[Article] Animals and other cognitive sentient beings are treated better than humans when it comes to cutting short suffering

[TAW122]

This isn't a new topic, but I do have a new point to make regarding this though. Most of us (not just on SaSu, but even most people around the world) know that animals are treated better than humans when it comes to ending suffering (euthanasia) and not prolonging life for the sake of it, however, for some reason, despite humans having more cognitive and conscious ability to reason, logic, and deduce things, including being able to voice our wishes explicitly and coherently. This includes the ability to communicate verbally and non-verbally (written language, body language, etc.) Almost all animals lack this capability, yet have choices (even if they may not agree – we just don't know) made for them, for better for worse.

The next point (and perhaps the core topic of this thread) is the choice of animals to persist, endure, or end their suffering, even if they are lacking the ability to have explicit consent and yet have their will overridden by humans (most of which will afford them mercy – not that mercy is a bad thing per se!), which means that perhaps there are even some animals that may still want to live but are then (Note: I don't endorse PETA or any similar organizations or groups) euthanized even if they (the animal) themselves don't necessarily wish to. I would claim that if an animal had the capacity to voice their intentions to others, it is likely there are animals who despite being critically ill or suffering may actually still want to persist and hold out to the end. Yes, this would mean that there are pro-life animals themselves and not all animals are like that, but yet have their decisions (over life and death) made for them by either humans, nature, or other animals (again, nature).

For example, a dog is chronically ill (maybe not terminal and would likely live many years longer if given a lot of support and treatment though the quality of life for said dog would be abysmal), maybe the dog wanted to live despite chronic illness, but most humans would see that as a poor sentient animal and would opt to euthanize the dog. If the dog could express it's wishes, and perhaps some [dogs] may be against being euthanized against their will (even if it may end their suffering) but humans would still do what they think is best for said sentient being, even if it means going against their will. However, when it is a human that is suffering chronically, even if they want to opt out of sentience/life on their own terms, they are denied that mercy.

Quick disclaimer: No, this doesn't mean that I'm a pro-lifer or anything, I'm merely pointing out and exposing the inconsistency when it comes to euthanasia for those who are suffering.

So in conclusion, I find that despite other conscious, sentient beings suffering, they are often given the merciful exit out, sometimes even against their own will (not that we have the capacity or means to determine consent for an animal, even then perhaps an animal may not have the cognitive ability to consent, at least not explicitly and directly communicated like humans do). So this short article just mentions a peculiar anomaly when it comes to mercy from suffering. We fellow humans treat our own worse than other sentient beings even though we have more capacity for logic and reasoning as well as expressing our wishes coherently to others. Yet we treat other sentient beings better than us fellow human beings even going against their wishes (assuming they are able to express them explicitly). That is the irony of humanity when it comes to treating our own.

 

[sambrosia]

I agree with much of what you said. It seems that there is some... species-ism? at play—humans value human lives just by virtue of sharing in that species. We don't see ourselves in an animal, there is less recognition and identification, so it is easier to decide to end its suffering. Though easy probably isn't the right word for that decision—think of how distraught people are when they have to put pets down—the decision can exact an enormous emotional toll; and yet, it seems that the prospect of making such a decision for other humans is infinitely larger, since it is so taboo/stigmatized/whatever, that it's not even up for debate, there's just some kind of unspoken societal consensus that it's not what we do. You can get in legal trouble for aiding it, etc...

Do you think it's a selfish thing, in that regard^? We only want other humans to live so badly, because we don't want to be reminded of our own mortality? I think when I see a dead animal, I am of course reminded of death, but it hits different when I see a dead human. There is always some identification with another human because of how unique our lives are on this planet. You just start thinking about, oh they had memories, a family, etc., and it feels different than an animal. Though I guess animals have memories and families too, so I am perhaps being species-ist, lol.

It is interesting when you say the bolded part "including being able to voice our wishes explicitly and coherently". Yes, it seems that consent doesn't factor in here. Ironic indeed! Arrogant, too, given that the common thread of logic there is "I know what's best for you" when making the decision for another sentient being—animal die, human live...

And, I think of that typical example, of an animal caught in a trap chewing its leg off to escape the trap. Trapped and in pain and possibly confronting death/predation, the animal will cause itself more suffering, just to live a little longer. It doesn't just lay down and die because of the suffering of the trap. I guess because survival instinct is stronger in animals, right? Although, I do think there are examples of suicidal behavior in animals, so maybe not. I assumed the unique human brain was the thing that overrides the animal survival instinct, and that animals have stronger SI because they have less brain.