Buddhism and Euthanasia

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 29 Sep 2018 00:59:50 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]I'd rather be an Ancient Greek skeptic than a French sceptic.[/quote]

Yes, I see your point.

Can't stop now, I'm off to the kinema.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

David Mills — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:58:05 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]posing as the sceptical (I'm English ) [/quote]

Nah, sceptic is a French bastardisation of skeptic.

I'd rather be an Ancient Greek skeptic than a French sceptic.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:37:31 GMT

Well, posing as the sceptical (I'm English ) man did produce some reasoned and thoughtful answers.

(At last)

There are so many matters arising that we could now discuss but I think it's time to fade up the closing theme music.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

David Mills — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:01:34 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]While I'm here, though: you mention "morality" – whose morality? Is morality absolute?[/quote]

Your persistent positioning as skeptical man is beginning to grow a little tiresome.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]"Respect" is a bit of a weasel word here, too.[/quote]

You can replace it with consider if you like, very similar effect.

I think you are missing this. Owners come to us with all sorts of beliefs. We consider these. Some we may respect, depending on our personal beliefs and how rational we view their beliefs. Very many we will not respect or dismiss as irrelevant to the case before us (an animal, suffering or otherwise). This dismissal may be however one wishes, either through reasoned argument if you so wish and have the inclination (and adopting a certain approach is neither right nor wrong).

Very many of those dismissed will be religious beliefs, because for very many rational people, they fall in the same irrational category as homeopathy, green Lizard overlords and magic. The fact that these beliefs are religious, to the rational man, does not grant them any sort of special status; nor that these beliefs are held by many people in the world; nor that they have been believed for centuries; nor that corrupt institutions maintain and perpetuate these beliefs; nor that they have given us stunning architectural achievements; nor that they have religious books and motivate people to carry out extreme acts.

The crux is, just because someone believes something deeply does not entail that we respect that belief, because we may consider it completely irrational. There are some people that will attack irrational beliefs wherever they are aired.

The relevance here is the potential clash between irrational belief and animal suffering, and whether that belief should overrule the humane act of euthanasia for an animal suffering unnecessarily.

(note the OP - the owners didn't deny suffering, just that it was necessary according to their faith)

The law is a set of rules that a community recognises as regulating the actions of its members. In the UK, this includes the AWA in which the suffering of the animal is paramount, and no exemption is possible on religious or other grounds. So there is a degree or normative if not absolute morality here.

From an ethical perspective, we normally apply the precautionary principle in most things we do - we would rather give too much pain relief, for instance, than have an animal in pain. Here, the principle says that this animal is far more likely to be suffering than not (we can look to welfare science for the reasons why), and, this suffering is unnecessary. It is only being permitted because of an owner's irrational belief. As a veterinary surgeon, that offends me to my core, because it strikes at the heart of what we are apparently about.

So, we can sit and ask but how do we know? But, the skeptical man asking why is naive and easily defeatable despite the superficial sagacity. We don't know anything, but the fact we're still here as a species and progressing, means that we are pretty good at educated guessing most of the time. Skeptical man, the question is not why? or how do we know? But on the evidence, how do we not know?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

vs0u — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 19:47:37 GMT

People keep pets for their own benefit and not the pet's. Therefore the owner's feelings are extremely important.

To enforce euthanasia against an owner's wishes will forever taint their memory of a much loved pet. I would therefore avoid threatening rspca and try to keep the owner's confidence by keeping talking to them, trying to understand their viewpoint, reassuring them that euthanasia really is best for the animal. I have found that most people will come round quite quickly, often they will take the pet home in the morning and bring it back for euthanasia later the same day.

If it means the moribund cat suffers for one extra day I still think that is better overall than causing major upset to an owner who loves their pet.

I also find that a lot of the time the real reasons people refuse euthanasia are to do with guilt, fear of what will happen, shock etc and can be dealt with, even if they initially claim it's for some higher reason.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:57:09 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]You referred to the owner's "deep personal beliefs", not to "the owner's choice". Different. And you said they "should not be taken into consideration". What, not at all? Not really professional behaviour.[/quote]

Because the deep personal belief (of an owner or a veterinary surgeon) that homeopathy works is generally disregarded by most professionals as well. How is this any different? Should homeopaths call themselves the Church of Homeopathy to be suddenly accepted by everyone? The homeopathic bishops would be out of RCVS control as well.

