Killing to Alleviate Suffering

The following post was published on Medium on February 3, 2020. I will be following it up here (where I will do all of my animal advocacy writing from now on) with a different (sort of) perspective on euthanasia.

I hate the term euthanasia. Loaded with heavy, ugly baggage, it conjures up for me images of kill shelters that destroy animals indiscriminately and pet parents who send their dogs or cats off to the vet to be killed because they were too needy or too expensive or they just didn’t want them anymore. Yes, killed. Please don’t misunderstand. I believe there comes a time when sometimes it is the only thing we can do to relieve an animal companion’s suffering. But I also believe we often overstep that “right” — often as a means of self-preservation, in the guise of “what’s best for her.” And, in fact, there is just no way to get around that we are killing our beloved companions; they are not just dying. We are taking life from them.

When we talk about death, we often do it in terms that sanitize the process. A person has “passed on” or “gone to Heaven” or “bought the farm” or “transitioned.” Although we may believe what the terms we use imply — I prefer the latter term as, in death, we are transitioning out of this life and into an unknown — we still can’t seem to get our heads around the idea that at the end of this life, we will be no more. Regardless of our beliefs, there can be no argument that we are gone from the world as we know it. We won’t go out with friends anymore, cook dinner, watch television, or have long intimate conversations (and more) with our lovers. Despite what many think, we don’t know where we will go or be or if, maybe, we just disappear into the nothingness.

Nobody wants to just disappear, to no longer be a part of the world. You and I don’t want to be thrust into a dark and empty (why must it always be dark and empty? Why not a beautiful forest with tall and protective trees and lots of chatty birds?) place, alone and without the people and animals we love so we, as humans, create these places where we will live on, in one form or another.

We do the same thing for our animal companions. The difference is that we are making a decision to end their lives based on presumed knowledge. We actually don’t know for a certainty, that they want to die. What we do know is that we don’t want to see them suffer. Many times, we don’t truly make the decision for them, but rather for how we are feeling about their illness or injury. We “don’t want to see them suffer” is a common phrase I hear which says volumes about how we make these end-of-life decisions. We don’t like to sit with their suffering, or what we perceive to be their suffering. And, in this culture, suffering is to be avoided at all cost.

I heard someone say that euthanasia is a “beautiful” process. I’ve been in that position where I’ve had to make a decision about a pet, sat with her while the vet injected the drug that would (literally) per her to sleep before she died, watch my family slip away. It wasn’t beautiful. It was heart-wrenching. She was no more. And I didn’t actually know if I had eliminated her suffering or made it worse. But in the end, it was apparent that I’d been complicit in her killing.

I think natural death is a beautiful process. Slipping away, dissolving into the surrounding energy, as we are meant to do. I’m aware that we all have different views of what happens at/after death; it is that knowledge that gives me pause when considering euthanasia. What if, by killing a pet, we are plunging them into a deeper and darker suffering? Does the suffering they experience while alive serve a purpose? Am I truly doing it for them or to alleviate the pain and anxiety I feel, watching them decline?

There is no one answer that serves everyone. As humans, we will follow our beliefs no matter where they take us. But I would hope that, as guardians of those who are family, we would use the opportunity when the time comes to think seriously and critically about why we are making the decision we are.

And I would hope that, regardless of those personal beliefs, we can respect those of others and help them through the grief process without judgment.

The Loss of Harambe

The following was posted on my wordpress site on May 29, 2016.  I am reposting it here and have added some additional commentary and follow-up regarding the actions The Cincinnati Zoo has taken since this horrific incident in May of last year. 

On Saturday, May 28th, 2016, the Cincinnati Zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response Team shot and killed Harambe, a 17-year-old Western lowland silverback Gorilla, one of the world’s critically endangered animals.
Harambe was transferred to The Cincinnati Zoo from the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, TX in September, 2014 and is a captive born gorilla.
Although the complete story is still sketchy, all news outlets – local, national, and international – are reporting that a 4-year-old boy breached the barrier to the gorilla enclosure, fell down approximately 10-12 feet into the moat that separates the public from the area the animals populate, and was approached by Harambe. After a short time, he dragged the boy to the far end of the moat and, when the security team arrived, they made the decision to shoot and kill the gorilla instead of tranquilizing him, for the safety of the child. The child was then retrieved and taken to Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was conscious and talking to paramedics, with reported scratches and a bump on the head.
A couple of videos and news stories are worth watching/reading:
As one might imagine, public reaction to this story was immediate and visceral. Reactions range from concern for the well-being of the child to sadness for the loss of Harambe to outright rage toward both the adults responsible for this child and the zoo, for having a penetrable barrier and a solution that was simply not good enough in so many peoples’ eyes.
I had several reactions, all at once, and am still processing the jumble of thoughts and emotions this triggered in me. I think it’s important when something like this happens and we are not there, we are not witness to it, that we are cautious about not only our own reaction to our feelings and how we care for ourselves during these times, but also how we think about and react to others.
A number of news stories on this incident report that, before crossing the barrier and falling into the moat, witnesses heard the child express an interest in going into the water and that the mother had both heard and responded to him by telling him “no.” One story also mentions that the mother accompanying this child had a total of six children with her. There was no mention of another adult chaperone, and no other news agency has reported on the parent or guardians. Many folks have commented both that the mother is to blame for not supervising her son and that one cannot and should not blame the mother, as it is very easy to become separated from a child in public. While I am going to withhold specific blame in this case for the parents until I get more specific details, I do think it sounds like there was a serious lack of supervision that led to the injury of this little boy and the death of this beautiful animal.
The Cincinnati Zoo’s response to the introduction of a human boy into Harambe’s environ is deeply regrettable, but I’m not certain they had another option. Maynard admitted that the young boy was not being harmed while with Harambe, but he believed he was in potential danger.
“You’re talking about an animal that’s over 400 pounds and
extremely strong. So no, the child wasn’t under attack but all
sorts of things could happen in a situation like that. He certainly
was at risk,” Maynard tells WLWT.

Many people did not understand why the Response Team chose a lethal kill over the use of tranquilizers. It took 10 minutes for Security to arrive and it is reported that the child was in the enclosure for 10-15 minutes. We can speculate, in hindsight, what they should have done but, in fact, they had moments to make a decision. Harambe, a 400lb wild animal, fairly new to the zoo and (as can be seen in the video) somewhat agitated by all that was going on, was hands-on with the 4-year-old that had entered his territory. Not under attack, but potentially at risk. Shooting him with a tranquilizer gun would have startled him, probably increasing his agitation, and the effects of the tranquilizing agent would have taken a couple minutes to take effect.

It’s a tragedy, any way you look at it.
There was one foolproof way to have prevented it, though.  If Harambe had never been a captive gorilla, on display for thousands of people to walk by and point and shout at, he would never have come in contact with this 4-year-old boy and no one would have had to make the tragic decision to shoot and kill him. That is fact.
And to even suggest, as some have, that Harambe didn’t suffer, yesterday or during his entire life in captivity is a shameful statement.
Zoos are being touted as institutions of conservation and education.  And The Cincinnati Zoo has been better than most in both of these efforts. But as a lifelong supporter of this zoo, as someone who was active in youth programs there, volunteered there, attended many behind-the-scenes events there I have, over the last several years, begun to grow into a new understanding of what zoos are to the animals they hold captive. And I’ve come to see the zoo from the perspective of the animal and, equally as important, I think, I’ve begun to rethink our methods of conservation.
Now, when I go to the zoo, I can’t see past the swaying elephants and the pacing cats.  The animals that are chewing the bars of their cages and the solitary birds that are kept in darkened, cramped quarters with no room to fly and plastic foliage, pretty and on display for our pleasure. Now, when I go to the zoo, tears fill my eyes when I see tiny terrarium after terrarium filled with snakes and frogs and lizards, destined to live life in a 12×6 in glass cell. Now, when I go to the zoo, I hear people talk about conservation, but I see common birds and reptiles, captive, not to conserve, but to exhibit as museum pieces for profit.
Harambe, like many others, was born a captive to remain a captive until death. Is this conservation?
Metta to all who remain captive.
March, 2017 – Follow-up commentary
The little boy who fell into the enclosure was taken to Children’s Hospital, but not seriously injured.  Investigation by local authorities determined that the parents – and the mother, in particular – would not be charged in the incident, even though there was an international outcry after the gorilla was shot and killed. 
Some of the more thoughtful commentary after the incident by experts in the fields of zoology, conservation, and anthropology focused on where we should be moving in terms of conservation and education in the future and what place zoos have in society.  A particularly interesting one, worth listening to is here, The Future of Zoos:
The barrier which was breached by the child has since been further secured and a sign has been added by the zoo, not only at the gorilla enclosure, but at similar barriers all around the zoo. The USDA had not found the zoo non-compliant in earlier inspections. 
 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/17/report-cincy-zoos-gorilla-barrier-wasnt-compliance/94025422/

There will be a great deal more to say about this and similar incidents in future blogs.

Metta to all.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started