(MY) letter on euthanesia

[Guest guest]

2007/07/03

Mercy killing not the solution-New Straits Times

By : K. PUVIRAJEN, Bukit Mertajam

 

IT is not difficult to sense the agony and dilemma experienced by

Sarah Mills of Kuala Lumpur ( " When pets have to be put down " — NST,

June 28) in running an animal shelter. I sympathise with all those who

do so.

Almost all animal shelters face the same problems — not only shortage

of space and finances as Mills mentions but also a serious lack of the

spirit of volunteerism so much needed when it comes to animal welfare

and care.

 

Notwithstanding the above scenario, if an animal shelter cannot

accommodate any more animals due to it being fully occupied, it should

outrightly reject any new intake.

 

Accepting a surrender fee for the animals and then euthanising them is

not too dissimilar to selling them for a price to be slaughtered,

cooked and served for dinner.

 

Irresponsible pet ownership is a shameful fact and wide-spread

education is the key to minimising this problem. Here again, financing

and manpower pose a hindrance.

And yet the solution can never be euthanasia.

 

Although sterilisation is against nature, it is the best way to

control the population of unwanted strays.

 

When a call to legislate against the killing of pets and to

criminalise the slaughtering of cats and dogs for human consumption

can be made out of compassion ( " Don't treat pets as livestock " — NST,

June 22), for the same reasons, a stand against euthanasia is not

unreasonable. To look at it otherwise is to practise double standards.

 

Perhaps the relevant question now is, why can't there be legislation

for compulsory sterilisation of these pets?

 

The modalities of effectively enforcing the law can be worked out by

the respective local councils in collaboration with the relevant

non-governmental organisations. The question of costs also needs

regulation.