Euthanasia – Should Animals and Humans Be Treated Differently?

In the debate on animal rights, a lot of attention is placed on how animals should be treated more like humans. However, how would this apply in the case of euthanasia? Currently, we euthanize pets, research animals, and livestock when they are incontinent, immobile, suffer from untreatable diseases, and/or are in severe pain. We do not, however, apply the same criteria to human beings. Currently, only passive forms of euthanasia are permitted under the law, denying people in the United States the option of doctor assisted suicide. In my opinion, while more could be done to ease human suffering at the end stages of life through euthanasia, the current treatment for animals such as cats and dogs is justifiable in most cases. Humans and animals should be treated equally in regards to euthanasia for a number of reasons, including the right of both animals and humans to die with dignity, the need for practical laws regarding euthanasia in both cases, and the economic consequences of treating humans and animals with terminal illnesses.

For ease of application and economic considerations, a clear concise distinction must be made between warm-blooded mammals and other species. Mammals are most closely related to humans, are commonly used as pets, research, and agricultural animals and therefore deserve special consideration. Biomedically, the distinction of mammal/non-mammal proves useful due to the fact that most human diseases have an “animal model” that can be created in traditional laboratory experiments and most, if not all, laboratory animals are mammals.

Perhaps the greatest reason animals and humans should be treated equally regarding euthanasia is that both animals and humans deserve to die with dignity. Unfortunately, while animals have no explicit rights under current US law, people in the United States have very few options regarding euthanasia. Currently, doctor assisted suicide is prohibited by law and only passive means of euthanasia are legal. For example, a doctor may not give a patient a lethal dose of a drug, but he or she may give the patient palliative care at the expressed wish of the patient. In contrast, it is routine for pet owners to have their pet euthanized at the veterinarian’s office if the pet has an untreatable illness and is in great pain. Often times, however, we treat our pets in a more humane way than we do loved ones. We have an ethical obligation to ensure that both humans and animals are able to die with dignity and respect, and therefore, need to close the gaps between the treatment of animals and humans at the end stages of life.

The first step in closing the legal gap for treating animals and humans at the end stages of life similarly is subscribing to a theory of legal rights that would allow us to do so. According to the Will Theory of legal rights discussed in the article “Do animals and dead people have legal rights?” by Matthew H. Kramer, a complete application of the Will Theory would imply that:

Animals, infants, comatose people, senile people, and dead people do not have any legal rights. Such creatures are not competent to form or express their wishes with the elementary degree of precision and reliability that would be necessary for the full-fledged exercise of any legal power of enforcement/waiver… In short, they do not have any legal rights, because they are incapable of being right-holders.
(Kramer 29 – 54)

With this understanding of the Will Theory of legal rights, it becomes apparent that a practical theory of legal rights is necessary. The application of the Interest Theory, which takes into account the interests of people that are unable to make legal decisions for themselves, would allow for the application of a theory of legal rights that could be easily, practically applied to animals to ensure that their interests are protected under the law as well.

Such an application of the Interest Theory raises questions: Who is qualified to make a decision on euthanasia for people unable to make that decision for themselves? Who makes the decision in the case of animals? In the case of humans unable to make a decision on euthanasia for themselves, the decision should be left up to the person, typically a family member, who has guardianship of the individual in question. The practice of allowing the legal guardian of an incapacitated individual to make medical decisions, many of which are life and death, is well established and protected under current law. In the case of animal euthanasia, the same rule already applies. Euthanasia is the decision of the guardian of the animal in question.

According to a report by Heleen Dupuis of the Department of Metamedica at Leiden University Medical School featured in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the article “Society should accept that euthanasia is a ‘personal decision,’ report says” by Roger Dobson, “no argument against euthanasia can be sustained convincingly. Maybe the conclusion must then be that, in the absence of convincing moral arguments against euthanasia, the rejection of it has more to do with a psychological constitution of a person, than with moral argumentation.” (Dobson 416) In the article, he refutes the argument that euthanasia will lead to significant rise in death rates by stating that the number of deaths due to euthanasia is quite low in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been practiced legally for 25 years. In essence, euthanasia in humans becomes a personal decision, dependent on an individual’s perception of life and death, and Dobson argues that an individual’s perception of life and death should not be imposed on the others. He believes that tolerance is the best argument for euthanasia. (Dobson 416)

