Talk:Animal euthanasia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amberdomanus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caroruguita.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
Should this article link to slaughter? That seems kind of unrelated and suggestive to me. Was the author trying to imply something? 24.22.185.207 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is another way animals are killed by humans, i would say that is related. --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

rate
The article is clearly a stub. It doesn't even have any references or citations. --(( F3rn 4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA)  21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I agree, references are definitely needed. For example: "Euthanasia is typically performed in a veterinary clinic or hospital, or in an animal shelter, and is usually carried out by a veterinarian, or a veterinary technician working under the vet's supervision." I'd like to see a citing reference for this. In plenty of animal shelter that I've worked at all you need is a couple of hours of training and you're qualified to perform euthanasia. GingerGin 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the US, laws concerning the possession/use of controlled substances such as euthanasia solutions dictate who is authorized to euthanize animals. In practice, often these laws are only loosely enforced. I agree that references are needed. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase regarding equating no-kill shelters to human life imprisonment, while possibly accurate, is not expressed in the neutral point of view. Please think about removing that statement. Nat 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

POV in no-kill shelter section
This section appears to have bias against no-kill shelters. I believe there is also a similar dispute on the main no-kill shelter article. If there is no argument against it in a reasonable amount of time, I will remove or rephrase parts of the section.Ninja! 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the last sentence, which seemed to me to be the most offending part. The paragraph criticizing no-kill shelters appears valid to me, but needs a citation (as does this entire article).  Removed the tag, too, hope that's all right. --Joelmills 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Method of euthanasia
Please feel free to add Cervical dislocation. --FR Soliloquy 03:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

killing animals for non medical reasons = euthanasia?
This article deals a lot with animals being killed for non-medical reasons, but how's that to be considered euthanasia? If it is, then we could also put in animals killed for slaughter etc. --194.81.255.254 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically euthanasia only means to kill something humanely at least according to this article and euthanasia even if it's commonly associated with killing something for humane reasons. In this regard, the techniques used in slaughtering animals for consumption, if intended to be as humane as possible, could perhaps be called euthanasia but they usually aren't probably because the goal there is to get food not to kill the animal. In any case, many would argue even for non medical reasons, the goal is still to prevent suffering, since in the absence of more funds, the alternative is to use less space and less food per animal (or worse, turning away animals who are then likely to be either abandoned or killed potentially in a non-humane fashion). Also, presuming the animal has been in a shelter for several years and it's questionable whether they would ever be adopted, many would also argue keeping it in a relatively small cage without much access to the outdoors until the end of it's life is more cruel Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also want to read No-kill shelter Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's definition of euthanasia includes: "of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...for reasons of mercy." This aspect of the definition does not seem to be presented here. Does lack of space at a shelter apply? Should their euphemism be encoded as part of an existing definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.94.119 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

killed dog's photo
is it necessary to keep it in the article? --62.101.126.228 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about animals being killed by humans, there should be a picture of an animal being killed by a human, or that has already been killed preferably still where it was killed. The killing described may be under special conditions, if so, the picture should be of an animal killed under such conditions. --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why it that photo removed?It is not there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's okay that it is removed, and it will stay removed. It isn't a necessary illustration that adds to the article, but rather it was purely for decorative purposes from the argument put forwards by TiagoTiago which is not an acceptable cause for inclusion of an illustration and fundamentally a waste of space, especially where words can adequately describe the subject matter. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

put to sleep redirection?!
This is simply stupid, from my POV, a user searching about sleep is much more likely to be reasearching literal sleep, not the social 'put the animals to sleep' kind of way. Removing this redirection, any objections.. change it back and contact me on my personal talk page. Mod.torrentrealm (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia
Noted that in the section on voluntary euthanasia, there are pro and con arguments. Any reason the same not present in this article ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Destroyed?
Really, destroyed? I've never heard anyone destroying their pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.1.83 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its probably not used with pets, but with lab animals and such ("the specimen were destroyed", meaning they killed the white mice). --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It used to be used for euthanasia of a racehorse. Thus, it was noted in contemporary news media that Lamb Chop was destroyed in 1964, and that in 1975 "Ruffian [was] destroyed to end suffering". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk • contribs) 20:08, October 29, 2014‎