[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]

But religions point to how many believe as well, the exact argument he used against the cat suffering. Epistemologically we have far more wright to support the cat suffering than any religious belief, regardless of denomination.

After all if we taje the view to respect someone's belief just because it is deeply held and apply no rationality or morality test to it, we allow everything to be respected. Nazism, for example.

[/quote]

Both Utterly Missed The Point.

I will try just once more.

Atky was speaking of consideration of owners' deeply held personal beliefs. A professional should consider them, by which I presume you realise I mean "listen to, talk about, think about and endeavour to reach a compromise with" them. In his next post he spoke of the owners' choice as if I were suggesting that the owners' choice should be what had to be followed.

[quote user="David Mills"]After all if we taje the view to respect someone's belief just because it is deeply held and apply no rationality or morality test to it, we allow everything to be respected. Nazism, for example.[/quote]

Here we go, a new point raised under the guise of arguing the present one. "Respect" is a bit of a weasel word here, too. You'd have to define "respect" in this context before we discuss it further. In truth I don't think I have the energy left to do so. While I'm here, though: you mention "morality" – whose morality? Is morality absolute?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

David Mills — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:19:30 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]Because the deep personal belief (of an owner or a veterinary surgeon) that homeopathy works is generally disregarded by most professionals as well. How is this any different? Should homeopaths call themselves the Church of Homeopathy to be suddenly accepted by everyone? The homeopathic bishops would be out of RCVS control as well. [/quote]

Exactly.

After all if we taje the view to respect someone's belief just because it is deeply held and apply no rationality or morality test to it, we allow everything to be respected. Nazism, for example.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Kate Richardson — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:17:58 GMT

And another thought and example- why is it ok to allow an old cat to carry on for months if not years with discomfort from dental disease that can be treated and cured because it's 'too old to have a GA' and 'it is eating and seems happy enough' and 'it's too risky' yet the general consensus is that allowing a moribund animal to die a natural death is wrong.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:07:31 GMT

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:39:52 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] should not be taken into consideration.[/quote]

Why not?

[/quote]Erm... because 'the best interest of the animal should be based on medical and clinical judgement'. If in my qualified opinion the animal should be euthanased to prevent further suffering the owner's choice is contrary to that and is irrelevant. If my clinical judgement is that there is an element of choice regarding the animal's welfare then that is fine.

[/quote]

You referred to the owner's "deep personal beliefs", not to "the owner's choice". Different. And you said they "should not be taken into consideration". What, not at all? Not really professional behaviour.

You ain't a god. (Nor am I).

[quote user="Kate Richardson"] I see more situations where a pet is 'allowed' to continue living than cases where they are not allowed to die. Cases where the animal is existing but QOL has to be questioned. Where a vet has been involved and not given the owners 'permission' to let it go. They meet someone like me who says, do you know what, euthanasia wouldn't be the wrong thing to do here, rather than struggle on with multiple medications, assisted feeding, etc etc. It's ok to say it's time to goodbye. [/quote]

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Kate Richardson — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:28:22 GMT

I'm going to throw another angle in on this. I see more situations where a pet is 'allowed' to continue living than cases where they are not allowed to die. Cases where the animal is existing but QOL has to be questioned. Where a vet has been involved and not given the owners 'permission' to let it go. They meet someone like me who says, do you know what, euthanasia wouldn't be the wrong thing to do here, rather than struggle on with multiple medications, assisted feeding, etc etc. It's ok to say it's time to goodbye.

Re the OP, its raised questions to myself about whether allowing a natural death is permissible. I don't know that I have an answer right now. Thank you for this discussion, it's made me think. I have always struggled with the 'amazing things we can do' and is it right to do it. having seen multiple paralysed dogs hospitalised for weeks following spinal surgery before any form of recovery, I am fairly certain I would not put my own dog through this, but I fully accept that it has to be on a case by case basis. Some of these dogs seemed to cope with it well, but how can I be certain? My general thought and something I say to clients when difficult choices are needing to be made is that I cannot give any guarantees regarding any treatment options, but with euthanasia I can at least guarantee there will be no more suffering. It's about one of the only cast iron guarantees I can give in our job.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:51:50 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] should not be taken into consideration.[/quote]

Why not?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:34:41 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] should not be taken into consideration.[/quote]

Why not?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:55:22 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]What is being disagreed with (at least by me) is that allowing a natural process to happen naturally is necessarily unacceptable especially when the owner appears to have genuine, deep personal reasons (including religion) for not accepting euthanasia.[/quote]We're going around in circles here but the crux of the matter is that we're not discussing the criteria of whether an animal is suffering but someone's religious belief. 'Deep personal views', religious or not, however well intentioned do not take into consideration the best interest of the animal based on medical and clinical judgement and therefore should not be taken into consideration.

