Bow-hunting can provide a "good death." And for a layman, that's good enough for me. But I do hold vets to a higher standard, and if AVMA says "don't use physical methods like gunshot to euth a cat unless absolutely necessary and if you must, try to sedate it first" (I obviously paraphrased here) then using a bow to kill a perfectly healthy (assumption here) cat that's wandering around minding it's own business is cruel. But that's just like, my opinion.
I can't really tell if that last bit is genuine, or snark (as in, "that's just like, my opinion, which happens to be the AVMA's opinion"). If snark ... meh, not useful. I mean, obviously your opinion is just your opinion. Same is true of me. And I very much doubt the AVMA would go so far as to say that veterinarians should only use its approved euthanasia methods for hunting, even if that's how you personally view it.
If you equate hunting (at least, the 'end of it' like you said) and euthanasia ... then sure, I can see how you'd arrive at considering what she did unethical. That's a consistent conclusion from your premises.
I just don't agree that they're the same thing, so from my perspective trying to apply the AVMA euthanasia standards is nonsensical.
While I can agree with this in general, most people don't think this way. Hence the outrage over this case from people from all over the world.
No doubt. I agree completely with that. But my point is that YOU - as a future veterinarian - should be more cautious about that, precisely because medicine utilizes a tool called 'standard of care' that requires it. She should be judged by Texas law and the TexasVMA .... not what I happen to think sucks up in MN.
I do believe there are limits to moral relativism
I agree with you. I'm simply encouraging you to be more careful about applying standards from one place to another, which is what you initially did.
What I'm saying is that it's important to be mindful of how incidents like this affect public perception and to understand WHY people are so outraged and so shocked that it was a vet who did this.
Obviously. That, to me, is almost the <most> astounding thing - that someone in her position would do something that so obviously would cause the outrage it's caused. You don't need to think really hard to see that storm coming down the pipe. That, to me, shows that her judgment is so compromised that I wouldn't ever trust her with a patient or client. There's only so much judgment you can 'train' or 'coach' .... I don't know that I would ever be confident in her again, so I would never hire her and I would certainly have fired her just like her practice did.
[The pediatrician/child comparison] does [hold up] in many people's eyes
Yes, but the point was that it should not hold up in YOUR eyes. You should know better, as someone with an interest in veterinary medicine. In
fact it is not a good comparison. It definitely is true that there are many laypeople who may view it as a good comparison. But there are many laypeople out there who think not vaccinating their kid is a good move, too, which is equally as stupid. Yes, we need to be wary of public opinion (even when it's wrong). But you the (future) veterinarian shouldn't be promoting an inappropriate comparison.
I try pretty hard to not post anything I wouldn't want future employers seeing. I still post text statuses about things, but it's more "I learned how to place an esophagostomy tube today!" and stuff like that.
