DEATH AND PETS

Many factors affect the way people in our society respond to euthanasia of unwanted dogs. They include attitudes to death, attitudes to the value of animal life and attitudes to euthanasia.

Attitudes to death

Many people have written about death, dying, and coping with human mortality. Stages of grief and patterns of sorrow relating to human death have been well explored in the fields of psychiatry and general medical practice for decades. eg.^1,2 In companion animal practice, we often see the same symptoms of grief in dog owners whose dogs have died.

Part of the grief that people suffer is related to our societyís horror of death, as explained here by Joseph Bayly:

For one thing, death is the supreme enigma. We cannot explain its mystery and the unknown makes us fear...

Another element of death that is unnatural, and makes us dread, is the pain that frequently accompanies dyingÖ 

Then thereís the termination of every human relationship. This termination may be quite abrupt, providing no opportunity to set affairs in orderÖ 

Decomposition is another element of death that contributes to our sense of dread. We spend a lifetime caring for our bodies; it is hardly pleasant to contemplate a time when they will return to dustÖ 

The sort of taboo Victorians placed on public discussion of sex has been transferred to the discussion of death by our cultureÖ³

Not everyone deals with death in the same way. Some people seem to cope with the death of human companions without too much stress. But for others, dwelling on the processes of death and dying can become an obsessive preoccupation. Given this range of response to human death, it seems reasonable that different people will cope with their dogís death in the different ways.

People who have an unusually strong need to save cats and dogs from death represent an extreme position. This position probably does not reflect the community norm. At least some of these people may be more motivated by their own personal problems about death than by concerns for animal welfare.

A second factor affecting how we respond to dog euthanasia is the value we put on animal life.

Fisher reviewed cultural attitudes to pet animals in three pre-European Southwest Pacific societies.⁴ The study showed that pigs and dogs could be treated either as pets (on occasions even being breastfed by women) or, at the other extreme, as valuable consumable produce. In the absence of individual attachment to the pigs or dogs in question, these animals ceased to be considered pets. Then they could be consumed with relish. In other words, it was quite acceptable to eat pigs and dogs, so long as they belonged to strangers.

The variable status of animals in these societies seems to have been a robust, practical and uncomplicated arrangement. The key factor explaining the different values placed on them was simply the presence or absence of attachment.

Australian and New Zealand society, by comparison, struggles with a much more confused approach to animals. Our societyís conscience is untroubled by the daily slaughter of thousands of food animals such as fat lambs or blue fin tuna destined for our dinner plates. Yet it is disturbed by the thought of humanely destroying a much smaller number of pet animals that nobody wants.

Perception of the value of pet animals varies greatly from individual to individual in our society. While some people class all cats and dogs as nothing better than environmental pests, others prefer the company of these animals to the company of other human beings. Maybe this variable evaluation of pets and pet life is a function of cultural and social environmental effects. Maybe it is a function of individual personal experience. Whatever the reason, it is a fact that some people value their pets more than others.

The New Guinea Highlanders and Australian Aborigines studied by Fisher were confident about what was a socially acceptable, moral way to treat pets.⁴ We do not have the luxury of such social norms in urban society today.

So, while some pet owners seem to exhibit little or no appreciation of the value of the lives of even their own dogs and cats, others are moved to genuine grief over the loss of pet life generally. This grief may be expressed in situations where no personal attachment is involved and even when the animals in question are almost feral. It is not surprising that community groups with the latter point of view should be distressed by the plight of unwanted pet animals and be moved to save them by any means.

The third factor affecting our response to pet euthanasia is our attitudes to euthanasia in general.

The sanctity of human life is a central plank of western Christian society. Recently, this basic precept was challenged in Australia when the Northern Territory government made medically-assisted suicide legal for some terminally ill people. In effect, the new law made a distinction between mercy killing and murder. The law was overthrown federally, but anyone who followed the public debate will know how sincerely many of the protagonists held the doctrine of sanctity of life.

But sanctity of life, deemed so important for humans, has not generally been interpreted to include other animals. According to Christian tradition, mankind has dominion over all other living things on earth. Unlike human euthanasia which elicits moral outrage in many parts of our society, animal euthanasia is generally accepted as a rightful treatment option regardless of circumstances.⁵

While this may be generally so, for more and more people the sanctity of life question does not stop with human life. For these people the moral distinctions between mercy killing and murder apply for animals as well as humans. So although they would accept the mercy killing of a sick dog as moral, they cannot accept the killing of a young, healthy animal.

For most citizens, unwanted pets is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind problem. They do not need to think through the issues and take a stand. Others are fairly comfortable with the current situation of mass euthanasia, although many would like to see a better solution to the unwanted pet problem. But for some people, lifeís more complicated. The moral issues at stake with unwanted pets are as disturbing for these people as the issues associated with human abortion and medically-assisted suicide.

The people in the frontline of the pet euthanasia debate are the workers in animal shelters. Many feel very uncomfortable about mass euthanasia of unwanted pets. Hoyt expressed the disquiet in a speech in 1974 to a Chicago conference on surplus dogs and cats. (See: Hoyt on the case for neuter clinics)

The sincerity and the depth of feeling expressed by Hoyt is manifest. These comments (now 20 years old) are no different to the contemporary pleas of spokespersons representing animal shelters and humane societies in Australia and New Zealand today. The expressions of concern are similar today. The pleas for understanding and assistance are unchanged also. But our community continues to dish up excessive numbers of unwanted pets for humane societies to deal with.

1. Lindemann E. 1944. Symptomatology and management of acute grief. Am. J. Psych. Sept 1944.

2. Kubler-Ross E. 1969. On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

3. Bayly J. 1969. The Last Thing We Talk About. Life Journey Book Series. Elgin Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co.

4. Fisher MP. 1983. Of pigs and dogs: pets as produce in three societies. In: Katcher AH, Beck AM, editors. New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 132.

5 Rachels J. 1986. The End of Life: euthanasia and morality. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.