Interesting AMA on Reddit today

[Trematode]

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23leg0/iama_veterinary_student_who_just_got_back_from/

A veterinary student worked in a shelter run by Jains, who don't believe in killing an animal for any reason.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[battie]

You'd have to be an emotionally strong person to handle that.

 

[Lissarae06]

Those poor animals. That's bullcrap. Humane euthanasia is IMO a gift that we can provide our patients who are suffering as so many of the animals in those pictures clearly are.

 

[bluesails]

Those poor animals. That's bullcrap. Humane euthanasia is IMO a gift that we can provide our patients who are suffering as so many of the animals in those pictures clearly are.

I agree that humane euthanasia has been an important advancement in our understanding of what to do with animal pain, but I would refrain from passing off this practice's views as 'bullcrap'. I've worked in different parts of Asia and I know that euthanasia fits very differently into the culture there, plus Jainism is one of the oldest South Asian religions in the world. I've been lucky enough to talk to a Jain and I know they are actually very respectful, polite, and willing to talk at length about their philosophy towards living beings. Again, I understand that it's hard for ANY of us to agree that those animals should have kept on living - but I really hesitate to casually criticize a practice that is obviously rooted in a cultural tradition we can't really hope to understand in our climate of animal welfare.

I'm sure the poster of this AMA struggled with this very issue and I'm pretty happy with the way she handled most of the questions.

 

[Lissarae06]

I agree that humane euthanasia has been an important advancement in our understanding of what to do with animal pain, but I would refrain from passing off this practice's views as 'bullcrap'. I've worked in different parts of Asia and I know that euthanasia fits very differently into the culture there, plus Jainism is one of the oldest South Asian religions in the world. I've been lucky enough to talk to a Jain and I know they are actually very respectful, polite, and willing to talk at length about their philosophy towards living beings. Again, I understand that it's hard for ANY of us to agree that those animals should have kept on living - but I really hesitate to casually criticize a practice that is obviously rooted in a cultural tradition we can't really hope to understand in our climate of animal welfare.

I'm sure the poster of this AMA struggled with this very issue and I'm pretty happy with the way she handled most of the questions.

I don't care what religion it is, it is bullcrap to keep rabid animals in the same cage. It is bullcrap to force these animals to be in pain. I'm not casually criticizing a practice. I am seeing animals suffering unnecessarily. Even if they don't want to euthanize, not addressing these animals' needs for weeks is unacceptable to me. They might be perfectly respectful and willing to talk, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their views or not criticize them.

 

[bluesails]

I don't care what religion it is, it is bullcrap to keep rabid animals in the same cage. It is bullcrap to force these animals to be in pain. I'm not casually criticizing a practice. I am seeing animals suffering unnecessarily. Even if they don't want to euthanize, not addressing these animals' needs for weeks is unacceptable to me. They might be perfectly respectful and willing to talk, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their views or not criticize them.

Okay... I think we both agree that we are seeing unnecessary suffering here. I agree completely that no one has to lie down and agree with their views. What I mean is that there are ways to talk constructively about what to do about practices like this (that are obviously operating on / taking advantage of a different kind of logic / understanding of animal welfare) without just calling it bullcrap and leaving it at that. I would, in fact, criticize the management of this practice as well! But our duty as (future) veterinarians is to go beyond calling things names on the internet. I think that was the point that I was trying to make - does this make sense?

I wonder if the local Jainist community could be persuaded to take a stand and talk to whoever is operating this clinic - if they want to be interpreted as a shelter that runs by Jainist values then I wonder what the actual public opinion of the clinic is. One commenter mentioned that he/she was Jain and was saddened by the unnecessary stagnation of dogma that's obviously happening in this case - if more Jains actually feel that way then maybe some type of publicizing approach would help persuade its clientele to rally for change. The author did mention they were partly funded by Jain donors.

 

[DVMDream]

Okay... I think we both agree that we are seeing unnecessary suffering here. I agree completely that no one has to lie down and agree with their views. What I mean is that there are ways to talk constructively about what to do about practices like this (that are obviously operating on / taking advantage of a different kind of logic / understanding of animal welfare) without just calling it bullcrap and leaving it at that. I would, in fact, criticize the management of this practice as well! But our duty as (future) veterinarians is to go beyond calling things names on the internet. I think that was the point that I was trying to make - does this make sense?

I wonder if the local Jainist community could be persuaded to take a stand and talk to whoever is operating this clinic - if they want to be interpreted as a shelter that runs by Jainist values then I wonder what the actual public opinion of the clinic is. One commenter mentioned that he/she was Jain and was saddened by the unnecessary stagnation of dogma that's obviously happening in this case - if more Jains actually feel that way then maybe some type of publicizing approach would help persuade its clientele to rally for change. The author did mention they were partly funded by Jain donors.