Animals killed for sexual interactions with humans?
Is it still correct to call it "euthanasia" when a physicly unharmed (there is no proof for (nor against) any potential psychological effect) animal is killed after it is discovered they had sexual interactions with a human (the human in question often being jailed)? It's my understanding that is what happens in some jurisdiction, but "euthanasia" doesn't sound like the appropriated term given that the true reasons doesn't seem to really have the wellbeing of the animal in mind. --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pet food
Hi. I've temporarily removed:


 * Many animals euthanased at shelters or animal control agencies are sent to meat rendering facilities, to be processed for use in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food. The amount of phenobarbital in dog food has caused dogs to become less responsive to the drug when being euthanased, though a 2002 FDA study found no dog or cat DNA in the foods they tested. They theorized that the drug found its way into dog food from euthanased cattle and horses. They also stated that the level of the drug found in the food was safe.

My concern is that there were three sources, only one of which is working, and that without seeing the sources I'm not yet sure if it is possibly synthesis or if the strength of the claims are justified. In addition I'm not sure if we can take madcowboy.com or petsready.com as a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that strong. - Bilby (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the refs. It's all pretty easy to verify. Usually cutting paragraphs out of the article isn't the most constructive way forward. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And usually, no - in this case, though, the claims were very poorly sourced and quite strong, so it seemed like the best option. - Bilby (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I could see that; working in the industry its often surprises me that anyone doesn't know what happens to most animals at shelters. Animal control too, I think even some zoos. A lot of this questionable meat meal goes to feed factory-farmed chickens, and like the ref says, the FDA found no evidence that any pet foods used it as an ingredient. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  03:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to track down an archived version of the FDA report - I'll add that in later. My concern was that this was saying to people that their pets are being rendered on the basis of madcowby.com. :) The sourcing is great now. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image
May I remove the image at the top? I find it a bit... disturbing. たか はり  い  11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand how you feel, although it's far from being a graphic image. Noting that WP:NOTCENSORED, I restored the image, but put it lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this true
"Stray animals are sometimes put to sleep by animal shelters that put unclaimed and unadopted dogs and cats in a sealed chamber and pump the air out. The animal dies of anoxia."

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee merrill (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See Animal euthanasia. No, they would not pump out the air, as that would require a strong vacuum chamber to withstand the forces, which would be much too expensive (all other considerations aside).  Where chambers are used, a poisonous gas is administered -- often carbon monoxide.  Death by carbon monoxide inhalation is not generally considered painful, but there is concern about the initial condition in the chamber where many frightened animals may be placed together. This crowding may be motivated by a poorly funded shelter attempting to conserve cartridges, or the need to process a large number of animals with limited facilities.  -- 49.229.94.58 (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing that inaccurate information. My longer comment above was because I thought that you were asking a general question (more appropriate for WP:RD, but still done on article talk pages), and not quoting content of an earlier version of the article. -- 49.229.94.58 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

arguments against?
surely there must be some arguments against animal euthanasia.

