eli5: Why is putting down animals so much more acceptable than putting down humans?
In: 2
Humans can express the desire to stay alive, or alternatively the wish to die to end their suffering, whereas animals can’t, so the decision on ending life “early” is in the their own hands.
Because we value humans more than we value non-humans. Because we *are* humans so have a vested interest in ourselves and our species.
My take… While humans and animals share many similarities, there’s a profound difference between us. We end animals’ suffering through euthanasia based on their limited ability to understand or navigate their pain beyond instinctive avoidance or endurance.
However, humans have more complex ways to respond to suffering, often accepting it as a part of life and even growing from it. This difference underlines our unique human dignity, and it’s why euthanasia is more acceptable in animals than in humans. We have moral responsibilities and alternatives when it comes to our own pain, which animals don’t have. Suffering, while challenging, can lead to personal growth and deeper understanding of our existence.
>In comments sections on articles about these drawn-out spectacles, one question comes up again and again: Why is it so hard to kill someone via lethal injection? After all, veterinarians manage to euthanize pets rapidly every day, with minimal discomfort. Why aren’t those drugs used in executions?
>
>
>
>Prison officials think the same way. The problem, however, is not that these drugs can’t be used on humans, for the most part. It’s with supply. Nearly every drug that prison officials turn to for lethal injections has been restricted from that use by manufacturers.
Just another take on lethal injection in humans vs. animals. [Source.](https://www.livescience.com/51389-why-lethal-injection-is-getting-harder.html)
Generally speaking we value the lives of humans more than animals and we are willing to take more extraordinary actions to keep them alive.
Cost for procedures for pets + livestock can be very high and ending their suffering is often the most humane option available.
Humans are also capable of making their own decisions regarding what is best for them medically.
There is also the Hypocratic oath
Doctors take an oath to ‘do no harm’
Taking a patients life deliberately can be seen as a violation of that trust, although many would argue that prolonging suffering is also a violation of that.
By law and convention in most Western nations euthanasia of patients is outlawed or considering highly immoral
I think the stigma around suicide and the perception that the euthanizing party could be seen as a ‘murderer’ play a role as well. Though I’m of the opinion it shouldn’t be any different. If a human is suffering without hope of recovery to good quality of life, then prolonging their suffering is more morally wrong than euthanasia.
Because you’re only asking humans what is acceptable. I suspect that if you were to ask a duck whether it’s more acceptable to put down a duck or a human, they’d say a human.
This is going to sound like a joke, but a significant reason is that the family of the animal that’s euthanized isn’t going to sue. There are a number of circumstances in which human euthanasia is, actually, acceptable, but because of the legal liability and psychological implications, these are conversations you’re really unlikely to encounter unless you’re either directly involved or you’ve set out to research the issue.
We tend to discuss end of life care a whole lot more freely when it comes to animals and pets because, to be perfectly blunt, we don’t have to worry that the animals will understand what we’re saying and get upset.
Think about how easily people are tricked into a political preference due to propaganda. Now imagine how many people would be manipulated into being euthanized if they legalized euthanization of humans. Think of how many doctors would look the other way and approve patients to be euthanized based on lobbyist. The list goes on and on. It would be Grim
Latest Answers