Is is okay to let your old hunting dog starve to death when it's no longer useful?

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by Tom Phillips*, Mar 22, 2005.

  1. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    If your old dog is not useful anymore, is it okay to lock it in a room and deprive it of food and water. Especially if depriving it of food and water wouldn't cause any pain to it?

    Here is a dog like that:

    http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Swab.rm

    Do you think that dog can feel any pain?
     
  2. BAYDOG

    BAYDOG Moderator- Diver, NY Forum, Refuge Classifieds Sponsor Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    6,585
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2000
    Location:
    Phelps,New York (Heart of the Finger Lakes)
    Depends..... Case in point, my old lab Stormy was 13, retired, and enjoy retirement. She got a tumer(Cancerous) in her jaw. Vet said it was inoperable. I waited till it got big enough that when she ate, it pained her, and would bleed badly. Took her for a walk, threw some short bumpers for her, then took her to the vet and had her put to sleep. Hardest thing I ever had to do, and I cried like a baby. Do I regret anything I did.....NO. She deserved to go out with dignity, and not a slow painfull death, where evertime she did something as simple as eating, she was in pain. I think Terry deserves to have her wishes ment, and if it is true that she wouldn't have wanted to live this way, then it is her husbands duty to fulfill her wishes. So yea, I been there done it, isn't easy, but needed done.
     
  3. FroMan

    FroMan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    Flint Hills Kansas & Arkansas River Valley
    It being a dog, I'm going to say no, don't starve it to death. If you don't want it anymore, cap it in the head. Much quicker and more humane.

    With that in mind, humans and dogs are different.

    Without realizing that we're actually starving would it be that bad? If it was me, do it quicker and cheaper with a 45 or something.

    But if I didn't know what was happening and was just going to die, I don't think I would really care. I'd hate to live like that. It wouldn't be hard on me to starve out, it'd just be hard on those who wanted to keep me here.
     
  4. Fetch

    Fetch Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,025
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2000
    Location:
    North Dakota
    I think all should be required to make a living will

    Parents could do it for their Children - as soon as a child turns 18 they should have to do their own & then, if they have a second opinion from a a Doctor, that they will never recover & be normal. They should be able to choose, to be put to death by a painless lethal injection.

    But the way you worded this makes ya think how Stupid Humans can be - we think it's Humane & the right thing to do to Horses & Dogs & animals we Love - But humans should be allowed to linger for years :( at costs up to $80,000 a month :eek:
     
  5. CROBRO

    CROBRO Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Location:
    California
    couldnt have said it better myself
     
  6. High-Ball

    High-Ball Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,548
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Location:
    Central Valley CA
    Well, if I had a dog that was in a vegetative state for that many years, I would of put It down a long time ago....... :fp
     
  7. Drundel

    Drundel Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,842
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    Location:
    Friendswood, TX/Prudhoe Bay, AK
    I agree completely.
     
  8. FroMan

    FroMan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    Flint Hills Kansas & Arkansas River Valley
    I've been discussing this issue with friends and family recently (mainly my wife.)

    One of my reasons for not re-inserting the tube was this:

    How much money is spent keeping her "alive." What is alive to us? Is laying in a bed, not being able to talk, eat, or do anything on your own, really alive, other than the fact that the heart is beating?

    Couldn't that money be spent helping others, who have a chance of recovery and getting back to somewhat normal "lives."

    The other issue, I've been arguing about...or...discussing...is who has the right to decide what to do for Terry.

    My In-Laws said the parents do.

    But...here's my arguments to that. As soon as a man or woman marry each other, the parent's rights to make decisions for their son/daughter, are forfeited to the spouse of their son/daughter.

    They give up their child.

    That being said, I think that her husband ultimately decides what to do for Terry, whether the parents want that or not.

    I don't think any parent would decide to pull the plug on their child. It's unnatural for a parent to do that.

    They (in-laws and wife) keep saying that the husband could have alterior motives (tired of it all, wants to get out of the marriage, etc.)

    And to be honest, he really could have alterior motives, and if he does, he'll have to answer for it later. But he still has the final say in what happens to Terry IMO.
     
  9. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    Ask your wife and in-laws if they would consider a marriage still valid if the husband lived with a woman other than the wife and fathered two children with her.

    Is the marriage still good? Should the "husband" have the right to put his "wife" to death because she is inconvenient?
     
  10. GulfCoast

    GulfCoast Moderate Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    13,255
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Location:
    Biloxi, MS, USA
    Is a Bill of Attainder still unconstitutional?
     

Share This Page