I think you are being overly sensitive of someone using the word bullcrap. Maybe it is just a trend that I have seen but society as a whole is becoming way too easily butthurt over simple things. People used to be able to tell someone they are acting stupid and others would ignore it. Now it is as if we have to hand hold everyone, pat them on the back when they take a step forward and we can never give negative criticism. This helps no one. I personally agree with lissa, what is occurring in that practice is bullcrap; I don't give a rat's ass what their religion is. Changes in this world have not been made by holding hands, singing kumbaya and kindly telling them what they are doing is basically the worst form of animal abuse. If someone wants to call what they are doing bullcrap that doesn't make them wrong, that is a form of negative criticism, which is needed. I really think people would benefit greatly if they would stop being so sensitive and instead actually listen to what others are saying. It seems we have now instilled into people to reflexively respond to any harsh words and to get irrationally upset over them. I see this trend in the pre-vets from last year where our realistic viewpoints were stated to be negative, unappreciated and that we should just GTFO of "their" forum and go to our own. I find it sad that people are becoming so overly sensitive and that any negative criticism now has to be made while biting your tongue and making sure that not a single word you said would upset that person. It is starting to get quite absurd to be completely honest.

 

[WildZoo]

I agree that humane euthanasia has been an important advancement in our understanding of what to do with animal pain, but I would refrain from passing off this practice's views as 'bullcrap'. I've worked in different parts of Asia and I know that euthanasia fits very differently into the culture there, plus Jainism is one of the oldest South Asian religions in the world. I've been lucky enough to talk to a Jain and I know they are actually very respectful, polite, and willing to talk at length about their philosophy towards living beings. Again, I understand that it's hard for ANY of us to agree that those animals should have kept on living - but I really hesitate to casually criticize a practice that is obviously rooted in a cultural tradition we can't really hope to understand in our climate of animal welfare.

I'm sure the poster of this AMA struggled with this very issue and I'm pretty happy with the way she handled most of the questions.

Maybe it's just me, but just because something is rooted in tradition doesn't mean it can't be called out like anything else. There are plenty of examples of horrendous practices that were rooted in tradition, and that continued beyond the time when they should have, often simply because of a desire to maintain that tradition.

 

[BlackDog17]

Okay... I think we both agree that we are seeing unnecessary suffering here. I agree completely that no one has to lie down and agree with their views. What I mean is that there are ways to talk constructively about what to do about practices like this (that are obviously operating on / taking advantage of a different kind of logic / understanding of animal welfare) without just calling it bullcrap and leaving it at that. I would, in fact, criticize the management of this practice as well! But our duty as (future) veterinarians is to go beyond calling things names on the internet. I think that was the point that I was trying to make - does this make sense?

I wonder if the local Jainist community could be persuaded to take a stand and talk to whoever is operating this clinic - if they want to be interpreted as a shelter that runs by Jainist values then I wonder what the actual public opinion of the clinic is. One commenter mentioned that he/she was Jain and was saddened by the unnecessary stagnation of dogma that's obviously happening in this case - if more Jains actually feel that way then maybe some type of publicizing approach would help persuade its clientele to rally for change. The author did mention they were partly funded by Jain donors.

I definitely agree with you there. While we in the US/Candada/Europe definitely have a LOT to work on in terms of animal welfare, our understanding of what constitutes animal suffering and proper treatment of animals is VASTLY different than that of many other areas of the world. There are parts of the world where people actually still believe that animals do not feel pain! The cultural, religious, and societal implications of animal use are entirely different than what we've come to consider acceptable. That doesn't make those practices okay, or any less horrific. It just means that it's going to take a lot more effort, persuasion, and understanding to try to change those practices, and it certainly isn't going to happen overnight.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I mean I would 100% euthanize animals who are suffering and have a poor quality of life, but hospice care til death is a standard in humans too, so I wouldn't say it's the worst thing in the world if there are people of a very kind religion who are trying to provide hospice care for sick animals. For some parts of the world, hospice care for people/animals are super cruddy but it's just the way things are... I've seen this kind of thing happen in an org in the US and I was horrified and I was super angry about it. But at the same time, we don't live in a part of the world where people live in horrific conditions either. I dunno where in India this is, but some parts of India are really horrible places to live for many of their people/animals. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that mercy killing is something I'd advocate for many of these animals. But of all the problems you can tackle and all the suffering that is going on likely outside of this org, I'm not sure my priority would be to fight them for their religious beliefs, when they are trying to help within the constraints of their religion. I think it's sad that it would be more humane (and cost effective) to euthanize these animals. But not everyone believes suffering is worse than death. And if the alternative is that these animals were going to starve paralyzed in the street, or if these confined rabid dogs were going to be running amok biting children, I'm not sure I can say that these people are doing wrong. Sure... They may be prolonging suffering for some of these animals, and we may claim they're doing wrong by not doing the "right thing by euthanizing," but that happens in people all the time. Holy crap I hope never to have a slow agonizing death on hospice care in a 3rd world country...

TL;DR - I wish they would euthanize animals with poor QOL, but given the circumstances, I don't think the place is doing "wrong"

 

[BlackDog17]

TL;DR - I wish they would euthanize animals with poor QOL, but given the circumstances, I don't think the place is doing "wrong"

I think my problem with it is not so much that they aren't euthanizing the animals, it's that according to the author of the AMA, they're leaving many of them to suffer unbearable pain for weeks on end without treatment. If your religion makes you firmly believe in allowing that animal to have a natural death, then fine. I don't think I can argue with that, as much as I would advocate for humane euthanasia. But leaving that animal on the street to succumb to its illness is a perfectly natural death. Feeding it, sheltering it from the elements, and protecting it from predators is all well and good, but doing so without providing any sort of pain relief or treatment is just forcibly extending the duration of its suffering. I realize that they probably have very limited resources for treatment, but still, I have to wonder if allowing that animal to die by starvation or predation wouldn't be more humane than keeping it alive for weeks and months just so it can suffer for the sake of "natural death".

