# Putting down animals

Category: Animal House

## Post 1 by Siriusly Severus (The ESTJ 1w9 3w4 6w7 The Taskmaste) on Thursday, 11-Jun-2009 2:26:42

What do you think of this...?

## Post 2 by Twinklestar09 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 11-Jun-2009 21:49:58

I've never had to have a pet put down, but one of my brothers has. Two of my pets have been sick (one with some kind of illness and the other with lots of ticks), but thankfully they were able to be treated. But my brother's had distemper and was not going to get better, so yeah. It was really hard for him, and he was crying when he made that decision. I probably would too. I would think it's OK if it's something like a terminal illness, especially if the animal is in pain or cannot be cared for, but I've heard of people wanting to put animals down just because they were injured or have some kind of disability and I think in that case it's wrong. My sister's dog had gotten hit by a car, and she said that she could not put him down and chose to get him treated because you would not put a person down just because they got hurt. I had never thought of it like that but it does make sense to me. I also heard that a friend of my dad's found a deaf dog that someone had said they wanted to put down, but instead the friend kept him and he's apparently been good about guarding the house and has just been a good companion. So I think if a dog is disabled or has a treatable injury/illness, they should be given a chance to live and/or treated because the animal will learn how to adapt if they need to, but if they are in physical pain and it can't be treated, it would probably be better to let them go. Just my opinion.

## Post 3 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Friday, 12-Jun-2009 0:22:23

I think it's a last resort, but definitely should be done if an animal is suffering and there is no way to treat the illness. A few years ago, my cat Shadow got cancer, and there was no cure for it. I wanted to keep him as long as possible, but also that I would not be selfish enough to do so the moment I saw he was suffering. I did exactly that. Two days after Shadow refused to eat or drink, presumably because it was painful to him, I had him put down. I held him as they did it. One of the hardest things I've ever done, but I wasn't about to leave him. There was no way I was going to have them put a feeding tube down into his stomach or anything like that, since it ultimately would not have saved his life. Only prolonged it, but at what cost?

## Post 4 by Daenerys Targaryen (Enjoying Life) on Friday, 12-Jun-2009 16:40:22

If I had a pet that was very ill or injered and could not be treated or cured I would have it put down, but I would do everything possible to get help for it first and never just because it was blind or deaf.

## Post 5 by pebbles (the key to flying is falling and missing the ground.) on Sunday, 14-Jun-2009 14:10:47

To me, putting down an animal should be to relieve that animal from pain and suffering not to stop an inconvenience. I had to put down a guinea pig who had internal bleeding. i was much younger but was the one to make that decision and it wasn't easy. I have been lucky in that I haven't had to make that decision with my dogs. They have all passed in their sleep so far. What I don't agree with, is putting an animal down simply because of inconvenience or because the dog doesn't look like you want them too. There was a woman who was going to put a litter of lab puppies down simply because they had an overbite. That makes me sick. If she didn't want to breed them fine, she could have given them to a good home. Some claim that she would be out the money, but if she kills them she is out the money anyway so there is no difference. I had a friend, whose parents put their chocolate lab down because she needed a little help with things because of arthritis. The dog wasn't just laying there in agony. If that were the case I would have understood. But because the dog couldn't climb up on a chair to curl up anymore with out them having to lift her they put her down. To the other extreme I have also seen a dog suffering in pain, dieing and they wouldn't be merciful and put it out of its misery. That, to me, is just as selfish. It is never an easy decision to make. It is one that will always haunt you but sometimes the hardest decisions are the right ones.

## Post 6 by laced-unlaced (Account disabled) on Monday, 15-Jun-2009 4:07:46

i have a puppydog, and could never bear to see it put down. he's so lovely. i'd try and get help for the dog too, and would only put him down if i really really had too, i could never see my dog in agony either. i'd prefer it if the dog was put down, than i would if it was lying on the floor in constant pain. someone told me a story about someone who put a dog down just because he bit, come on!. it's part of there nature, and he was still a puppy... he needs to know what is right

## Post 7 by Reyami (I've broken five thousand! any more awards going?) on Monday, 15-Jun-2009 8:33:45

but if the dog actually bit people when he had not been provoked, and the bite victem had to be hospitalized, that would require the dog be put down because it's a danger to the public

## Post 8 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Monday, 15-Jun-2009 9:49:04

the dangerous dogs act in the UK says if a dog bites, it gets destroyed, pure and simple.

## Post 9 by Big Pawed Bear (letting his paws be his guide.) on Monday, 15-Jun-2009 9:50:08

and as for putting down animals, one hound says to another, you have a scruffy coat! now that's the ultimate put down isn't it?

## Post 10 by Shadow_Cat (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Monday, 15-Jun-2009 18:45:34

I agree: if a dog is aggressive, and bites people, it should be put down. I hadn't thought of that instance. But having an aggressive animal in a populated area is a danger to people, especially children, who may not understand to stay away.

## Post 11 by pebbles (the key to flying is falling and missing the ground.) on Tuesday, 16-Jun-2009 2:49:57

It also depends on why the dog bit. If it is a puppy and is simply teething then that isn't agression. If the dog is just being mouthy and not agressive then it isn't agression. In both of those instances the dog needs to be tought what is acceptable and what isn't. Pure agression should not be permitted though. Although I would try to give a dog who was a gressive to a foundation who dealt with agressive dogs. They have those that are not in the city away from people and all that so they can work with the animal.