Category: Animal Rights

It is killing whatever term you choose to call it.

Our complex attitudes to killing animals

Deep down in our consciences those of us with any empathy to animals are obviously uncomfortable about the act of killing them which manifests itself in our confused use of expressions to describe it. Whether a professional or layman, we seem to have a subconscious hang-up about discussing or contemplating what we mostly view as a taboo subject. For those with little empathy and who enjoy killing animals for fun and entertainment there is no issue

If we kill a fellow human without justification, we call it murder, and it is viewed a heinous crime unless legitimised by war, when we tend to use the word kill. When we deliberately and brutally kill a large group of humans, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group, we use the terms genocide or massacre and when we legally terminate the life of a condemned person, we execute them. We almost exclusively reserve these words to describe human on human killing, but when it involves animals, for some inexplicable reason we refrain from using such terms as they appear to offend our sensibilities and prick our consciences if used in this context.

Instead we prefer to use more agreeable phraseology that we feel befits the occasion and the type of animal involved, such is our idiosyncratic approach to killing millions of them each day. In order to appease our sensibilities, we even manage to categorise certain animal groups as being more worthy of our compassion.

hunting, shooting, country pursuit

The act of euthanasia for companion animals has become almost a ritual”

The most popular generic term for the act of killing an animal is euthanasia, which derives from the Greek words Eu and thanotos meaning ‘well killing’ or ‘good killing’ and has been used since the 1600’s to describe mercy killing of both humans and animals. We tend to reserve its usage for companion animals, particularly dogs and cats, which we hold in more reverence because we view them as almost human family members and our friends.

The act of euthanasia for companion animals has become almost a ritual, carried out with extreme compassion, sensitivity and veneration as suits such a situation, and it is usually performed by a qualified veterinarian in calm circumstances by injection, and with a familiar face present, often in the owners’ home, and is as humane as possible, so different to the way we treat other animals in their final moment.

Some people though, still find this term too severe and so we use more assuaging phrases such as ‘putting to sleep’ or ‘putting out of its misery’, to make it appear less callous when we are discussing it, as though in some irrational way it makes it a more pleasant experience for both the animal and ourselves.

When it concerns farmed food animals our sympathies change, and we go out of our way to distance ourselves from any emotion or guilt. For a start we call them livestock instead of animals, ‘live’ because we have to accept they are living creatures but also ‘stock’ because we need the assurance that they are also a commodity for us to utilise. We then employ the somewhat ruthless word of ‘slaughter’, the definition of which, in the context of humans, is brutal killing, but with animals just means killing for meat. Slaughter is of course an apt description as it is a rather brutal and ruthless death no matter how humanely done. We are also happy to use the same term for the place where the carnage takes place, so we call it a slaughterhouse in preference to a ‘euthanasia-house’ which we obviously find strangely unsettling because of its inference to pet animals.

We find using the word ‘harvesting’ more agreeable for the act of wholesale slaughter of animals.

When it involves wildlife our compassion unaccountably changes again, and we choose to ‘cull’ them and the heartlessness of this term is borne out by the word’s definition which is ‘removing an inferior person or thing from a group’ and ‘something regarded as worthless, especially an unwanted or inferior animal removed from a herd’. Culling can involve just an individual, a certain species or millions of individuals.

Conservationists appear to find the word culling a little harsh in certain instances, so they find the term ‘harvesting’ more agreeable for the act of wholesale slaughter, usually with the tag that it is implemented in their long-term interest. But it doesn’t end there as different professions where killing animals is intrinsic also try to ease their sensibilities by using other phrases such as humane killing, hunting, management euthanasia and zoonasia.

We are psychologically uneasy about the killing of animals.

It is obvious that as a society we are uneasy with our various deeds of ending their lives and prefer to distance ourselves from any thoughts of their demise, but it doesn’t stop us from committing animal genocide the world over. The bottom line is that whichever term we choose to use they all mean the same thing – the intentional and premature ending of the life of a living creature.

As already mentioned, when it is time to put companion animals ‘to sleep‘ the procedure is treated with great compassion, sensitivity and veneration as it should be, but it does seem a pity that we cannot extend the same deference to all animals by at least giving them the courtesy of using the same terminology.