 

[DVMDream]

I mean I would 100% euthanize animals who are suffering and have a poor quality of life, but hospice care til death is a standard in humans too, so I wouldn't say it's the worst thing in the world if there are people of a very kind religion who are trying to provide hospice care for sick animals. For some parts of the world, hospice care for people/animals are super cruddy but it's just the way things are... I've seen this kind of thing happen in an org in the US and I was horrified and I was super angry about it. But at the same time, we don't live in a part of the world where people live in horrific conditions either. I dunno where in India this is, but some parts of India are really horrible places to live for many of their people/animals. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that mercy killing is something I'd advocate for many of these animals. But of all the problems you can tackle and all the suffering that is going on likely outside of this org, I'm not sure my priority would be to fight them for their religious beliefs, when they are trying to help within the constraints of their religion. I think it's sad that it would be more humane (and cost effective) to euthanize these animals. But not everyone believes suffering is worse than death. And if the alternative is that these animals were going to starve paralyzed in the street, or if these confined rabid dogs were going to be running amok biting children, I'm not sure I can say that these people are doing wrong. Sure... They may be prolonging suffering for some of these animals, and we may claim they're doing wrong by not doing the "right thing by euthanizing," but that happens in people all the time. Holy crap I hope never to have a slow agonizing death on hospice care in a 3rd world country...

TL;DR - I wish they would euthanize animals with poor QOL, but given the circumstances, I don't think the place is doing "wrong"

Even if they didn't believe in euthanizing the animals, which I have worked with clients who have this same belief, I still think there is a lot to be desired in the way those animals appear to being cared for. Again, it is just a bunch of pictures so we don't really know what is going on. But, paralyzed dogs having bed sores from laying in the same position for too long.... move them. Dogs having to wait weeks for a leg amputation that will help their QOL and improve their pain is ridiculous especially when the person stated the reason it took so long was due to, "shi**y time management and lack of empathy". I find something wrong with the lack of empathy, but again from this person's posts on reddit it seems that a lot of humans in this area live close to the same lives as these dogs. I see that the place is trying to help, but I am not sure they are doing any better than just letting the animals lie on the street to die. Especially given these comments from the person who posted about the experience:

The real question is why they wanted to be vets at all. I don't know. One of them hit a dog because his ****ty stitches failed. I was wondering if maybe it was a cultural thing, but I couldn't tell you. Apparently vet school in India teaches mostly husbandry things rather than medical/surgical things.

I was shocked at the main surgeon and how little he seemed to care about animal suffering.

I would say perhaps it is a cultural difference, but I am not so sure since she also stated that there were two vets there that were very empathetic.

Also, she stated that birds of prey and cats could only be fed meat products when the owners of the shelter were not watching or around.

It just seems like a lot of bad, in my opinion. I think it is great the rabid dogs aren't on the street and some animals are at least getting some type of treatment but I wonder if some of them wouldn't be better off dying a little bit of a quicker death on the streets from starvation rather than lying on a water bed dying slowly.

 

[Lissarae06]

I think my problem with it is not so much that they aren't euthanizing the animals, it's that according to the author of the AMA, they're leaving many of them to suffer unbearable pain for weeks on end without treatment. If your religion makes you firmly believe in allowing that animal to have a natural death, then fine. I don't think I can argue with that, as much as I would advocate for humane euthanasia. But leaving that animal on the street to succumb to its illness is a perfectly natural death. Feeding it, sheltering it from the elements, and protecting it from predators is all well and good, but doing so without providing any sort of pain relief or treatment is just forcibly extending the duration of its suffering. I realize that they probably have very limited resources for treatment, but still, I have to wonder if allowing that animal to die by starvation or predation wouldn't be more humane than keeping it alive for weeks and months just so it can suffer for the sake of "natural death".

I was literally about to write the same thing.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Too much moral relativism. Some things are just NOT ok. I don't care what religion you are. Purposefully prolonging horrible suffering is something else entirely.

 

[battie]

Too much moral relativism. Some things are just NOT ok. I don't care what religion you are. Purposefully prolonging horrible suffering is something else entirely.

But isn't everything relative to a certain degree? I agree that the suffering seen in the photos is atrocious and should not be allowed to go on, but the photos mean nothing without the context. The way the animals are treated in that part of the world is not going to change without a rehaul of the entire mindset in that part of the world.

Moreover, can we complain how they treat their animals when we in this country can be just as easily guilty? Yeah, the average shelter does not have animals that look like that here, but we also have some moral apathy towards our animals here. One person in the comments of that reddit post mentioned how there is a significant portion of animals in shelters because of our "throw away" mentality. When it is inconvenient to have a pet, people get rid of them. Not all people, but a lot do. And instead of looking for a home through social networking (finding a friend of a friend of a friend), that pet ends up in a shelter.

Also, our punishments for animal cruelty/abuse could use a rehaul. Just look at the Micheal Vick case. I bet a lot of us on here would agree that he should have gotten a lot more than he did and should never be allowed to own a dog. But look at where he is now. Still a professional quarterback, not nearly long enough jail time for the amount of suffering he caused, and he now owns a new dog.