For example, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201104/is-it-ethical-euthanize-your-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.206 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the page already links to animal rights and animal welfare, where such issues are examined in depth. Perhaps some additional discussion could be added here as well, but a blog does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article body doesn't really link to the animal welfare article, the animal rights link is in the context of pro death, and Psychology Today is absolutely a valid, reliable source. After reading the PT article that the IP provided, I observe it never actually mentions Aristotle and does not actually argue against animal euthanasia. Their observation, however, still seems valid—although at the moment I cannot find any reliable anti-animal euthanasia information online. (There may be none.) If the IP or someone else cares to provide a reliable source for anti-animal euthanasia then this view would deserve, perhaps not an entire section, but a mention. Prhartcom (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Humane?
The humane words should be removed from the article,quick does not mean humane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but for an explanation of how Wikipedia deals with such things, please see WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Mister IP address is correct. RGW doesn't apply, it's merely an instance of fallacious logic. The intent may be a humane death, but at present the medical world's jury is out on definitive 'humane' elements. One good place to turn for in depth debate on the issue is constitutional challenges to the death penalty in the United States, or the termination of statutory murder in all other first world countries many decades ago. Extensive analysis of methods of execution and causing death have been examined in depth for those cases, providing a solid ground for sources. But given the distinct lack of citations, it is purely assumption and fallacious logic calling it 'humane.' It could be termed a humane attempt, or an attempt at providing the most humane death knowable with current science. But humane is an objective application to a subjective thing. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether it's humane depends on the method/effectiveness and circumstances. Being sedated to the point of unconsciousness, then dying qualifies as a humane method of death, as it doesn't involve physical or emotional suffering.  In turn, that's a humane option when (for example) the animal has serious suffering that can't be alleviated enough for it to enjoy life, or if it is close to dying from an untreatable condition, as natural deaths are often traumatic.   —xyzzy 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Neck snapping.
I saw a citation needed on the humane nature of this method of death for small vertebrate animals. My attempt to find sources led me to notice something somewhat disappointing. The majority of things claiming this is humane cite THIS article. The claim in this article is being relied upon by many, many articles, even though wikipedia is considered a non-academic source and gets you a slap on the wrist as a youngin' at university and something that's trained out of kids early on in life. There are numerous articles addressing the fact that life with a cervical break in this location isn't just possible, but limited rehabilitation can be conducted, and an acceptable quality of life with primates attainable. So I would argue that the simple fact that people live with it every day is a clear indicator that this isn't a clean, fast, or 'humane' method of dispatching an animal.

Whether something is or isn't humane is quite a subjective issue, and one many people seem passionate about. Many old school vets think it's fine, many new school medical scientists think they're dipping in the drug cabinet. The bottom line is there is no supportive evidence that it is acceptable, and there is significant obiter dictum from court cases globally during the outlawing of state sanctioned murder of criminals (or 'execution' for the American's who are the last first world nation to allow it) that clearly indicate breaking the neck of an animal, human or otherwise, is not humane but possibly cruel, painful, and non-life terminating. These findings should be reflected in the article if that road is traveled down to provide neutrality.

In the interim, I will remove the contentious wording that has no citations (and yet is relied upon extensively, and fallaciously) pending a better re-working of that section. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Complications in animals with impaired circulatory function
Regarding IV euthanasia of pets: if circulatory function is reduced (by heart failure, severe dehydration, etc.) only a partial dose of the drugs may be in effect for the first several minutes... Until that point, the animal will be semi-sedated/conscious, and (if the vet doesn't make sure the pet is unconscious prior to the second shot) will show/experience increasing signs of heart attack/respiratory failure until finally dying. Doing the research is a bit more than I can handle after seeing it happen with one of my pets, so hopefully someone else will be able to tackle the topic at some point. —xyzzy 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Animal euthanasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anu.edu.au/ro/ORI/HumaneEuthanasia.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000320/http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf to http://www.kittyvillage.com/morton_v_irvin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"to die by withholding extreme medical measures"
Umm... what? Does "withhold" have another meaning I'm not aware of? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect it does not. I spent a while trying to figure out what this phrase could mean.  It could be that it refers to non-survival experimental surgery.  For example, some vet students will perform surgery on a live, but anaesthetised, animal as part of their training.  If these animals were to be allowed to survive after the surgery, they would require "extreme medical measures".  Witholding these could described as euthanazia.
 * In short, I am barely convinced by my own explanation. I think this phrase should be deleted or moved to a less conspicuous place. DrChrissy (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

reference not available any more
number twelve reference "12.Animal Gas Chambers Draw Fire in U.S. - National Geographic" is not available any more. the link is down. it should be removed.Masud.pce (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that the article is gone. It's also not available in archive.org/web nor on nationalgeographic.com under "search" using the article title. I checked around some on google and couldn't find it, either. I marked it "dead link" in the article. Maybe someone can find it hiding somewhere on the internet, or can find an alternative citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomopbs (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)