I am once again dumping my raw thoughts on Lemmy and asking your opinion on them.
My first dog (and pet in general) is nowhere near the age of me needing to think about putting her down, but having a dog has introduced me to the world of opinions on whether they should be put down when they get too old.
I've read a lot of very strong pro-euthanasia pet owner opinions, even going as far as accusing people refusing to put down their pets as "cruel" or actively wanting their pets to suffer. It really seems like a majority of pet owners, at least in the English speaking world, think putting their pets down is something you should always do when their bodies deteriorate past a certain point, and every time this is brought up you get a lot of emotional comments shaming anyone who doesn't subscribe to that philosophy.
The core argument being made seems to be that when their health conditions pile up past a point, it's not "worth" letting the pet live anymore, supposedly for their sake. But when I think about it further, I ask how can you be sure? All animals want to keep living, that's literally why animals evolved brains in the first place, to keep their bodies alive for as long as possible. How can you, who is not the pet, say for sure they would prefer to die than keep living? You can't ask them, and you can't get in their mind to determine how much they still appreciate being alive. Even the oldest, sickest pet will still make an effort to keep themselves alive however they can: eating, drinking water, moving out of the way of danger, etc. As far as I know, no animal (at least the animals we keep as pets) have an instinct to just give up and stop going through the motions of life past a certain age. Doesn't that imply they always want to live?
I consider the decision to no longer live past a certain age and certain number of health problems to be a uniquely human thing, and it doesn't feel right to impose that on a pet who probably doesn't have those thoughts. Even with humans, we refrain from making that decision for them. Someone who's in a coma isn't eligible for euthanasia just because they haven't expressed a desire to live, and the most their family can legally do is to stop actively keeping them alive with technology and let them die naturally. But if they don't die right after taking them off life support, you can't just straight up kill them, they need to die by themselves. Why isn't this philosophy applied to pets, who can never consent to euthanasia? You don't have to keep subjecting your pet to more and more invasive treatments just to extend their lives by a small amount, but at the same time, what gives you the moral right to unilaterally decide when they're done with living? Why is letting your pet die naturally in the comfort of their own home seen as cruel, while choosing for them when they should die is considered humane?
What do you think? I genuinely don't know how I feel about this but want to understand the problem and where I stand on it before my dog gets old enough for these things to apply.
Humans are already imposing upon our pets and depriving them of their autonomy, simply by keeping them in captivity. Any argument against merciful euthanasia grounded in concerns about how it is imposing are moot.
As for pulling human euthanasia into this context, do yourself a favor and don't. You might be surprised at how common euthanasia is in humans. At least in my part of the world, it's largely a wink-wink nudge-nudge situation, but it does happen with some regularity. Also for people who are actually suffering in decline, there are all kinds of supportive care options being provided that simply aren't feasible or economical for pets. There's also not really the potential for the same kinds of perverse intentions with pets as there might be for people. Like, the list goes on.
So, basically from either of those two perspectives, let alone the fact that both apply, the argument against euthanizing pets that you've presented fall apart.
Having said that, this is often not a simple and straightforward decision. But since we've already established that we're imposing upon them one way or the other, it really comes down to what kind of imposition do you want? The animal is going to die soon one way or the other. You can impose upon it and force it to experience the pain and fear and discomfort of its body naturally shutting down over the course of days, weeks, or months. You could impose upon it and decide to euthanize. What can you live with?
On a more personal note, I've had to have 2 pets euthanized.
One was a cat who managed to escape outside, it got hit by a car and then a neighbor's dog mauled it. Literally pieces of broken rib and punctured lung exposed as well as untold other injuries. No hope of recovery. The idea of letting it suffer another moment was not something I could live with and it was going to die anyway.
The other was a dog with congestive heart failure. There comes a point where there are no more medications and no higher doses that are effective. The animal literally is experiencing the sensation of drowning. They're terrified and in pain, exhausted, and suffering. The vet might be able to alleviate it a few hours or even a couple of days with a procedure to manually remove the fluid, but then you're just going to put the animal through this again and soon. I could not live with myself forcing the dog to endure that knowing there was another option.
Plus, I have seen the pet owner that refused euthanasia and wanted their pet to die a natural death. The dog had cancer. I'm honestly broken up enough just thinking about what I witnessed that I can't even bring myself to type it out. So I'll stop there other than to say I've seen people dying of cancer in their final hours -- there is a world of difference in those things, at least in modern times. The pet was clearly distressed, in pain, and suffering. The people are being made comfortable with drugs and medical care.