 

[bluesails]

I think you are being overly sensitive of someone using the word bullcrap. Maybe it is just a trend that I have seen but society as a whole is becoming way too easily butthurt over simple things. People used to be able to tell someone they are acting stupid and others would ignore it. Now it is as if we have to hand hold everyone, pat them on the back when they take a step forward and we can never give negative criticism. This helps no one. I personally agree with lissa, what is occurring in that practice is bullcrap; I don't give a rat's ass what their religion is. Changes in this world have not been made by holding hands, singing kumbaya and kindly telling them what they are doing is basically the worst form of animal abuse. If someone wants to call what they are doing bullcrap that doesn't make them wrong, that is a form of negative criticism, which is needed. I really think people would benefit greatly if they would stop being so sensitive and instead actually listen to what others are saying. It seems we have now instilled into people to reflexively respond to any harsh words and to get irrationally upset over them. I see this trend in the pre-vets from last year where our realistic viewpoints were stated to be negative, unappreciated and that we should just GTFO of "their" forum and go to our own. I find it sad that people are becoming so overly sensitive and that any negative criticism now has to be made while biting your tongue and making sure that not a single word you said would upset that person. It is starting to get quite absurd to be completely honest.

I apologize if you felt that I was suggesting you should get off this thread or anything like that - that is definitely not what I am saying. You are right that my intention was to disagree with the wording of Lissarae's original post, but it is totally fine that she doesn't agree with what I said in return. I'm listening to what she's saying and I understand that she would rather not make any sort of exceptions for religion / moral relativism, as a couple of other people have similarly brought up.

My opinion: I also agree that animal abuse is animal abuse, but as a couple of people have brought up in this thread, I think it is probably important to look at the context of animal treatment in this country / religion when talking about this clinic. That does not excuse this animal abuse, and I am in no way giving them a pat on the back, but context should inform our conversation about what's going on. I'm really happy that this discussion has continued to bring up opinions on how people feel about this issue, and it is my opinion that it is extremely important to go beyond saying something is bullcrap - I don't mind the actual word, just the finality that it implies. I disagree with you that society is becoming hypersensitive - I think that it largely depends on what part of the country you are in (or what internet communities you're in, I guess) and I think that the majority of people would probably react similar to the way you would. I also think that in pretty much any situation where you get into the differences between very different countries / cultures, you should err on the side of being hypersensitive. We have no authority to say that we know all the facets of what goes on in veterinary practice in Jainism. You can DEFINITELY disagree with me on this, but I will always, always err on the side of caution when talking about issues on an international scale - we never know how ignorant we actually are when it comes to pointing fingers in someone else's home. (And maybe we're not. Maybe we're completely right! But I'd rather not assume that.)

It would be very different if this practice existed in the US, which it wouldn't. No one would give a crap about Jainism in the face of what we know is animal abuse. That's why Christian Scientists who deprive their children of medical treatment / vaccines often get into messy lawsuits - we know enough about Western medicine, and American culture has embraced Western medicine, to the point where this is definitely unacceptable. But I always, always hesitate to point fingers at practices in other countries. You can chalk it up to me being less realistic than you. That is fine, but I'd like to politely disagree.

 

[DVMDream]

But I always, always hesitate to point fingers at practices in other countries. You can chalk it up to me being less realistic than you. That is fine, but I'd like to politely disagree.

There would never be improvements in other countries if people didn't "point fingers". It isn't that we are "pointing fingers" we are saying that what that practice is doing is a bunch of bullcrap. I completely get that there are differences across countries when it comes to beliefs and thoughts on both human medicine and veterinary medicine. But when you have people on that website saying they are a part of the religion and they are offended by what the clinic is doing, you have to think that something is not right. When you have vets at the place that are hitting animals and blaming poor medical practices (granted they probably don't realize their practices are poor) on the patient and thus refusing to give the patient pain control, you bet your ass I will "point a finger". I don't think hitting animals is quite on agreement with Jainism, I also don't think having a completely lack of empathy is a part of Jainism either. The poster of the AMA, also pointed her finger WHILE at the practice and went to the director in order to assist getting a dog the amputation it needed. She did this because the vet was refusing to take care of the animal and help the animal. Yes, the vet backlashed and yelled at her for going above him, but the animal got the treatment that it desperately needed. At some point, SOMEONE has to point fingers and say that something is wrong, SOMEONE has to be the voice of reason. Somewhere along the line, we have to break down some of the religious and cultural barriers to fight for what is right. I am not suggesting that they start doing practice like is done in the US or the UK (that isn't possible), I am just saying they need to re-evaluate some of what they are doing and do better to improve it. A good start would be to stop hitting animals and stop doing medical procedures without pain meds/sedation because "the dog screwed up your surgery".

ETA: It seemed like the only thing you responded to in Lissa's post was that she called it bullcrap. I don't really know what else you would call it. I think bullcrap is a good summary of what is going on. So what if she didn't expand upon that thought process, this is an internet forum, not everyone is going to write out super detailed thoughts and ideas. Also, your bit about our duty is to do more than just calling things names on the internet is kind of a moot point. People can express on an anonymous internet forum to a bunch of peers that they think something is BS and the go on to do more about it outside of that forum. Do you have any intention of doing more than just discussing this on SDN?

