Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Ingrid Newkirk on PETA's euthanasia policy

PETA has come under intense criticism for their policy of euthanizing many of the companion animals they rescue. The Center for Consumer Freedom recently published a document showing that PETA killed 95 percent of "adoptable pets" in its care during 2008, an average of 5.8 animals per day.

Per reader request, here is PETA president Ingrid Newkirk's defense of their policy. In an article entitled "Why We Euthanize," Newkirk writes,
In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers...
Read the entire article here. Newkirk goes on to explain that it is easy to blame PETA for doing the "dirty work," but that euthanasia is often the most humane option for sick and unwanted animals. She contends that as long as the pet industry exists, sick, abused and neglected animals will need PETA's assistance to die as painlessly as possible.

9 comments:

  1. I am an animal lover, I support many animal rights non-profits, I don't eat or wear animal but i also don't support peta.How can people be so naive!
    peta posts these photos of the worst cases. Many of the animals taken in are healthy or could be but peta has 97% kill rate. They advocate animal rights and get their name in the paper for throwing paint on someone wearing a fur but the fact is they save animal to kill them, even the healthy ones. The shelter only kills 37% of it's animals so you'd be better off giving locally. Localities have even passed lawsto save 85 to 95% of animals they take in and have been successful. Evidently peta doesn't have the time!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am an animal lover, I support many animal rights non-profits, I don't eat or wear animal but i also don't support peta.How can people be so naive!
    peta posts these photos of the worst cases. Many of the animals taken in are healthy or could be but peta has 97% kill rate. They advocate animal rights and get their name in the paper for throwing paint on someone wearing a fur but the fact is they save animal to kill them, even the healthy ones. The shelter only kills 37% of it's animals so you'd be better off giving locally. Localities have even passed lawsto save 85 to 95% of animals they take in and have been successful. Evidently peta doesn't have the time!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was hoping for a response by Ingrid that didn't state the obvious. I agree it's right and proper to kill suffering animals. But there is a difference between diseased and suffering animals and 'adoptable animals' as stated in the Consumer Freedom report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consumer Freedom organization is a Washington DC lobby who takes $ from companies making profit exploiting animals(furs, experiments, etc). It's true PETA euthanize to end suffering out of humane assistance, but there is also motive behind Consumer Freedom organization.

      Delete
  4. PETA has a concealed goal of realizing pet extinction. They don't think anyone should have companion animals, that pets such as cats and dogs should be phased out by neutering and spaying all pets. Madatory spay and neuter results in cat and dog extinction which is what PETA wants. Ingrid Newkirk has said that her goal is a pet-free society. My goal is a PETA-free society.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ^^^ You are correct about PETA's agenda. Newkirk sees animal companionship as exploitative and in violation of an animal's right to a free, natural life, and I agree.

    However if forcing animals into domestication undermines animal rights, euthanizing animals--sick or not-- is a total contradiction. Although the cycle of overbreeding, neglect, abuse and euthanization is the result of our own arrogance (and so it may be argued that we have some obligation to fix it), dictating the time/cause of an animal's death as a means of advocating for its right to free life makes no sense.

    Ingrid Newkirk's idea of achieving utopia by killing enslaved animals is a truly horrible corruption of what animal liberation means, and it's going to take the world population a long time to see beyond the impression left by PETA. A pet-free society sounds radical, and it is... but what authority do humans have to conquer, cage and destroy all other life on earth?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sometimes Euthanasia is applied to animals which are suffering a terrible disease or was born with some abnormality or so. I read this in a newspaper that had the picture of Generic Viagra in its cover.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The majority of you need to educate yourselves on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are not enough GOOD homes for every single pet in the US, or in other countries. If you read about Ingrid Newkirk and watch the documentary about her life you will come to understand why she is the way she is. She has been a witness to some of the most horrific cruelty you could ever imagine inflicting on another life. Working in animal medicine for 10+ years I am all for humane euthanasia. I have known people that have dumped their pets on the side of the road, tied them to posts or trees out in the woods, abandoned them at parks or in the wilderness. If you have never seen a starving puppy or dog, like skeletons, begging with their eyes to take them home, following you all over, pleading to be saved, then you have no room to speak on the subject. When Ingrid Newkirk was a child she began volunteering at an animal shelter and saw workers abusing the animals and being cold and cruel during euthanasia. She started to go to work early and hold the animals and let them know they were loved, then she would euthanize them herself--because she would rather their last moments be filled with warmth and love rather than cold cruelty. I used to be all about rescuing whatever I could, at my peak of animal ownership I had 4 large breed dogs and 5 cats in a small duplex. This is too many animals for a poor working stiff, such as myself. Now that I am down to 2 dogs and a cat, I am ok with that. Bottom line is, they cannot all be saved. Working in the animal profession I have become cynical to most people, how they treat their pets, how they deny their pets basic comfort, safety, medicine or preventive care. Even friends and coworkers of mine that claim to love animals so much I have seen cruel behaviors from them toward our animal patients and their own pets. As far as no-kill shelters, if the pet never gets adopted they live the rest of their life in a cage. That is no life for a dog/cat. And again, who is adopting them?? You never know. Not to mention, some of these shelters are very poor, run down, disease ridden facilities where you would not want a pet living out the rest of their life. Go to some redneck, back country facilities and you will see what I mean. And I have also witnessed shelter workers being mean to the animals. Animal suffering is rampant, period. As far as I am concerned, dogs and cats should only be bred to better the breed. But most people don't breed for this, they do it out of pure ignorance and sometimes greed. Not only do I see this way too much, I also live in a state that has the highest rate of puppy mills in the US. It is much better for many of these poor animals to be humanely euthanized then to suffer until they die. For all of you that are against euthanasia, what do you propose be done with the millions of dogs/cats in the US? Stick them all in shelter facilities for the rest of their life until they get adopted by someone who may or may not take care of them, abuse them, kill them, dump them, or take them back to the shelter? No-kill shelters have to take care of these animals, which requires money, which requires donations. Some shelters end up being shut down due to lack of funding, and what do you think happens to the animals they have left when they close down? The Humane Society alone euthanizes millions of dogs and cats annually, where would you house these millions of dogs and cats that crop up every year? It is a never ending cycle. I did a speech on this once in college and showed the class a video of a DVM and RVT who were known as Dr and Nurse Death. Basically, their job was to go to shelters around their area in Las Vegas and euthanize dogs and cats at shelters, this is what they did all day. They both euthanized hundreds upon hundreds every single week and though they are both haunted by what they see, they said someone has to do it. I was compelled by something the doctor had said, he stated that it didn't matter how many dogs and cats he euthanized every single day, there would always be more to take their place.

    ReplyDelete