Related articles:

What is Zoonasia?

Big Game trophy hunting always in the headlines.

The Shooting of Harambe the gorilla

go to website home page

The ‘Pet Effect’ – benefits of pet keeping

In a Mintel.com 2017 survey on Britain’s Pet Owners, 66% said their pet made them feel happy, 55% loved, 54% relaxed and 51% comforted so we obviously like having them around.  We keep a vast array of animals captive for a multitude of reasons, but nearly all of them are selfish with some people turning pet keeping into fanatical hobbies and pastimes, but in these modern times the main reason behind our wish to keep them is for our own physical and mental well-being.

“we can dispense with the white coated professionals and just prescribe a cure-all pet.”

At one time it was enough for pets to be our companions, confidants and surrogate children, able to ward off loneliness and provide security in our lives, but it seems that they have now been promoted to the realms of miracle workers or Messiahs in fur, feather and scaly coats, able to heal our psyche and ailments by just being in our presence, to such an extent that we can dispense with the white coated professionals and just prescribe a cure-all pet. This power of healing which has been attributed to them by psychologists is called the ‘pet effect’ and is much hyped by the media, scientific treatises, doctors, animal experts and biased interests such as the pet industry. Most health websites and lifestyle journals like to run regular articles on the subject and market analysts such as Emma Clifford of Mintel advises the pet industry to pitch all their advertising along these lines.

 “The undeniable feel-good factor linked to pet ownership can be harnessed in very compelling marketing messages. Advertising themes that centre on pets deserving the very best to thank them for the emotional benefits they bestow on their owners are likely to chime. There are also growing opportunities for products and services that have specific emotional benefits for pets.” Emma Clifford, Associate Director of Food & Drink at Mintel

Pet keeping in general, and dogs in particular, have been credited in possessing the following powerful health benefits:

  • reducing blood pressure and pain, particularly migraines and arthritis by reducing anxiety
  • reducing depression and easing loneliness
  • improving cardiovascular health by lowering cholesterol reducing your risk of heart attack by 30% and suffering a stroke by 40%.
  • encouraging exercise and playfulness
  • raising our spirits and adding joy to our lives by assisting us to socialise
  • warning diabetics that their blood sugar level has dropped through changes in the behaviour of a dog, cat, bird or rabbit.

There is also research showing that rather than cause more allergies in children, a common reason for discarding pets, they help improve immunity and that holding and petting them can sooth children with autism and Attention Deficit Deficiency Disorder (ADHD). There is a consensus that they can play a significant role in a child’s social and emotional development and a belief that a child  misses out in some way if not provided access to one from an early age. They supposedly provide a role model, friendship, encourage responsibility and promote respect for their rights as well as keeping them occupied.

Paul Sheehan writing in the Sydney Morning Herald is typical of how the so-called pet-effect can be somewhat overstated:

“Animal companions predominantly dogs and cats provide tremendous value to the human health system. People who have animals at home typically visit the doctor less often. They use less medication. They have, on average, lower cholesterol and lower blood pressure. They recover quickly from surgery. They show lower risk factors for heart disease. People, especially the elderly, have an increased quality of life through companionship. People with animals are less likely to suffer from loneliness. If dogs and cats are being squeezed out of households – and the numbers suggest they are – it is a net cultural loss.”

The problem with all this exuberance is that somewhere along the line the interests and well-being of the animals providing this life-saving service to humanity are often not being considered, confirming yet again that our relationship with animals is entirely one-way – their perceived benefit to us.

Ironically science apparently hasn’t proved that pet keepers are healthier, happier or live longer than pet-less people and there is just as many studies dispelling the myth as supporting it. Dr Harold Herzog, a respected and well-known psychologist puts it this way:

‘despite the growing body of research on the bonds between people and pets, the effects of a pet effect on human health and happiness remains a hypothesis in need of confirmation rather than an established fact’. Dr Harold Herzog.

So who are we to believe? Is it the media, pet industry and marketing people or science. Regardless of who is right it is probably not a good idea to acquire animals in the hope they will remedy all out ills both mental and physical.