I'm not going to presume to rule on the question itself, but I take issue with a couple of things in the columnist's answer:
The real question is: Is it ethical to spend so much money — and put yourself in debt — to keep a dog alive?
The answer is no.
I don't think you can go so far as to say it's not ethical, even if you can't afford the money. It may be ill-advised, but ill-advised spending isn't unethical. Mr. Gallinger previously wrote that Chief Theresa Spence's hunger strike is perfectly ethical, because we're allowed to make self-sacrifices for what we consider to be a good cause. If sacrificing one's own health is permissible, surely sacrificing one's finances is equally permissible!
But you still have to pay for housing and food, so where would this six grand come from? Money you might otherwise give to help other human beings?
OK, I take back what I said about sunshine listers. Regardless of economic status, anyone with an extra six grand does far more good spending on starving kids, AIDS research, a cure for cancer — rather than a dog unable to discern the difference between kibbles and a baseball.
Again, spending money in a way that does less good than it possibly could isn't unethical. At best, it's suboptimal, as are many things in life. Holding people to the standard that spending money in ways that don't optimally help other people is unethical would be untenable. It would even make charitable donations to all but the single most optimal charity unethical!
I'm not a person who would say that you must never euthanize a pet or must prolong its life über alles - I'm pro-euthanasia even to the extent that I want to it be available to me and those I care about - but you should be able to make a solid argument for why it's not unethical to euthanize in a particular case without fudging the definition of "unethical".
Also, I'm surprised that neither the columnist nor the letter-writer got into the question of trying to find another home for the dog. If you're so uncertain about putting the dog down that you're writing to an advice columnist, why not post on Craigslist "Free to a good home: awesome doggie with an unfortunate habit of eating balls and then requiring expensive surgery" and see if you get any takers? Worst case, you've still got the same decision to make, but you can feel better about having explored every possible avenue.
3 comments:
It is unethical to allow a dog to eat a ball and then put it down in response to ball-eating. After the first incident, subsequent incidents are preventable.
You're right. What's more, after you adopt or purchase an animal, it is not unethical to spend money to keep it alive and healthy. It is unethical not to, if you have the money, or if you don't, to try to re-home the animal.
I have been in debt for my animals more times than I can remember. It didn't hurt anyone. It didn't detract from the good I did in the world.
These letters in response make the point better.
I didn't know dogs could be trained not to eat stuff (which is why I didn't presume to rule on the original question - it should be decided by medical professionals and dog professionals and people who know the dog, not random dogless people on the internet.)
But I was kind of surprised the letters (or at least the letters the Star published) didn't raise the idea of re-homing either. It seems like it should be such an obvious thing to try!
Well, there's stuff you can do, like putting horrible-tasting (but harmless) stuff on things they're not supposed to eat, or making sure they never have toys unsupervised.
I once had a dog get into my tote bag and eat ibuprofen. She got very sick... and I never left a bag in striking distance of her again, and I made sure no one else did, either. Kind of like making a home child-friendly.
And yes, it's a very strange oversight!
Many people, on the first or second sign of trouble with an animal, think euthanasia. It's a very common response. Dog having trouble? Must be time to put him down. Grrr.
(And of course I'm not anti-euthanasia.)
Post a Comment