 

[Minnerbelle]

I don't think I'll comment much more since it's not going to go anywhere. But I guess my point is more that when you have horrible suffering all around (be it a war zone or an impoverished area), I have a hard time chastising an organization that is trying to help even if they seem misguided from our point of view, unless I'm personally willing to do something about it. I just don't see the point in getting riled up about one place out of thousands and thousands out there just because 'one of our own' witnessed practices that don't agree with us (and I perfectly understand we're talking about animals in severe distress). I'm sure if we looked, there are tooooons and toooooons of places in foreign countries and to a lesser extend even in this country with similar practices) So what are we going to do about it? Petition India to change humane laws so that it's not okay, and have the org ousted? When they have so many other issues that are more pertinent? We can criticize religion all we want, but it's not going to change how these people operate because it is apparently a core part of at least these people's beliefs. We can poo poo them all we want, and it's really not going to do anything other than allowing us to feel enlightened and civilized. I guess this type of discourse may fire a light under someone's ass, and get them to take action to save these particular animals. But this org im sure is one of many many others like it. Yes, i think it's unfortunate, and trust me it would kill me to see animals in this state. But is this something i feel the need to crusade against? no. Call me apathetic or callous or whatever, but that's just where I'm at. If that makes me a horrible human being, I'm not sure I care.

 

[DVMDream]

I don't think I'll comment much more since it's not going to go anywhere. But I guess my point is more that when you have horrible suffering all around (be it a war zone or an impoverished area), I have a hard time chastising an organization that is trying to help even if they seem misguided from our point of view, unless I'm personally willing to do something about it. I just don't see the point in getting riled up about one place out of thousands and thousands out there just because 'one of our own' witnessed practices that don't agree with us (and I perfectly understand we're talking about animals in severe distress). I'm sure if we looked, there are tooooons and toooooons of places in foreign countries and to a lesser extend even in this country with similar practices) So what are we going to do about it? Petition India to change humane laws so that it's not okay, and have the org ousted? When they have so many other issues that are more pertinent? We can criticize religion all we want, but it's not going to change how these people operate because it is apparently a core part of at least these people's beliefs. We can poo poo them all we want, and it's really not going to do anything other than allowing us to feel enlightened and civilized. I guess this type of discourse may fire a light under someone's ass, and get them to take action to save these particular animals. But this org im sure is one of many many others like it. Yes, i think it's unfortunate, and trust me it would kill me to see animals in this state. But is this something i feel the need to crusade against? no. Call me apathetic or callous or whatever, but that's just where I'm at. If that makes me a horrible human being, I'm not sure I care.

I actually agree with this. I do think there are a lot of places like this. At least if they are discovered in the US or the UK, then we can do something about it. I do not think there would be much to do in a place like India where so many humans are also living lives just as bad as these animals. Sure, it sucks. It would be nice to speak up for both humans and animals in the country, but it isn't a quick fix and it would be a very tedious task to attempt to bring solutions and a change of mind. I just don't find it ok to shrug off what they are doing as "oh well, that is just their religion". I agree there are many more pertinent issues for them to fix and it isn't something that I would go chasing down the organization for, but I still do think it is bullcrap.

 

[bluesails]

I actually agree with this. I do think there are a lot of places like this. At least if they are discovered in the US or the UK, then we can do something about it. I do not think there would be much to do in a place like India where so many humans are also living lives just as bad as these animals. Sure, it sucks. It would be nice to speak up for both humans and animals in the country, but it isn't a quick fix and it would be a very tedious task to attempt to bring solutions and a change of mind. I just don't find it ok to shrug off what they are doing as "oh well, that is just their religion". I agree there are many more pertinent issues for them to fix and it isn't something that I would go chasing down the organization for, but I still do think it is bullcrap.

I would really like to stress that I am not trying to shrug it off as "oh it's just religion." Sorry if that came across. Thank you for explaining more about your point of view. I think I agree with a lot of things Minnerbelle said as well.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

But isn't everything relative to a certain degree? I agree that the suffering seen in the photos is atrocious and should not be allowed to go on, but the photos mean nothing without the context. The way the animals are treated in that part of the world is not going to change without a rehaul of the entire mindset in that part of the world.

Moreover, can we complain how they treat their animals when we in this country can be just as easily guilty? Yeah, the average shelter does not have animals that look like that here, but we also have some moral apathy towards our animals here. One person in the comments of that reddit post mentioned how there is a significant portion of animals in shelters because of our "throw away" mentality. When it is inconvenient to have a pet, people get rid of them. Not all people, but a lot do. And instead of looking for a home through social networking (finding a friend of a friend of a friend), that pet ends up in a shelter.

Also, our punishments for animal cruelty/abuse could use a rehaul. Just look at the Micheal Vick case. I bet a lot of us on here would agree that he should have gotten a lot more than he did and should never be allowed to own a dog. But look at where he is now. Still a professional quarterback, not nearly long enough jail time for the amount of suffering he caused, and he now owns a new dog.

Yes, we can.

The whole "you can't tell someone they are doing something wrong when you are doing it to" argument is absolute bull****. It may be hypocritical, but it does not change the fact that both practices are wrong and deserving of pointing fingers.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I don't care what religion it is, it is bullcrap to keep rabid animals in the same cage. It is bullcrap to force these animals to be in pain. I'm not casually criticizing a practice. I am seeing animals suffering unnecessarily. Even if they don't want to euthanize, not addressing these animals' needs for weeks is unacceptable to me. They might be perfectly respectful and willing to talk, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their views or not criticize them.

