and will never be compatible with Catholicism.
So in order to be respectful of the room to which you’re speaking (and especially if it’s plausible that you’re speaking to a young person), perhaps clarify along the lines of: “Here’s the atheist/Unitarian/Wiccan(/etc) stance” before making the wild proposal (wild in a Catholic room) that it’s okay to directly kill innocent human beings via euthanasia. Otherwise you might just confuse young Catholics not yet experienced enough in their faith to understand implicitly that they’re being spoken to by a non-Catholic or by a theologically unaware Catholic proposing something they cannot, as a Catholic, accept.
Last edited:
D
drjsp
Guest
And thank you for an interesting discussion.
My mom is going on 91 and so far is in good health for someone her age. I know the day is coming, whenever that may be, when it’ll be her turn and perhaps my turn to have to make a difficult decision. If there’s any humor to be found in that, I know that even a mild sedative cognitively whacks her into the next week…always has…so I’m relatively confident that her pain or perception of pain will be adequately controlled if she goes into hospice.
In the meantime, I pray for her health, for a peaceful death when that time comes and for the strength and grace to make decisions that may need to be made. Perhaps she’ll pass in her sleep like dad did.
My mom is going on 91 and so far is in good health for someone her age. I know the day is coming, whenever that may be, when it’ll be her turn and perhaps my turn to have to make a difficult decision. If there’s any humor to be found in that, I know that even a mild sedative cognitively whacks her into the next week…always has…so I’m relatively confident that her pain or perception of pain will be adequately controlled if she goes into hospice.
In the meantime, I pray for her health, for a peaceful death when that time comes and for the strength and grace to make decisions that may need to be made. Perhaps she’ll pass in her sleep like dad did.
C
CRV
Guest
He does. He has given us the responsibility of caring for them - humanely putting them to sleep to end their suffering. He inspires people to study veterinary science in order to help His creatures.
The Daniel reference is His creation giving glory to Him by their lives which ties in with the CCC and the respect for the integrity of creation.
C
CRV
Guest
Forgive me … I should have added companionship.
D
drjsp
Guest
Interesting that you bring that up. In the sense of our “dominion” given to us over animals, I’ve been exploring the moral differences in domestication and in, for example, using “knockout” (genetically altered) mice in research. In both cases, we’ve manipulated the genetic makeup of certain species, through selective breeding and through direct genetic manipulation.
But this is an entirely different subject.
C
CRV
Guest
Precisely. If you wish to discuss that, then I suggest you start a thread on the topic so as not to derail this thread.
B
Buks
Guest
It sounds like you and your brother agree that this circumstance doesn’t require the expensive medical visits, which IMO are unethical considering the plight of many sick women and men and boys and girls in the world, who cannot pay for similar medical care. Perhaps he needs a little more time - when he sees your dog really in a bad way, hopefully he’ll come around.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Is this Catholic doctrine? It certainly isn’t factually accurate and it does not sound moral.
Definition of a animal:
That’s clearly not the same as “advanced computers made out of flesh and fur”. Importantly, many animals are emotionally and socially complex. Although it may be possible to program computers to mimic some aspects of animal behaviour, they do not have emotions or form relationships with other computers in the same way that animals have emotions and form relationships with other animals, e.g. mating pairs, parents and children, herds, zoo animals and their keepers, etc.
I also cannot understand how you can regard an animal as morally equivalent to a PC. I shout at my PC when it isn’t working properly. I once dropped a PC on a concrete floor and felt no guilt about it. I’ve deliberately broken an old hard drive to destroy data stored on it. If my house were on fire, I’d try to grab a few USB drives, but I’d let my PC burn. On the other hand, I wouldn’t shout at a dog, I would feel bad if I dropped a dog on a concrete floor, I wouldn’t deliberately damage a dog’s brain, I would try to save a dog from a fire. (I do not even like dogs, so I would do this for purely moral reasons, not for sentimental reasons.)
In my non-Catholic moral framework, I think that animals should be treated with kindness. If you observe animals that have been abused or neglected, it is clear that they are not the same as computers. It is clear that there are moral standards for the treatment of animals by humans that are not the same as the moral standards for the treatment of computers by humans. It seems obvious to me that an elephant has a greater moral value than a mobile phone, whereas a mobile phone has no greater moral value than a banana or a brick.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It is not Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine would regard the animal as part of the natural environment and speak about it in much more respectful terms as being part of God’s creation.
It is merely the opinion of somebody posting here.
It is best to ignore such opinions which are clearly at odds with actual Church teachings such as the Catechism and Laudato si.
Last edited:
B
BT3241
Guest
Pets are not machines running around with no thoughts or feeling - they feel sadness , happiness - they show affection - they feel loss - they are loyal friends - they all have unique personalities . They are self aware if you can’t see it your blind. Everything is connected in this world if you can’t see that your blind. Why do some think so little of that life that God created.