What is the LDS belief on having pets PTS?

[Uhura]

I having a pet put to sleep right or wrong? He still eats and drinks. He takes treats from me. But that is all. No playing and only a little moving around. If he weren't eating it would be an easier decision but since he is still eating, that makes it harder.

Is there an LDS belief on it that says yes or no? I should add that he is a pet gerbil. So he was very inexpensive (the result of an accidental litter) and if I had taken him to the vet at the first sign of the problem, it would have costs a lot more than he did. So I do feels some guilt in that. I have been giving him pain medicine and will continue to do so. He looks like he will sleep all the time. But he stands up to say hi to me and look around at times. Yet the tumor looks so bad, it is like an open wound covering his stomach. I don't have the stomach to look at it.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Uhura

[marshac]

Sorry about your situation.

As far as I know, 'enduring to the end' only applies to people and is a conscious choice a person makes... being healthy, this decision to endure is a no-brainier for me at the moment- this is different than the decision to end an animal's life.... if it were the same, there would be way fewer hot dogs and burgers at ward BBQs.

You should do what you feel is right, and if you feel that your little guy is suffering, then you have to do what you feel is the best choice for him.

[john doe]

LDS believe that God gave Man dominion and stewardship over the animals of the earth. They are put here on earth for our use, as food and as companions. They are not our equals, though. Since we have stewardship over them we have a responsibility to do what we can to treat them with respect and not cause them to suffer needlessly.

If your pet is suffering to the point where medications or artificial means are being used to keep it alive, then what quality of life are you giving it? If you were the pet, would you want to be kept alive merely for the sake of being alive? Does it serve any real purpose to keep this particular pet alive? I know what my answer would be, but that's a decision you as the steward over that animal have to make for your situation.

[HEthePrimate]

Uhura,

I think it's very sweet that you care so much for your little animal friend. Also that you take the ethical questions so seriously. Though I disagree with the last poster that animals are placed on the earth solely for the use of humans, I do think it would be an act of mercy to put the gerbil to sleep.

Peace,

HEP

[Dedgeol1]

good post,interesting

[pam]

I agree with john doe. Animals should not suffer needlessly. I dread the day that I might have to make that decision with my own dog as she gets older.

[Uhura]

HEP,

Are you saying they are here for other reasons than for humans? I didn't put the last one who was suffering to sleep.

Do you think pets feel anger in their heaven? And I still am not sure about the one now. If only he would stop eating, taking treats, and drinking the decision would be a lot easier.

I'm going to go see what else people talk about here. It looks like a good group and so far I am glad I joined.

[john doe]

Uhura,

I think it's very sweet that you care so much for your little animal friend. Also that you take the ethical questions so seriously. Though I disagree with the last poster that animals are placed on the earth solely for the use of humans, I do think it would be an act of mercy to put the gerbil to sleep.

Peace,

HEP

I didn't say they were here solely for the use of humans. Please read before hitting the reply button.

[bcguy]

Do people in the wild take care of animals? I think prolonging the life of a animal just depends. If its in pain, and no cure, I think its the right thing to do.

[JudoMinja]

Sometimes, a "humane" death is the best we can offer an animal. Nature would not be so kind- if your gerbil behaved as it is behaving now in the wild, it would become the prey of another animal rather quickly. The death would not be pretty or painless.

If you are worried about the morality of putting an animal to sleep, think for a moment about why you are having such a hard time making the decision. You do not like seeing the animal suffer. You know putting it down will end its suffering. You also know that doing nothing will only prolong its suffering- there is no hope of it getting better. Is there anything immoral about wanting to end an animal's misery?

There are times when the death of an animal is right and necessary, and there are times where it is wrong. It is wrong to kill an animal if you get pleasure out of it. It is wrong to kill an animal if you will not make some use of it- ex. hunting for "sport" instead of eating what you hunt. Yet killing an animal in the proper place and time is perfectly okay. It is in no way considered murder, like the taking of a human life would be considered.

Some very extreme animal rights activists would have us believe it is wrong to kill period, but for there to be a total lack of death goes against nature itself. Death is a necessary part of life. It puts weak and injured animals out of their misery. It feeds animals that would otherwise starve. It keeps the fit and strongest animals making the greatest genetic contributions.

When it comes to pets, remember that a pet finds "joy" in its interactions with you. If it is no longer able to find that joy, it is best to let it go.

[Traveler]

From my childhood hunting was a part of life. Killing things was considered a necessity as well as a sport but for some strange reason I have always felt a “spiritual” connection with the critters I killed. When I returned home from the military and my mission my dog from my youth was old and sick and needed to be put down. Because she was my dog I felt the responsibility to be mine. I spent the last few hours with her bathing her and brushing her fir and then petting her. When I felt the time had come I ended her suffering and put her down

That was many years ago and I have never regretted putting her down myself. But my story does not end with this. My children also grew up with a dog and my son that was closest to that dog was on his mission when something needed to be done. I took the dog to the vet to see if my son’s pet could last till my son returned from his mission. That was stupid because the dog was dying and in a great deal of pain. With the decision made I told the vet I would take the dog and put him down. The vet advised me against it. He said that in our state it was against the law to put down your own pet. Not only is there a very big fine but a possibility of jail time.

I believe in honoring the law but this is ridiculous - not just the $350 the vet wanted to put down the dog but the fact that it is unlawful to not pay someone else to do it. I realize that many people are attached to their pets to the point that they value them as much as they do children in our society. I do not agree with such mentality but I realize it exists. What I resent that that pet lovers accept and allow the putting down of perfectly healthy pets (if done by the vet) but have passed a law preventing a pet owner from putting down a dying pet themselves. We have too many foolish notions about pets.