Exactly.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Too much moral relativism. Some things are just NOT ok. I don't care what religion you are. Purposefully prolonging horrible suffering is something else entirely.

I have to disagree with most of you.

There is no question these animals are suffering, and practices can be improved, and probably if they had more funding and better training, some of the suffering could be ameliorated. … BUT the core issue is not an absolute.

To me the core issue is: what is more important: alleviating suffering, or never taking a life for any reason.

Sure, all of us (or most of us) posting here feel like alleviating suffering takes precedence, but that is just because that is YOUR belief system.

Clearly with humans our society takes the opposite view, that life should be extended, regardless of the suffering, and in India that is an extension of the same thing.

Now that doesn't excuse not treating the suffering….but I think that is a resource problem, not an ethical.

Anyway, I have seen enough different views and values to recognize I (and almost all of us) ALWAYS think our values are the "right" ones, but that doesn't make them right, just ours.

 

[that redhead]

And instead of looking for a home through social networking (finding a friend of a friend of a friend), that pet ends up in a shelter.

I would strongly prefer an animal looking for a new home to go to a shelter than for its owner to put it up on craigslist or Facebook "free to a good home." Shelters have loads more experience finding good homes/responsible families/compatible lifestyles for their animals than many owners would; similarly, shelters often have more man-power and resources to get the animal advertised (adoption events, wider reaching social media circles, established fosters/volunteers, etc). Just because you find a "friend of a friend" to take your dog doesn't mean they're going to be a good home, or even an adequate home. Shelters usually do a lot more research into potential homes/adopters.

We all hate to see an animal live at a shelter because it's not the ideal life for any animal. And yes, there are truly some terrible people out there who get bored with their pet or think it's too old or too big or too whatever for them to handle anymore. But there are truly some people attempting to be responsible by giving their pet up (sht hit the fan in one way or another) and it frosts my cookies when we assume that anyone who "dumps" their pet at a shelter is a miserable low-life.

 

[DVMDream]

Clearly with humans our society takes the opposite view, that life should be extended, regardless of the suffering, and in India that is an extension of the same thing.

I am actually all for euthanasia in humans as well. Especially after watching my grandma slowly die a rather miserable and confusing death. But that really isn't the topic up for discussion, just my opinion on that.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I am actually all for euthanasia in humans as well. Especially after watching my grandma slowly die a rather miserable and confusing death. But that really isn't the topic up for discussion, just my opinion on that.

I agree with you TBH.

I only bring it up to demonstrate that there are other views on these ethical issues…

 

[brown.chicken.brown.cow]

As someone who has been to India multiple times and volunteered in Indian shelters, I can tell you that most of the shelters are like this. It was INCREDIBLY difficult to watch animals suffering and receiving little to no medical attention.

That being said, it's very easy to sit here in a first world country and say "how could they do that?" To understand the situation you need to realize that this is an entirely different culture -- almost another world. We might look back at medical practices 150 years ago and say "how barbaric," when, in reality, those people were doing the best they could with what knowledge and resources they had. Most animals in India are considered vermin, so the fact that there are people devoting their lives to trying to save them is a miracle in and of itself.

Also, you need to realize that this is a place where not only animal cruelty is a norm, but there are literally people starving on the streets, people being beaten, women being raped. What seems like an indifference to animal suffering is more of an emotional numbness, almost like a survival strategy.

I agree with everyone that euthanasia is necessary in many cases, but attacking these people is not the way to spur change. The shelter that I worked with was receptive to suggestions, and regards western medicine very highly. These places want to improve the conditions, and hopefully, with guidance from other professionals in the field, they might start to accept different practices.

 

[dyachei]

I think part of the issue is the lack of pain control, not necessarily the euthanasia. But it is a very different culture.

I grew up in singapore and the mentality towards animals there is very different. They aren't really regarded as family members like they are here (exceptions do exist, of course)

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

As someone who has been to India multiple times and volunteered in Indian shelters, I can tell you that most of the shelters are like this. It was INCREDIBLY difficult to watch animals suffering and receiving little to no medical attention.

That being said, it's very easy to sit here in a first world country and say "how could they do that?" To understand the situation you need to realize that this is an entirely different culture -- almost another world. We might look back at medical practices 150 years ago and say "how barbaric," when, in reality, those people were doing the best they could with what knowledge and resources they had. Most animals in India are considered vermin, so the fact that there are people devoting their lives to trying to save them is a miracle in and of itself.

Also, you need to realize that this is a place where not only animal cruelty is a norm, but there are literally people starving on the streets, people being beaten, women being raped. What seems like an indifference to animal suffering is more of an emotional numbness, almost like a survival strategy.

I agree with everyone that euthanasia is necessary in many cases, but attacking these people is not the way to spur change. The shelter that I worked with was receptive to suggestions, and regards western medicine very highly. These places want to improve the conditions, and hopefully, with guidance from other professionals in the field, they might start to accept different practices.

I don't think anyone is questioning WHY the animals are treated this way. I agree with everything you said above.

