The Ethics of Animal Euthanasia and Possible Alternatives

Each year, around 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized to make room for new strays, to whom the same process would undergo the following year (qtd. in ASPCA). Even more are “put down” due to age, health, and personal reasons. Regardless of the purpose behind it, is euthanizing animals ethical? For some background information, ethics, as defined by Merriam-Webster, are “a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values” or “the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.” It is important to note the differences between ethics and morals. While ethics involve morals, they are not the same thing. Ethics are a larger scale of moral beliefs, generally belonging to a group of people whereas morals themselves are specific to each individual (Merriam-Webster). However, how does this apply to the topic of animal euthanasia? Euthanizing animals is unethical for a number of reasons. It is easy to argue that this act is harmless, or even beneficial, to the animal and therefore is not discussed often. Although, those who think this way, fail to consider the negative aspects of the process. Not only is it used for unnecessary population control, but it also goes against the animals’ rights, causes unneeded and unfair stress to veterinarians. Convenience euthanasia and decision factors are pressing to the dilemma as well.

At first glance, this topic may not seem to be of relevance to this class or college students in general. However, according to data collected by the American Pet Product Association (APPA) from 2015 to 2016, approximately 78 million dogs and 85.8 million cats are owned in the United States. The APPA also determined that 44% of American households own a dog and 35% own a cat (qtd. in ASPCA). While it is not definitive, with this information, it is safe to assume that close to half of this class has a dog, and one-third of the class has a cat. The majority of pet owners form strong bonds with their pets, and the thought of losing that companion can be a heartbreaking thought, making this topic emotional and relevant to most of the class.

One of the leading causes of animal euthanasia is population control in shelters. This often occurs due to limited funding and overcrowding in these shelters (Montes) as well as a low adoption rate. They tend to resort to euthanasia as an inexpensive and convenient opportunity to solve these problems. Regardless of the reasoning, they can quickly be invalidated by the existence of organizations that provide cost-efficient ways to neuter local strays to keep the local population down. Rather than eliminating the excess population, there should be more movement to solve the issue before it begins. This can be done by taking advantage of these pre-existing programs. As previously stated, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized each year. However, as the Shelter Animal Counts data shows, “the number of dogs and cats euthanized in U.S. shelters annually has declined from approximately 2.6 million in 2011. This decline can be partially explained by an increase in the percentage of animals adopted and an increase in the number of stray animals successfully returned to their owners” (qtd in ASPCA). This is another solution to the population problem. Through promotion both locally and through social media, more animals could be adopted or returned to their original owners, thus lowering the risks of overcrowding in shelters and the “need” for euthanasia.

Consent is a key concept when it comes to ethics. There is a general consensus that most things are unfair and unethical without consent. This applies to several different aspects of our lives and fields of study. In psychology, for example, experiments require informed consent where the participant is aware of the potential risks and consequences of their involvement. The same thing applies when it comes to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and other medical procedures. In the United States, active euthanasia, which involves the physician actively taking a role in the death upon the patient’s request, is illegal everywhere but Oregon. Physician-assisted suicide, where the physician makes lethal means available to the patient thereby “assisting” them while they are the one who performs it, is only legal in the following locations: Washington D.C., Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Montana (de facto), one county in New Mexico, and Maine as of 2020. Patients also hold the right to refuse medical treatment to quicken the time to their death. This is referred to as passive euthanasia. The biggest thing to note here is that these are all actions taken under the request of the one receiving the treatments, that is a human adult. Animals are incapable of giving their consent to euthanasia. Although animals are different from humans on a base level, both are individual life forces. Who is to say which is more valuable? There is no reason to give one species more rights than the other. Even were animals able to properly communicate with us, they would not be of intelligent standing to make such a decision anyway. Eliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. discusses this topic in an article on Psychology Today where he tells the story of when he requested his dog Bentley to be euthanized. Furthermore, he contemplates the ethics of such a decision. Cohen states, “I would estimate that Bentley had the intellect of a very intelligent 2-year-old human, which is quite intelligent indeed. But, had Bentley been a 2-year-old human instead of a dog, euthanasia would not have been a legal option.” If we do not allow the human equivalent of these animals to consent to euthanasia, there is no way to ethically say we can make this decision for them. While it is possible to judge the living quality of animals, it is difficult to gauge it accurately. Observations made by pet owners and veterinarians to determine the best course of action for the animals. Unfortunately, these observations are subject to emotional influence (Rosoff et al.).

Not only does euthanasia affect the animals and pet owners, but it also affects the veterinarians performing and witnessing the procedure. Euthanasia is a daunting process that takes a toll on most individuals. As a veterinarian, euthanization is a practice that is conducted frequently. Although it is a part of their job to perform this procedure, many veterinarians experience high levels of stress and even secondary trauma from these actions. This concept has been researched regarding human doctors, nurses, and other medical workers. However, a study found that “…animal care workers also report experiences of secondary trauma” (Hill et al. 1). The same study also explains that there was a high level of compassion fatigue found in those working in animal care facilities which could be accounted to expose to animal cruelty, neglect, and witnessing/performing euthanasia (Hill et al. 1). This makes sense as it is a veterinarian’s job to heal, not to harm, yet they are repeatedly asked to end the lives of animals, both healthy and unhealthy. This would cause major stress as it would directly conflict with the veterinarian’s personal morals and beliefs (Verdon and Fleisher 1).