The Traveler

[Gwen]

Personally I think it matters why you do it.

If you put it down because it's suffering and all the humane reasons that have been mentioned by others then I can't fault ya for it. If you want to put it down because you are tired of caring for it and it's just easier for you to be done and rid of it then that's a little less admirable.

[Guest]

Personally I think it matters why you do it.

If you put it down because it's suffering and all the humane reasons that have been mentioned by others then I can't fault ya for it. If you want to put it down because you are tired of caring for it and it's just easier for you to be done and rid of it then that's a little less admirable.

I just want to start out saying I agree with you 100%.

Not to deviate too far from the OP, but I was just wondering what your view is on kill shelters? That is - putting pets to sleep due to lack of resources to care for abandoned/neglected, otherwise healthy, pets?

I'm completely torn about it. I mean - I wish they don't exist, but at the same time, I don't have a solution on how to care for these pets...

[Dravin]

Personally I think it matters why you do it.

If you put it down because it's suffering and all the humane reasons that have been mentioned by others then I can't fault ya for it. If you want to put it down because you are tired of caring for it and it's just easier for you to be done and rid of it then that's a little less admirable.

I may be less admirable, because if the care of a pet was becoming too tedious and interfering with more important things (such as family, or work and the like), I'd put a pet down. Heck, if the maintenance of a pet was a fiscal burden I would put it down. You won't find me being one of those people who has their cat taking chemotherapy or is on dialysis.

[Gwen]

I just want to start out saying I agree with you 100%.

Not to deviate too far from the OP, but I was just wondering what your view is on kill shelters? That is - putting pets to sleep due to lack of resources to care for abandoned/neglected, otherwise healthy, pets?

I'm completely torn about it. I mean - I wish they don't exist, but at the same time, I don't have a solution on how to care for these pets...

I have mixed feelings on them as well. There is no way to possibly care for every animal that is born. My sister has a rescue and she always has more coming in than going out.

If you don't gather them up the wild packs become a danger to everything around them.

I wish they would be more selective in how they decide which ones are put down. Most shelters just worry about when the animal came in, first in first out mentality. The ones that are more unstable (psychologically, health, etc) should be put down first, do the best you can to save the ones that are truly adoptable.

I can feel better about them if they actually do something "useful" with the animals. Send the bodies to medical schools for surgeons and vets to "practice" on. As bad as that may sound they need to get training somewhere and I would prefer it on animals before me.

[Dravin]

I can feel better about them if they actually do something "useful" with the animals. Send the bodies to medical schools for surgeons and vets to "practice" on. As bad as that may sound they need to get training somewhere and I would prefer it on animals before me.

Some do. In fact PETA has a billboard complaining that one of the shelters in Utah county sells animals (living or dead I don't know, but I presume living is more likely to generate their ire) for research.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Dravin

[Gwen]

I may be less admirable, because if the care of a pet was becoming too tedious and interfering with more important things (such as family, or work and the like), I'd put a pet down. Heck, if the maintenance of a pet was a fiscal burden I would put it down. You won't find me being one of those people who has their cat taking chemotherapy or is on dialysis.

I'm not trying to sound judgmental, I do think every situation needs to be evaluated by the ppl in it. I do agree to an extent. I'm more talking about the selfish "it's become a bother" attitude. Like ppl that get pets as cute babies and then abandon them as adults. However, chemo and dialysis is a quality of life issue. The pet can't understand why you put them through that and nature would have relieved their suffering long ago so they may not think it's as great as the owner does. I also understand the issue of financial restraints. I don't think pets are people and they don't come before my family.

I also believe a lot can be learned from the life and death cycle of pets. I had a pet goat growing up. She got very sick. After a few calls my mom learned that it was most likely this virus going around among goats, the only treatment was to be taken to a vets office for treatment and most of those still didn't make it. We didn't have that kind of money. One might say "Well she can't stand, she can't eat on her own, she won't make it anyway time to put her down" and I couldn't fault you for it. My mom got instructions on what was the best we could do and hope for the best. Though she was told "don't get your hopes up" we got all the supplies and she stayed by my side and taught me how to care for her. I very clearly remember the nights mom and I sat on the floor all night long to give her fluids and stuff every hour or so. I was there with her when she died. I know it wasn't easy on my mom (I understand that more now than I did at the time), it wasn't the easiest road but I'm glad it's the one mom chose.

On the other hand my mom said her grandmother wouldn't hesitate to put down a small puppy if she found a mangy stray. She considered that the most humane and responsible action to take. If she had a terminally ill animal it would be put down.

Is there really a "right" answer to the question of when it's time to put an animal down?

[Dravin]

Like ppl that get pets as cute babies and then abandon them as adults.

Indeed, a pet is a responsibility not a decoration (unless its stuffed and mounted I suppose).

Is there really a "right" answer to the question of when it's time to put an animal down?

Nothing short and easy.

[Madriglace]

I have always relied on my animals to let me know when it was time for them to go. If you are in tune with them they will let you know. It is not easy but it is the last act of love we can give them. If you do decide to take this route stay with your friend until it's over the last person they see should be the one they love most.

A pet is not an old pair of shoes or a worn out coat to be disposed of ... if you can no longer keep them for what ever reason it is your responsibility to see to their rehoming ... killing them because they are inconvienient is not an option.