In the case of animals, however, individual perceptions of life and death can’t be formed or articulated. This has led to the use of euthanasia for population control of domesticated animals such as cats and dogs. In recent years, this use of euthanasia has been criticized by animal rights activists. However, many view this policy as a necessary evil. Critics of the Humane Educational Society in Chattanooga label it a ‘killing factory,’ but Dr. Walter Martin, its executive director, says most animals that come into the shelter are not adoptable. ‘Many of them have diseases,’ Dr. Martin said, ‘Some are just plain ugly.’ Lisa Walters, a euthanasia technician at the Human Society, said such thinking causes many animals to be euthanized unnecessarily. ‘We just want to stop all the madness around here,’ she said.” (Lazenby B1)

In essence, this abuse of euthanasia on animals must stop. If the Interest Theory of legal rights is extended to animals and the animal’s guardian is held responsible for protecting the interests of the animal, there will be no need for the unnecessary abuse of euthanasia. Negligent pet owners would be able to be held responsible under the law for the well being of their pet, and therefore be responsible for ensuring that the animal under his/her guardianship does not contribute to the overpopulation that leads to unnecessary euthanasia.

Finally, a similar set of guidelines should govern euthanasia in animals as well as in humans due to economic considerations. Unfortunately, many terminally ill patients have little or no control over how their lives end, and in the United States, doctor assisted suicide is not a legal form of euthanasia. However, doctor assisted suicide is rapidly becoming legal in Europe. In an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Last Requests: The Grim Mission Of a Swiss Group: Visitors’ Suicides – – Travelers From All Over Seek Assistance From Dignitas, Raising Government Alarm – – Marie Hascoet’s Final Hours,” Gautam Naik discusses the development of a Swiss organization called Dignitas aimed at helping terminally ill people from countries such as Britain, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and the US end their lives. According Naik, “since 1998, Dignitas has assisted in nearly 140 suicides, about 80% of them citizens of other countries… Many are from Germany, where the practice is banned partly because the country is still haunted by the euthanasia experiments conducted under Hitler.” (Naik A.1) In my opinion, Dignitas clearly demonstrates the need for their services. People facing end-stage terminal illnesses should have control over the time and place of their death, and should not have to travel overseas to die with dignity.

In the case of animal euthanasia, guardians are not forced to make the economic decision as to whether or not they are able to afford a merciful death for their beloved, dying pet. All that is required is a trip to a veterinarian’s office. While not everyone agrees with euthanasia, the option should be available for those who wish it. Not everyone agrees that a dying pet should be euthanized, but the option exists for pet owners – just as it should for people.

While euthanasia for animals and humans currently differ, steps ought to be taken to subject animals and humans to a single set of standards regarding euthanasia. Animals currently suffer from unnecessary euthanasia for population control, which from my perspective, is unnecessary. In addition, animals currently have no protection under the law. No one is currently speaking up for their best interests. People in countries like the United States, on the other hand, currently have very little control over the way their lives end. As a result, many people go to great lengths to ensure their lives end in a peaceful manner. By applying the Principle of Equality, the practice of euthanasia in human and animals will become more and more similar, helping ease the current abuses in euthanasia as it is practiced today in humans and animals.
Sources:

Dobson, Roger.
“Society should accept that euthanasia is a ‘personal decision,’ report says.”
British Medical Journal.
February 2003, Vol. 326, pp. 416.
www.bmj.com

Kramer, Matthew H.
“Do animals and dead people have legal rights?.”
Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence.
Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan. 2001): pp. 29-54.

Lazenby, Brian.
Humane Society defends practices; Agency says many animals not adoptable, must be euthanized.
Chattanooga Times Free Press. Metro Section.
March 10, 2003: pp. B1

Naik, Gautam.
“Last Requests: The Grim Mission Of a Swiss Group: Visitors’ Suicides – – Travelers From All Over Seek Assistance From Dignitas, Raising Government Alarm – – Marie Hascoet’s Final Hours.”
Wall Street Journal. Eastern Edition.
New York, NY. Nov. 22, 2002: pp. A.1.