 

[battie]

I would strongly prefer an animal looking for a new home to go to a shelter than for its owner to put it up on craigslist or Facebook "free to a good home." Shelters have loads more experience finding good homes/responsible families/compatible lifestyles for their animals than many owners would; similarly, shelters often have more man-power and resources to get the animal advertised (adoption events, wider reaching social media circles, established fosters/volunteers, etc). Just because you find a "friend of a friend" to take your dog doesn't mean they're going to be a good home, or even an adequate home. Shelters usually do a lot more research into potential homes/adopters.

I wasn't referring to Craigslist posting or anything like that. When I say friend of a friend (of a friend), it would be someone trusted by someone I trust. That's also what I mean through social networking. Post a picture on my facebook page and ask my 200 or so friends if they would want my pet if they couldn't keep it. Then I would make the decision on whether or not I would let that person take my pet. I am not in any way talking about giving the pet to a random stranger.

This idea came up when a shelter in Arizona had to be closed from lack of funding. An employee of the shelter knew someone up in my home state who worked for a news agency. They did a news story for it and all 40 dogs were adopted through the closing shelter within a week. I'm talking about putting some effort into finding a new home for the life that I am responsible for in the first place.

 

[dovelover]

I definitely agree with you there. While we in the US/Candada/Europe definitely have a LOT to work on in terms of animal welfare, our understanding of what constitutes animal suffering and proper treatment of animals is VASTLY different than that of many other areas of the world. There are parts of the world where people actually still believe that animals do not feel pain! The cultural, religious, and societal implications of animal use are entirely different than what we've come to consider acceptable. That doesn't make those practices okay, or any less horrific. It just means that it's going to take a lot more effort, persuasion, and understanding to try to change those practices, and it certainly isn't going to happen overnight.

Building on this... I had to interview someone from another culture about animal use/attitudes/etc. for one of my classes. I was talking to someone my dad works with who grew up in Ethiopia, and he basically said that (at least awhile ago when he lived there, may have changed since then) people in general did not understand that animals got sick or felt pain. It wasn't that they were too stupid to understand the concept, it was just a different view of the world, with different priorities. If their guard dog got sick (and that was the only reason anyone would ever have a dog), they threw it over the fence to wander the streets until it would eventually end up getting shot in the government's stray dog control programs. They saw them as a useful item to be disposed of when it was no longer useful. And they certainly didn't take them to the vet. (Really had to change the direction of my interview after hearing all this...) I'm not saying that it's right, I mean, I think everyone here would agree that animals feel pain and we definitely know they can get sick. The people are doing what they think is right. But deeply ingrained cultural perceptions such as these change slowly. Trying to push and change them faster only breeds resentment, and more resistance to change. Especially when we're talking religion (and I say this as a rather religiously insensitive person...)

 

[Bernsters83]

Those poor animals. That's bullcrap. Humane euthanasia is IMO a gift that we can provide our patients who are suffering as so many of the animals in those pictures clearly are.

Hmm

 

[BlackDog17]

Building on this... I had to interview someone from another culture about animal use/attitudes/etc. for one of my classes. I was talking to someone my dad works with who grew up in Ethiopia, and he basically said that (at least awhile ago when he lived there, may have changed since then) people in general did not understand that animals got sick or felt pain. It wasn't that they were too stupid to understand the concept, it was just a different view of the world, with different priorities. If their guard dog got sick (and that was the only reason anyone would ever have a dog), they threw it over the fence to wander the streets until it would eventually end up getting shot in the government's stray dog control programs. They saw them as a useful item to be disposed of when it was no longer useful. And they certainly didn't take them to the vet. (Really had to change the direction of my interview after hearing all this...) I'm not saying that it's right, I mean, I think everyone here would agree that animals feel pain and we definitely know they can get sick. The people are doing what they think is right. But deeply ingrained cultural perceptions such as these change slowly. Trying to push and change them faster only breeds resentment, and more resistance to change. Especially when we're talking religion (and I say this as a rather religiously insensitive person...)

This exactly. We tend to forget that the way we keep animals today is very much a privilege of the wealthy. We have so much financial excess that we're able to take animals into our homes and feed them and care for them like family members, even though they give no tangible profit back to us. That's not the reality for much of the world. In areas like this, animals are kept because they are useful and provide some form of profit, either monetary or otherwise. If you live in an impoverished area and can barely afford to feed your own family, why on earth would you take food out of the mouths of your children to feed an animal that was no longer going to provide you with some form of profit? They simply don't have the resources to live that way. And seeing these groups of people coming in and scolding them for they way they treat their animals is probably incredibly frustrating for them. It would be akin to foreigners coming into the U.S. and picking our broken toasters out of the trash and scolding us for not treating them properly, then building homes to repair and care for them. Who the heck wants to "adopt" a broken toaster that is no longer able to function well enough to provide toast, when you can get a brand new and efficient one far more cheaply? Yes, I realize that animals are living beings and are very much different than toasters . . . but is it really all that different when you're poor and struggling to survive? At that point, a tool is a tool, and a useless tool is a burden and a drain on valuable resources. Even when conditions improve and resources are no longer as scarce, it takes a lot of time to change those value systems and priorities especially when they're based off such an essential survival method.

