This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Animal euthanasia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amberdomanus.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Caroruguita.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Should this article link to slaughter? That seems kind of unrelated and suggestive to me. Was the author trying to imply something? 24.22.185.207 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is clearly a stub. It doesn't even have any references or citations. --(( F3rn4nd0 )) (BLA BLA BLA) 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I agree, references are definitely needed. For example: "Euthanasia is typically performed in a veterinary clinic or hospital, or in an animal shelter, and is usually carried out by a veterinarian, or a veterinary technician working under the vet's supervision." I'd like to see a citing reference for this. In plenty of animal shelter that I've worked at all you need is a couple of hours of training and you're qualified to perform euthanasia. GingerGin 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase regarding equating no-kill shelters to human life imprisonment, while possibly accurate, is not expressed in the neutral point of view. Please think about removing that statement. Nat 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This section appears to have bias against no-kill shelters. I believe there is also a similar dispute on the main no-kill shelter article. If there is no argument against it in a reasonable amount of time, I will remove or rephrase parts of the section. Ninja! 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to add Cervical dislocation. -- FR Soliloquy 03:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This article deals a lot with animals being killed for non-medical reasons, but how's that to be considered euthanasia? If it is, then we could also put in animals killed for slaughter etc. -- 194.81.255.254 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's definition of euthanasia includes: "of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...for reasons of mercy." This aspect of the definition does not seem to be presented here. Does lack of space at a shelter apply? Should their euphemism be encoded as part of an existing definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.94.119 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
is it necessary to keep it in the article? -- 62.101.126.228 ( talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why it that photo removed?It is not there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 ( talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's okay that it is removed, and it will stay removed. It isn't a necessary illustration that adds to the article, but rather it was purely for decorative purposes from the argument put forwards by TiagoTiago which is not an acceptable cause for inclusion of an illustration and fundamentally a waste of space, especially where words can adequately describe the subject matter. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This is simply stupid, from my POV, a user searching about sleep is much more likely to be reasearching literal sleep, not the social 'put the animals to sleep' kind of way. Removing this redirection, any objections.. change it back and contact me on my personal talk page. Mod.torrentrealm ( talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Noted that in the section on voluntary euthanasia, there are pro and con arguments. Any reason the same not present in this article ? -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Really, destroyed? I've never heard anyone destroying their pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.1.83 ( talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It used to be used for euthanasia of a racehorse. Thus, it was noted in contemporary news media that Lamb Chop was destroyed in 1964, and that in 1975 " Ruffian [was] destroyed to end suffering". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, October 29, 2014
Is it still correct to call it "euthanasia" when a physicly unharmed (there is no proof for (nor against) any potential psychological effect) animal is killed after it is discovered they had sexual interactions with a human (the human in question often being jailed)? It's my understanding that is what happens in some jurisdiction, but "euthanasia" doesn't sound like the appropriated term given that the true reasons doesn't seem to really have the wellbeing of the animal in mind. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 04:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've temporarily removed:
My concern is that there were three sources, only one of which is working, and that without seeing the sources I'm not yet sure if it is possibly synthesis or if the strength of the claims are justified. In addition I'm not sure if we can take madcowboy.com or petsready.com as a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that strong. - Bilby ( talk) 08:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
May I remove the image at the top? I find it a bit... disturbing. たか はり い 11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Stray animals are sometimes put to sleep by animal shelters that put unclaimed and unadopted dogs and cats in a sealed chamber and pump the air out. The animal dies of anoxia."
Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee merrill ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
surely there must be some arguments against animal euthanasia.
For example, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201104/is-it-ethical-euthanize-your-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.206 ( talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The humane words should be removed from the article,quick does not mean humane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 ( talk) 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Mister IP address is correct. RGW doesn't apply, it's merely an instance of fallacious logic. The intent may be a humane death, but at present the medical world's jury is out on definitive 'humane' elements. One good place to turn for in depth debate on the issue is constitutional challenges to the death penalty in the United States, or the termination of statutory murder in all other first world countries many decades ago. Extensive analysis of methods of execution and causing death have been examined in depth for those cases, providing a solid ground for sources. But given the distinct lack of citations, it is purely assumption and fallacious logic calling it 'humane.' It could be termed a humane attempt, or an attempt at providing the most humane death knowable with current science. But humane is an objective application to a subjective thing. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw a citation needed on the humane nature of this method of death for small vertebrate animals. My attempt to find sources led me to notice something somewhat disappointing. The majority of things claiming this is humane cite THIS article. The claim in this article is being relied upon by many, many articles, even though wikipedia is considered a non-academic source and gets you a slap on the wrist as a youngin' at university and something that's trained out of kids early on in life. There are numerous articles addressing the fact that life with a cervical break in this location isn't just possible, but limited rehabilitation can be conducted, and an acceptable quality of life with primates attainable. So I would argue that the simple fact that people live with it every day is a clear indicator that this isn't a clean, fast, or 'humane' method of dispatching an animal.