You let a rabbit go home to die but that decision as based on your clinical judgement, whether that was right or wrong is another matter but at least it was rational taking into consideration the various possible outcomes not some unqualified person's flawed personal belief however well meaning they believe that to be.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Rob Davis — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:42:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Not something I was comfortable with really as I like to be 'in control'[/quote]

I think maybe that's the nub of this: we are all control freaks....

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Bob Russell — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:09:25 GMT

I doubt anyone on here would disagree that this cat would have been better off euthanased under quiet, kind supervision.

What is being disagreed with (at least by me) is that allowing a natural process to happen naturally is necessarily unacceptable especially when the owner appears to have genuine, deep personal reasons (including religion) for not accepting euthanasia.

We should make educated judgements and guide clients to make 'good' decisions.

I do not hold any particularly religious views (sadly) and I am 100% behind euthanasia for pets and people where it is in their best interests. I do, however, respect that others have differing views and they may be just as well meaning.

I allowed a comatose rabbit (VHD2) to go home. I hope I was right and it was not suffering unduly. Not something I was comfortable with really as I like to be 'in control'. I believe it had already done the suffering before I saw it!

We do a tricky job and hopefully we get it about right most of the time.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Rob Davis — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:10:14 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

and I am asking why an animal has to be killed just because it's dying (no-one's answered that yet)

[/quote]

Or to turn this around, what possible reason is there for keeping this cat alive?

[/quote]

If this hypothetical non-suffering but dying cat was mine, I would euthanise as I could not see any future quality of life. However, would it be wrong to allow it to die naturally if it was deemed not to be suffering? The problem is determining whether or not there is suffering, and in situations where I can't be sure there is not suffering and the prognosis for improvement is hopeless then I would always advise euthanasia as I would prefer to be certain of avoiding suffering. Often owners are not great at judging the degree of suffering in their pets - "he's still purring" is a common one - and as out patients' advocates we must try to make these judgements on their behalf. We do not however have a monopoly on being right.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:22:01 GMT

Thank you.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Julie Innes — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:22:48 GMT

Sticking my oar in, I would say that dying doesn't generally seem to be a pleasant process, especially if you are basically dying of starvation (if an animal isn't eating). I believe organ shutdown is not pleasant, hence the reason for the huge amounts of morphine they give humans (which still made no impact on the suffering my father in law went through prior to death). Since we know there is no "betterness" for this animal, and that death isn't likely to be a pleasant experience, especially if drawn out, that would be my reason for euthanasing a dying animal. To me it is far kinder than allowing a "natural" death

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:54:32 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"] We obviously aren't going to see eye to eye so let's just leave it.[/quote]

Ok, you have no answer. Let's leave it.

[/quote]

I've answered it numerous times but you won't listen so let's leave it.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 02:18:22 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"] We obviously aren't going to see eye to eye so let's just leave it.[/quote]

Ok, you have no answer. Let's leave it.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 23:21:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

and I am asking why an animal has to be killed just because it's dying (no-one's answered that yet)

[/quote]

Or to turn this around, what possible reason is there for keeping this cat alive?

[/quote]

No, we've done that one already. Why won't you answer my question?

[/quote]

We've already done that ad nauseum. We obviously aren't going to see eye to eye so let's just leave it.

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:46:50 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

and I am asking why an animal has to be killed just because it's dying (no-one's answered that yet)

[/quote]

Or to turn this around, what possible reason is there for keeping this cat alive?

[/quote]

No, we've done that one already. Why won't you answer my question?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:01:36 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

and I am asking why an animal has to be killed just because it's dying (no-one's answered that yet)

[/quote]

Or to turn this around, what possible reason is there for keeping this cat alive?

RE: Buddhism and Euthanasia

Lucy Fleming — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:21:46 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Although the Dobermann bloke is not an idiot, he's a twll dyn.[/quote]

I've learned some Welsh today, so thank you