How To Stop Euthanasia For Animals And Made Illegal And Against The Law For Good By Nicole Elizabeth Branconnier Read Count : 11
Category : Articles
Sub Category : Politics
While it might seem that the push for euthanasia and assisted suicide is inevitable, there is actually reason for hope, Despite more than 80 years of campaigning it is remarkable how few countries have taken this road, while an equal number or more have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide. Most serious attempts to evaluate this question whether through court cases, parliaments or expert committees in most countries and in most states of the USA have resulted in the rejection of assisted suicide or euthanasia. Approximately 6 to 8 million animals are handled by animal shelters in the U.S. each year. Even though some are reclaimed or adopted, nearly 4 million unwanted dogs and cats are left with nowhere to go. Animal shelters cannot humanely house and support all these animals until their natural deaths. They would be forced to live in cramped cages or kennels for years, lonely and stressed, and other animals would have to be turned away because there would be no room for them and true euthanasia delivered by an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital is painless, quick, and dignified. Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus.” The American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States agree that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. Unfortunately, some animals will be killed by municipal officials using unacceptable and cruel methods, such as gunshot. Bullets are often not placed precisely in the struggling animal’s head or are deflected, and some animals survive the first shot only to be shot again and again. Many animal shelters still use outdated gas chambers to kill animals who aren’t adopted or reclaimed. Even the “worse” gas boxes can expose conscious animals to the horror of watching other animals in the box suffer from convulsions and muscular spasms as they slowly die. Old, young, and sick animals are particularly susceptible to gas-related trauma and will die slow and highly stressful deaths. there are still facilities in the U.S. that kill animals using painful electrocution or cruel decompression chambers, which make the gases in animals’ sinuses, middle ears, and intestines expand quickly, causing considerable discomfort or severe pain. Some animals survive the first go-around in decompression chambers and are recompressed because of malfunctioning equipment or an operator’s mistake or because they get trapped in air pockets. They are then put through the painful procedure all over again. For more information for a creation of a new law a bill stopping euthanasia on all Healthy/ill and injured Adoptable Animals in Shelters across the States. They are euthanizing them daily. Pit Bulls are ALWAYS the first breed to be killed in Shelters, this needs to stop once and for all. We need to get all these Shelters to become a "No Kill Shelter" unless the animals are suffering and or terminally ill. However sadly they have been primary focusing on killing the breed Pit Bulls because of their breed when you ask about adoptions they are misplaced or have already been murdered, this is of all Breeds too. Many Shelters are killing them after just 24 to 48 hours after intake. A civilized society does not accept or endorse these " Mass Killings" that is presently taking place across our nation, it's become an epidemic. Shelters must begin to work with volunteers in an effort to reduce the euthanizing of animals.They need to give us all more time to help finding homes then 24 hours, when they are placed on the infamous "kill list". This needs to be shared and signed so we can reach others with the same goals for these loving animals that cannot fight for themselves as they lay sad confused and lonely on that cold dreadful floor in that shelter cage, you know they don't understand why their owner just turned their backs on them and walked away and left them there, I'm sure they waited all day for them to come back and get them to take them home, such a cowardly act these pathetic people are who can do this and sleep at night with a clear conscious, how could they just leave them behind without going back having doubts.They lack empathy and real love that's how these horrible owners just walk away while their Dog or Cat gets dragged away in a black plastic garbage bag, the dreadful inconceivable pictures on Twitter it was so frightening, cold blooded cruelty at its worst like a fictional horror movie, I literally had to look several times to confirm what the heck I just saw, 7 that's right "seven" black garbage bags all full of dead animals in front of each cage with the door open like they were trash being taken out to the garbage bin the cold plastic bags are the last thing these precious These animals know one thing that's a given and that's true unconditional love anything different was taught by a bad owner, I know for I've raised this breed for years and Pit Bulls are loving compassionate companions. I understand there are attacks where Dogs bite a human, however there are way more human on human violence than there is Dog on human violence, this applies to any breed. We the People want them held accountable for euthanizing of healthy animals and a stop to it once and for all.The majority are killed over space and put on a "kill list" each day and night before social media activist even have time to find help!I tried to find the up to date stats but The National euthanasia statistics are difficult to pinpoint because animal care and control agencies are not required to keep statistics on the number of animals euthanized. Why many shelters do not have to keep up the value of statistics bothers me, that's giving them free reign to euthanize more and more without trying to find them homes and or be held accountable for many Dogs killed in error, it's the easiest answer to them sad but true! With no national reporting structure existing to make compiling national statistics on these figures possible we need to ensure a bill is passed where they have to abide.Unfortunately, the most recent statistics published by the National Council online are from 1997, and only 1,000 shelters replied to the survey at that time. Using the National Council's numbers from 1997 and estimating the number of operating shelters in the United States to be 3,500 (the exact number of animal shelters operating in the United States does not exist), these estimates were made:It stated of the 1,000 shelters that replied to the National Council's survey, 4.3 million animals were handled.In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters. These animals may have been euthanized due to overcrowding and a most recent cause they use to kill is "kennel cough" when that is so treatable.56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification.Only 15.8 percent of dogs and 2 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners.25 percent of dogs and 24 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted. This will change until animal advocates voice their feelings to their legislators and let them know they will be held accountable in the voting booth. They cannot fight for themselves, we have to be their voice. Take a stance with me today to stop the slaughtering of healthy Dogs and Cats of all Breeds. The exact number of animals euthanized is difficult to determine since animal shelters are not obligated to keep statistics about euthanizing animals. When a lost, stray or abandoned pet entered an American city’s animal shelter 10 years ago, there was a good chance it would not leave. But in a quiet transformation, pet euthanasia rates have plummeted in big cities in recent years, falling more than 75 percent since 2009. A rescue, an adoption or a return to an owner or community is now a far likelier outcome, a shift that experts say has happened nationwide. One reason the data is scarce: What it represents is sensitive. Even in the best-run shelters, workers face criticism, even death threats, for euthanizing animals. the most recent director of sheltering initiatives at the Humane Society of the United States. She supports more data transparency, but in her view, many shelters face impossible expectations. They also operate with varying levels of political and community support. By the 1970s, the Humane Society estimated that 25 percent of the nation’s dogs were out on the streets and that 13.5 million animals were euthanized in shelters each year (some argue that number was much higher). In 1971, Los Angeles’s shelter alone euthanized more than 110,000 animals, or 300 per day on average. Since then, large-scale activism, industry professionalization and shifting cultural attitudes have helped limit euthanasia to fewer than two million shelter animals per year. In 2018, the Los Angeles city shelter euthanized an average of 10 animals per day, less than 10 percent of its intake. Animal welfare experts tend to agree that since the 1970s, the number of stray animals entering American shelters has decreased sharply the result of a successful push to promote spaying and neutering of pets. A recent paper in the journal Animals found that up until about 2010, the drop in shelter euthanasia tracked very closely with the drop in intake. After that, the authors wrote, it appeared that adoptions helped to further drive down euthanasia rates.Nearly all of the shelters in the Times analysis increased adoptions over the 10-year period surveyed. Many of the animals rescued are transported north from Southern states with higher rates of euthanasia. The A.S.P.C.A. alone relocated 40,000 animals in 2018. Most of the shelters in this analysis also continue to reduce the number of animals they take in. Programs to spay/neuter and release community cats are one factor. There has also been a rise in programs helping people resolve problems like landlord disputes and unaffordable vet care that might otherwise compel them to give up their pets. These trends reflect the professionalization of the shelter industry. Its members attend conferences and have their own magazine and veterinary specialization. Shelters increasingly use data to direct their resources, and they collaborate with a growing network of rescue groups and volunteers to fill in the gaps. Many shelters have been pushed along by no-kill advocates, who oppose euthanizing any healthy or treatable animal, often using a 90 percent “live release” benchmark. (A live release rate is essentially the inverse of the euthanasia rate, though not every shelter calculates it the same way.) In part because of the success of the no-kill movement, many shelters in the nation’s largest cities euthanize only the most ill or aggressive animals. The movement’s critics agree that it has helped decrease euthanasia, but they point to examples of no-kill shelters in which animals have suffered in poor conditions or were released to families despite having exhibited dangerous behavior. . A 2010 evaluation by the Humane Society identified inadequate record keeping, “a morale crisis” and “alarming” care of sick or injured animals. To reduce euthanasia rates, management discouraged field officers from impounding strays. Then, in May 2016, a homeless veteran, Antoinette Brown, was mauled to death by a pack of dogs in South Dallas. Public outcry led the city to bring in consultants, who determined that there were about 8,700 loose dogs roaming city streets, contributing to more than 1,600 dog bites in the city that year. The dogs were almost exclusively found in low-income South Dallas neighborhoods, where only 15 percent of them were spayed or neutered. prevent and/or relieve the pain and suffering of animal.In creating the 2020 and 2013 edition of the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (Guide- lines), the POE made every effort to identify and ap- ply the best research and empirical information avail- able. As new research is conducted and more practical experience gained, recommended methods of eu- thanasia may change. asphyxia and decapitation euthanasia of the laboratory rat. The POE’s objective in creating the Guidelines is to provide guidance for veterinarians about how to prevent and/or relieve the pain and suffering of ani- mals that are to be euthanized. While every effort has been made to identify and recommend appropriate approaches for common species encountered under common conditions, the POE recognized there will be less than perfect situations in which a recommend- ed method of euthanasia may not be possible and a method or agent that is best under the circumstances will need to be applied. For this reason, although the Guidelines may be interpreted and understood by a broad segment of the general population, a veterinarian should be consulted in their application. performed.While recommendations are made, it is impor- tant for those utilizing these recommendations to un- derstand that, in some instances, agents and methods of euthanasia identified as appropriate for a particular species may not be available or may become less than an ideal choice due to differences in circumstances. Conversely, when settings are atypical, methods nor- mally not considered appropriate may become the method of choice. Under such conditions, the hu- maneness (or perceived lack thereof) of the method used to bring about the death of an animal may be distinguished from the intent or outcome associated with an act of killing. Following this reasoning, it may still be an act of euthanasia to kill an animal in a man- ner that is not perfectly humane or that would not be considered appropriate in other contexts. For exam- ple, due to lack of control over free-ranging wildlife and the stress associated with close human contact, use of a firearm may be the most appropriate means of euthanasia. Also, shooting a suffering animal that is in extremis, instead of catching and transporting it to a clinic to euthanize it using a method normally considered to be appropriate (eg, barbiturates), is consistent with one interpretation of a good death. The former method promotes the animal’s overall in- terests by ending its misery quickly, even though the latter technique may be considered to be more ac- ceptable under normal conditions.19 Neither of these examples, however, absolves the individual from their responsibility to ensure that recommended methods and agents of euthanasia are preferentially used. animal ethics and animal welfare issues and that they are able to participate in meaningful ways. While an essential ingredient in public discourses about ani- mals, sound science is by itself inadequate to address questions of ethics and values that surround the ap- propriate treatment of animals, especially as they relate to end-of-life issues. Since the 2013 edition, a number of authors20,21 have probed in greater depth the issue of a good death for animals in both philo- sophical and ethical terms. To this end, and consis- tent with its charge, the POE hopes to provide veteri- narians, those under their supervision, and the public with well-informed and credible arguments on how to approach the ethically important and sometimes complex issue of the death of an animal. In so doing, it hopes to promote greater understanding regarding the contexts or settings involving euthanasia and the complexity of end-of-life issues involving animals.While not a regulatory body, the AVMA also hopes to offer guidance to those who may apply these Guidelines as part of regulatory structures designed to protect the welfare of animals used for human purposes. By creating and maintaining these Guidelines, the AVMA hopes to ensure that when a veterinarian or other professional intentionally kills an animal under their charge, it is done with respect for the interests of the animal and that the process is as humane as possible (ie, that it minimizes pain and distress to the animal and that death occurs as rapidly as possible).The AVMA does not take the death of nonhuman animals lightly and attempts to provide guidance for its members on both the morality and practical ne- cessity of the intentional killing of animals. Veteri- narians, in carrying out the tenets of their Oath, may be compelled to bring about the intentional death of animals for a variety of reasons. The finality of death is, in part, what makes it an ethically important issue; death forever cuts off future positive states, benefits, 22 23,24or opportunities. In cases where an animal no longer has a good life, however, its death also extinguishes permanently any and all future harms associated with poor welfare or quality of life. What constitutes a good life and what counts as an impoverished life, or one that has limited quality such that the death of the animal is the most humane option, are research areas in need of further study by the veterinary and ethics communities Animal scientists and veterinarian,In cases where an animal no longer are also investigating the processes by which an animal dies during the antemortem period and euthanasia methods and techniques that mitigate harmful The intentional killing of healthy animals, as well as those that are impaired, is a serious concern for the public. When animals must be killed and veterinar- ians are called upon to assist, the AVMA encourages careful consideration of the decision to euthanize effects. the different contexts within which euthanasia occurs, so that improvements in the performance and outcomes of euthanasia can be made. Further research is also needed,It is profoundly distressing that a vet could make such a massive error and not realise that what they had done was wrong we all make mistakes, but not accepting and learning from them is the cardinal sin in our profession. In very small animals, it is often virtually painless to inject into the animal to give your pet the most humane, painless and stress-free end that we can.