Whether something is or isn't humane is quite a subjective issue, and one many people seem passionate about. Many old school vets think it's fine, many new school medical scientists think they're dipping in the drug cabinet. The bottom line is there is no supportive evidence that it is acceptable, and there is significant obiter dictum from court cases globally during the outlawing of state sanctioned murder of criminals (or 'execution' for the American's who are the last first world nation to allow it) that clearly indicate breaking the neck of an animal, human or otherwise, is not humane but possibly cruel, painful, and non-life terminating. These findings should be reflected in the article if that road is traveled down to provide neutrality.
In the interim, I will remove the contentious wording that has no citations (and yet is relied upon extensively, and fallaciously) pending a better re-working of that section. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding IV euthanasia of pets: if circulatory function is reduced (by heart failure, severe dehydration, etc.) only a partial dose of the drugs may be in effect for the first several minutes... Until that point, the animal will be semi-sedated/conscious, and (if the vet doesn't make sure the pet is unconscious prior to the second shot) will show/experience increasing signs of heart attack/respiratory failure until finally dying. Doing the research is a bit more than I can handle after seeing it happen with one of my pets, so hopefully someone else will be able to tackle the topic at some point. — xyzzy 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Animal euthanasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Umm... what? Does "withhold" have another meaning I'm not aware of? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
number twelve reference "12.Animal Gas Chambers Draw Fire in U.S. - National Geographic" is not available any more. the link is down. it should be removed. Masud.pce ( talk) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Animal euthanasia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Amberdomanus.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Caroruguita.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Should this article link to slaughter? That seems kind of unrelated and suggestive to me. Was the author trying to imply something? 24.22.185.207 04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is clearly a stub. It doesn't even have any references or citations. --(( F3rn4nd0 )) (BLA BLA BLA) 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I agree, references are definitely needed. For example: "Euthanasia is typically performed in a veterinary clinic or hospital, or in an animal shelter, and is usually carried out by a veterinarian, or a veterinary technician working under the vet's supervision." I'd like to see a citing reference for this. In plenty of animal shelter that I've worked at all you need is a couple of hours of training and you're qualified to perform euthanasia. GingerGin 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase regarding equating no-kill shelters to human life imprisonment, while possibly accurate, is not expressed in the neutral point of view. Please think about removing that statement. Nat 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This section appears to have bias against no-kill shelters. I believe there is also a similar dispute on the main no-kill shelter article. If there is no argument against it in a reasonable amount of time, I will remove or rephrase parts of the section. Ninja! 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to add Cervical dislocation. -- FR Soliloquy 03:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This article deals a lot with animals being killed for non-medical reasons, but how's that to be considered euthanasia? If it is, then we could also put in animals killed for slaughter etc. -- 194.81.255.254 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's definition of euthanasia includes: "of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...for reasons of mercy." This aspect of the definition does not seem to be presented here. Does lack of space at a shelter apply? Should their euphemism be encoded as part of an existing definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.94.119 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
is it necessary to keep it in the article? -- 62.101.126.228 ( talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why it that photo removed?It is not there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 ( talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It's okay that it is removed, and it will stay removed. It isn't a necessary illustration that adds to the article, but rather it was purely for decorative purposes from the argument put forwards by TiagoTiago which is not an acceptable cause for inclusion of an illustration and fundamentally a waste of space, especially where words can adequately describe the subject matter. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This is simply stupid, from my POV, a user searching about sleep is much more likely to be reasearching literal sleep, not the social 'put the animals to sleep' kind of way. Removing this redirection, any objections.. change it back and contact me on my personal talk page. Mod.torrentrealm ( talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Noted that in the section on voluntary euthanasia, there are pro and con arguments. Any reason the same not present in this article ? -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 06:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Really, destroyed? I've never heard anyone destroying their pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.1.83 ( talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It used to be used for euthanasia of a racehorse. Thus, it was noted in contemporary news media that Lamb Chop was destroyed in 1964, and that in 1975 " Ruffian [was] destroyed to end suffering". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, October 29, 2014