As much as we hate to see the way the animals are being cared for at that shelter, at least the Jains have the right idea. I'm not sure what area of India that was in (did the author ever say?) but it's quite possible that no one there has ever seen or even considered the concept of an animal shelter before. In that case, even if the Jains are doing a crappy job of it, at least the presence of that shelter may help people in that area become more open to the idea of caring for those "useless" animals as their own conditions and resources improve. It's a step in the right direction, even if it is just a small one.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I think part of the issue is the lack of pain control, not necessarily the euthanasia. But it is a very different culture.

I grew up in singapore and the mentality towards animals there is very different. They aren't really regarded as family members like they are here (exceptions do exist, of course)

I agree with this, but couldn't resist the urge to add that end of life and how it should be handled is very culturally dependent (religiously influenced or not). And it doesn't necessarily reflect how those people feel about the animals. People/cultures who don't euthanize aren't barbaric people who are apathetic towards animal suffering. They may be super empathetic and carry the burden of watching these animals suffer. I mean, in India where cattle are revered as gods and it's sin/unlawful to harm them, you have a bunch of super skinny malnourished cattle running up and down the streets (with or without disease/injuries). Even with these animals, I doubt euthanasia is a common thing.

From what little I remember from my "Peace 105" class back in UG (admittedly not much), Jainism is one of the most benevolent religions out there, particularly when it comes to animals. They believe in the sanctity of life, and would never even squish a bug. In a rabies endemic area with a bunch of feral/stray cats and dogs, you can bet that the population in general doesn't go around the streets coochi coochi cooing them. You're taught from a young age to stay away from them, for the safety of their own lives, and I don't blame them. The fact that you have these people who actively go out their and show mercy to these animals in their own way says to me that they really care. The fact that they don't believe in euthanasia may seem super awful to us, who believe to our very core that a peaceful death with dignity is better than a life of suffering (for animals +/- people). But it's not that uncommon around the world.

My grandma loved her dogs to the point where she would hire a trainer to give adequate exercise for her Irish Setter daily (and she had a little Spitz she rescued off the streets and became her lap dog). I'm 99% sure euthanasia was not a part of either of their deaths, and if I were there to witness their deaths now, I'm sure I would have told her to euthanize them way before they naturally expired. If it were an option and I explained it to her, she totally would have done it... But it was just not on her radar. It's not on a lot of people's radar. Killing things unnaturally isn't all that intuitive after all.

If I were presented with an individual or a group here who was allowing animals to suffer like this without "proper" care or euthanasia, I would certainly report them if they didn't allow me to intervene. Moral relativism? Absolutely. But I don't see anything wrong with morals being relative depending on the situation you're in. "Thou shalt not kill" is a basic core moral value (religious and otherwise) that gets bent all the time for many different reasons. To have a "thou MUST kill if animal is suffering horribly" I think is a little rigid given how labile the opposite is.

 

[TooLove]

I'm bumping this because I just spent the day in a shelter in Thailand that was exactly like this. I'm traveling with a group of vet students and we have 2 days to work in this shelter. There are approximately 2,000 dogs and 300+ cats, although even the people who work there aren't sure of the actual numbers. A grand total of 5 people are responsible for the care of the animals and maintaining the shelter. There are cages, but most of the dogs are loose, and I saw a number of fights and scuffles today. Other cages aren't enclosed, they're more like cribs that the dogs can jump in and out of. Thailand is predominately Buddhist, and the shelter is located at a temple. There is no euthanasia for any reason. I saw a dog laying in a crib that was skin and bone, with open wounds covered in flies and maggots around and in the rectum. I honestly thought (and HOPED) she was dead, and my heart broke for her when I saw her move. Mangy dogs are a dime a dozen. There are a number of dogs that are completely or partially paralyzed and dragging themselves around, and others that are covered in tumors. One dog had a tumor of the bulbourethral gland and was unable to retract his penis, it was being eaten by flies. Today we counted the dogs as best we could, and started trying to treat the animals that we're able to catch. They aren't particularly used to being handled, and I had a dog lunge at me when my back was turned and bite me (didn't break skin!). The majority of the cats are feral, and enclosed together in large cages. I'm willing to bet FeLV and FIV are prevalent at >50%. The animals are fed a small amount of kibble mixed with large quantities of rice. The shelter has some access to drugs and supportive care for the animals.

I guess it's just hard to feel like you're able to make a difference with something like that in just a couple of days. Also, there are some things that unfortunately can only be helped by euthanasia and it's hard to see them suffering unnecessarily. I'm not really sure what the purpose of my post is other than to share my experience with you guys. If you're interested,I can post some pictures.

 

[kenggy]

What program is this? I was interested in doing an exotics program in Thailand. This would break my heart...



This video has been making the rounds, not sure what country this is, it looks like somewhere in Asia. This is not compassion. I though it was strange the narration was as if they could understand what the dog was thinking...no! You are crazy and this poor dog is suffering! Ok, rant over.

Even though it must seem as though you aren't even making a drop in the bucket, one animal treated in a place like you're describing is a feat. Keep your head up, not a lot of people could do what you are doing.

 

[TooLove]

What program is this?

Even though it must seem as though you aren't even making a drop in the bucket, one animal treated in a place like you're describing is a feat. Keep your head up, not a lot of people could do what you are doing.

Thanks. Every dog and cat we are able to catch and treat makes me feel better.

It's the ASEAN Veterinary Volunteer Program. Normally they only take students from Asian nations, this is the first year they invited two students from AVC.