Nathan Winograd is a major advocate
for the “No Kill” Movement in America. The No Kill Movement is the idea that
animals in shelters should not be euthanized, especially if they are physically
healthy and have no behavioral problems that could prevent them from being
adopted. Winograd spreads the idea that pet overpopulation is a myth despite
the fact that there are so many animals in shelters that many adoptable animals
do have to be euthanized. He also chooses not to address the problems that sometimes
come with no-kill sheltering such as warehousing, the mental and emotional
well-being of long term residents of shelters, and animal hoarding. While it would
be nice for all healthy, adoptable animals in shelters until they are adopted,
this view is far too idealistic with the current issue of pet overpopulation.
In his blog post, What is True
Euthanasia?, Winograd discussed why he firmly believes that euthanasia is
rarely or never merciful even in the case of animals that are ill and beyond
hope of saving.
In his blog post, Winograd
discussed his late cat, Gina, who was diagnosed with cancer and compared her to
his wife’s uncle, Steve, who was diagnosed with cancer around the same time.
Both Gina and Steve received aggressive treatment for their cancer in an
attempt to save their lives, and both ultimately passed away. Steve lived out
the end of his days in hospice care, pain-free and in as much comfort as could
be provided for him in his state. Winograd and his wife planned to let Gina die
naturally until she got to the point where she no longer wanted to get up, was
urinating and defecating on herself, no longer enjoyed being petted, and was
being kept alive by fluids when she would’ve otherwise died of dehydration
weeks before. Even when his cat was in this much obvious discomfort, Winograd did
not want to acknowledge that choosing to have her euthanized may have been an
act of mercy. He believed that letting her die naturally no matter what the
circumstances was the merciful path and simply referred to the euthanasia as
killing and not “killing out of mercy”. He tried to draw parallels between Gina
and Steve without acknowledging the fact that they were both on painkillers but
Gina was in obvious discomfort while Steve was “pain-free”. Cats are very good
at hiding their discomfort, so when it comes to the point where they are
reluctant to move and don’t enjoy things they used to, something is very wrong.
Steve could also make the conscious decision to die naturally in hospice care,
but natural death of some sort is the only option for the vast majority of
people with fatal illnesses due to federal laws. Animals can’t let us know what
their decision is, so sometimes we have to recognize that we know our pets well
enough to know when they no longer enjoy being alive and when euthanasia may be
merciful.
Although it was only touched on briefly
in a couple of places, Winograd’s blog post is obviously alluding to the fact
that many animals that enter the shelter system in America are euthanized and
his belief that this is almost always wrong. However, life in a no kill shelter
may not always be the best option for animals. For instance, some no-kill
shelters may be reluctant to turn away any animals that are brought to them which
can result in warehousing, or animals being kept in substandard conditions due
to lack of shelter space. Rarely, no-kill shelters can be fronts for hoarding
situations where the animals will not be euthanized but they will be kept in
deplorable conditions. Some animals will be considered less adoptable than
others by potential adopters and may never be brought to a real home. Shelters
are ultimately meant for short-term housing and are not equipped to meet the long-term
needs of most animals. Many animals develop stereotypic behaviors to help cope
with the stress of a shelter environment. They are housed in small cages and
there are often times far too many animals for each of them to receive the
affection and socialization they need in order to thrive. Dogs can go “kennel-crazy”,
and cats will feign sleeping due to stress from loud noises and lack of places
to hide so that potential adopters can see them clearly. The very first
sentence of Excerpt: The Emotional Lives
of Animals is, “Many animals display their feelings openly, publicly, for
anyone to see.” Stereotypic behaviors are an open display of negative emotional
and mental welfare in animals in shelters, and no animal deserves a lifetime of
the stress of living in a shelter if it is not adopted. The article goes on to
mention how ethics must be considered when we acknowledge that animals do have
emotions. In some cases, the euthanasia of an otherwise healthy and adoptable
animal may be ethical if it has been living in a shelter long enough to clearly
display signs of poor mental and emotional well-being.
While it would be ideal for every
companion animal to live a long healthy life and die of natural causes, that
idea is just not plausible. Often times, it really is more merciful to
euthanize a terminally ill animal instead of letting it live out the end of its
days, in pain and no longer enjoying life in the least. When it comes to shelters,
pet overpopulation is a very real problem and homes cannot be found for every
single animal. While it is a shame that some animals that have fixable problems
like minor behavioral issues are euthanized quickly, there are cases where the
euthanasia of a healthy animal is more merciful than other options. Life or
even just a long period of time in a shelter can be very mentally and
emotionally tolling for some animals and some no-kill shelters are run below
the standards of some “kill” shelters due to limited money and resources. There
are some situations in which euthanasia is the most humane option, even when
it comes to the shelter system.
No comments:
Post a Comment