Is it still correct to call it "euthanasia" when a physicly unharmed (there is no proof for (nor against) any potential psychological effect) animal is killed after it is discovered they had sexual interactions with a human (the human in question often being jailed)? It's my understanding that is what happens in some jurisdiction, but "euthanasia" doesn't sound like the appropriated term given that the true reasons doesn't seem to really have the wellbeing of the animal in mind. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 04:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've temporarily removed:
My concern is that there were three sources, only one of which is working, and that without seeing the sources I'm not yet sure if it is possibly synthesis or if the strength of the claims are justified. In addition I'm not sure if we can take madcowboy.com or petsready.com as a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that strong. - Bilby ( talk) 08:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
May I remove the image at the top? I find it a bit... disturbing. たか はり い 11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"Stray animals are sometimes put to sleep by animal shelters that put unclaimed and unadopted dogs and cats in a sealed chamber and pump the air out. The animal dies of anoxia."
Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee merrill ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
surely there must be some arguments against animal euthanasia.
For example, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201104/is-it-ethical-euthanize-your-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.187.206 ( talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The humane words should be removed from the article,quick does not mean humane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.130.53 ( talk) 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Mister IP address is correct. RGW doesn't apply, it's merely an instance of fallacious logic. The intent may be a humane death, but at present the medical world's jury is out on definitive 'humane' elements. One good place to turn for in depth debate on the issue is constitutional challenges to the death penalty in the United States, or the termination of statutory murder in all other first world countries many decades ago. Extensive analysis of methods of execution and causing death have been examined in depth for those cases, providing a solid ground for sources. But given the distinct lack of citations, it is purely assumption and fallacious logic calling it 'humane.' It could be termed a humane attempt, or an attempt at providing the most humane death knowable with current science. But humane is an objective application to a subjective thing. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw a citation needed on the humane nature of this method of death for small vertebrate animals. My attempt to find sources led me to notice something somewhat disappointing. The majority of things claiming this is humane cite THIS article. The claim in this article is being relied upon by many, many articles, even though wikipedia is considered a non-academic source and gets you a slap on the wrist as a youngin' at university and something that's trained out of kids early on in life. There are numerous articles addressing the fact that life with a cervical break in this location isn't just possible, but limited rehabilitation can be conducted, and an acceptable quality of life with primates attainable. So I would argue that the simple fact that people live with it every day is a clear indicator that this isn't a clean, fast, or 'humane' method of dispatching an animal.
Whether something is or isn't humane is quite a subjective issue, and one many people seem passionate about. Many old school vets think it's fine, many new school medical scientists think they're dipping in the drug cabinet. The bottom line is there is no supportive evidence that it is acceptable, and there is significant obiter dictum from court cases globally during the outlawing of state sanctioned murder of criminals (or 'execution' for the American's who are the last first world nation to allow it) that clearly indicate breaking the neck of an animal, human or otherwise, is not humane but possibly cruel, painful, and non-life terminating. These findings should be reflected in the article if that road is traveled down to provide neutrality.
In the interim, I will remove the contentious wording that has no citations (and yet is relied upon extensively, and fallaciously) pending a better re-working of that section. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding IV euthanasia of pets: if circulatory function is reduced (by heart failure, severe dehydration, etc.) only a partial dose of the drugs may be in effect for the first several minutes... Until that point, the animal will be semi-sedated/conscious, and (if the vet doesn't make sure the pet is unconscious prior to the second shot) will show/experience increasing signs of heart attack/respiratory failure until finally dying. Doing the research is a bit more than I can handle after seeing it happen with one of my pets, so hopefully someone else will be able to tackle the topic at some point. — xyzzy 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Animal euthanasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Umm... what? Does "withhold" have another meaning I'm not aware of? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
number twelve reference "12.Animal Gas Chambers Draw Fire in U.S. - National Geographic" is not available any more. the link is down. it should be removed. Masud.pce ( talk) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)