Linguistic Accuracy Was Put to Death; It Wasn’t ‘Euthanized’

(The author produces FEN’s quarterly magazine, moderates this blog, and has been active in the RTD movement since his father took a planned exit in 1998, the subject of an award-winning documentary film.)

There was a sad, tragic environmental story unfolding off the coast of Huntington Beach, CA, last week. The rupture of an underwater pipeline was spilling tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, threatening beaches and fragile ecosystems.

The first animal victim was reported Oct. 5, when a brown pelican collected from the black goo and suffering chronic injuries had to be “euthanized.” Three others were cleaned and healthy enough to go on.

I grieved for the bird, but celebrated because it was a compassionate ending – and correct use of the word euthanize!

Linguistic accuracy does not threaten the right-to-die cause. It doesn’t prevent violent suicides that could be averted with more Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). No peaceful exit depends upon what some uninformed local official says about killing a nuisance reptile.

That said, in the right-to-die movement, most of us are keenly aware of the difference between euthanasia and MAiD. Unfortunately, some are not. There’s pervasive misconception about terminology, fuelled by public and media ignorance.

MAiD, in every jurisdiction where it is legal, requires that people who have qualified for terminal drugs are able to take them without assistance. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is the active killing “of hopelessly sick or injured individuals … in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Merriam-Webster). According to Oxford, it is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.”

Britannica calls it (the) “act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder …” Collins says: “… the practice of killing someone who is very ill and will never get better in order to end their suffering …”

Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, Macmillan, Cambridge, and Medicine.net all have similar definitions. Some include animals as eligible, and about 2,500 innocent dogs and cats that are put down daily suffer mainly from a lack of loving homes; they are not physically sick, injured, or in pain. Are they being euthanized?

Wikipedia (unlike others) has a separate definition for “animal euthanasia,” which conveniently accounts for the slaughter of healthy shelter animals. It says, “Reasons for euthanasia include incurable (and especially painful) conditions or diseases, lack of resources to continue supporting the animal, or laboratory test procedures.” (Italics added.)

At least, here’s candor: If cruel owners throw pets away, and shelters are overburdened, we’ll mercifully kill Fluffy and Fido to make room for the next batch of “incoming.” What’s more, Wikipedia mentions lab animals, about 40,000 of which are killed yearly after they are no longer of use for experiments. A bipartisan bill (when’s the last time we heard that in Washington?) filed last month would allow families, rescues, and sanctuaries to adopt such animals once they are “retired.”

We know well the example of beloved pets who are “put to sleep” by caring owners and veterinarians. That is euthanasia. We still hear, “Let me die like a dog” in RTD parlance (and MAiD opponents have never offered a rational reason why we treat our pets better than our loved ones).

I scowl and curse when I see U.S. media (and our Canadian friends) report almost daily on the widespread killing of healthy, innocent animals that have done nothing to deserve a premature death. In almost every case where a bear wanders into a backyard; when a gator chomps on someone swimming in his water; when a big cat chases someone hiking in his yard; when lynx kittens or bear cubs lose their mothers; when coyotes roam through a world-class urban park, the animals are allegedly euthanized (or “put down”).

Wiki notwithstanding, there is no linguistic case to apply “euthanasia” to the killing of homeless pets or nuisance animals. If we take Fido or Fluffy to our vets because they’re old, ill, and suffering, that’s far different. Same with the Toronto racoon found caught in a leg-hold trap: Its paw was essentially severed, and three-legged coons can’t survive in the wild.  The Toronto Wildlife Center had its vets do all they could, then said regrettably, “With heavy hearts, the difficult decision was made to humanely euthanize the patient, who had already endured too much.”

Those folks had the animal’s well being at heart. That, after all, is the purpose of euthanasia: caring compassionately for a person or animal that is hurt or suffering. 

Contrast that with what officials admitted in Traverse City, MI, last month. A 500-pound black bear had been relocated 125 miles away after becoming a too-frequent visitor in a residential neighborhood. The bruin missed his familiar stomping grounds, so made the trek all the way back. But this time there was no moving him: He was euthanized. 

This implies that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources cared about the bear, right? The department admitted in its statement that the bear had become too comfortable around humans, which “made it a threat to human welfare.” They killed Smoky “in the interest of public welfare.”

At least, more candor: They weren’t concerned about the homesick bear, just about whom he might scare or claw. They chose the word euthanize to make it sound like they were being considerate.

The same sentiments came from Colorado Parks & Wildlife after a bear wandered into an open home in Steamboat Springs and terrified the family inside (they hid upstairs). “Sadly, once a bear becomes a threat, it must be euthanized,” it was reported.

Not everyone agrees. In response to the Colorado killing, Larry Desjardin, president of the wildlife advocacy group Keep Routt Wild, said: “We call them problem bears, but it’s really the humans that are problems here. We are in their territory, and what we’re doing is offering food sources … and that changes them from being naturally wild in the forest to looking in dumpsters … it’s like a cafeteria for the bears.”

No one likes dogs that bite people, let alone attack them. Still, when aggressive canines misbehave, they are often euthanized if they inflicted enough damage. Should a dog be killed for a fatal attack? Well, we still have some death penalties for humans. Funny thing: We “execute” murderers, but we euthanize murderous dogs. 

Though agents and officials are quick to appropriate and misuse the “e” word, sometimes they do put animals out of their misery. In the past month, at least two bears hit by vehicles were euthanized; beloved animals (giraffe, bull bison, ocelot) in three zoos were ill and dying; a beached pygmy sperm whale (Florida) had no hope; two horses at Santa Anita were put down after falls; and a Moses Lake (WA) police officer shot and killed a severely injured dog found on a roadside. 

The gist of this all is to know the true meaning of “euthanasia” and “euthanize” – educate others who may misunderstand – and don’t be duped by the media and general public who misuse the terms almost at random. Euthanasia is a good thing, and it is legal in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Luxembourg.  

Euthanize does NOT mean killing healthy animals because they make it hazardous or uncomfortable for us, even if they attack. That is just animals being animals. It is smug and hypocritical for anyone to hide behind a pretense of mercy and take a critter’s life because they feel threatened. The dog, gator, bear, or cougar is not endangered by injury, illness, or suffering – only by us. 

When you kill a healthy animal, just admit: “We killed it.”

Once we start using “euthanize” correctly, and admonish those who abuse it, maybe we can bring a clearer, more-meaningful public dialogue to the RTD topics of euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying.