[bluefirebrand]

I don't know if people view euthanasia as being more compassionate towards their pets.

I think many people view it as being selfish. Killing the pet to avoid the hassle of dealing with it's illness and avoid the expense of it's medical care.

I don't particularly agree, I think it can be compassionate but also understand where this view comes from.

[labster]

Every dog owner I’ve talked to about the end of life of their prior pets mentions how hard it was to let go. The selfish act is to preserve the relationship with your pet for your own emotional needs, and peace comes once you acknowledge the suffering of the animal.

The expense of medical care for pets is often the wrong way of looking at it. A dog doesn’t understand chemotherapy, it only knows it feels really sick. It doesn’t understand invasive surgery, it just knows pain, and wearing the cone of shame. Dogs don’t have the same inner life that we do, so a lot of medical interventions would cause a lot of suffering for what, a few months more life?

And if you don’t want the hassle of dealing with a pet’s illness, don’t get a pet. The relationship you build with a pet should make you understand you owe them your loyalty in the bad times, not just the good.

[x86x87]

I have literally never heard of someone who killed their pet to avoid the hassle of dealing with illness. I have heard of multiple people that kept the pet alive and kept pumping in more and more expensive treatments because they could not let go.

Killing a pet that is practically family and has been part of your life for 10+ years is not something people do to avoid responsibility.

[verall]

Because you're probably middle class. Talk to vets and you'll learn one of the worst parts of the job is euthanizing animals because people cannot afford or don't have the time to provide treatment for them.

[x86x87]

I suspected as much. It must be heartbreaking to have to put your pet down because you cannot afford the treatment. Otoh, if you cannot afford the treatment should you get a pet in the 1st place? (Yes, i know that things are not created equal and probably I come at this from a privileged position)

[bluefirebrand]

Pets are an amazing part of peoples lives and absolutely should not just be a privilege for those wealthy enough to pay for expensive medicine and frequent vet visits.

[x86x87]

i mean... yes and no. should you ensure that you can take care of your pet before you get a pet? would you get a pet if you cannot afford to feed it?

[bluefirebrand]

This is kind of a pointless question imo. Animals are dirt cheap to feed, compared to the cost of adoptions and such. Yes you can get pets for free, if a stray walks up to you or something, but honestly the animal itself is the expensive part usually. If you truly cannot afford to feed a pet, you're probably so poor you'd be considering eating an animal instead of keeping it as a pet anyways.

The real question is what minimum standard of care is acceptable for humans to provide for their pets. Is it actually compassionate to take your animal to the vet, where they are scared? To have surgery done on the animal, even if it's lifesaving? The animal cannot consent so we are assuming that what we want is best. Same with end of life choices.

Edit: I was also thinking, consider the alternative for an animal at a shelter that no one is adopting. They either live in a kennel more or less at a no-kill shelter until they die, or they are put down. Compared to that, being adopted by a loving person and given a warm place to live, fed and sheltered, seems like a better life to me even if the animal eventually gets sick and put down instead of getting medical treatment.

The truth is that most pet animals don't really have any other place in modern society and given that context it seems like being a pet that gets just the basic comforts of life is always better than being a stray or shelter animal.