Dogs also feel pain of mind

The auction of retired police dogs has stirred up a controversy on two counts. Both are ethical concerns: the first, ingratitude to an animal who was once a valuable worker in the police force, discarded in old age for a pittance. One would surmise that this ethicality has cultural resonance to the debt owed to parents who need care and love in old age, rather than being ‘auctioned’ off to a nursing home. The second ethical objection was the mental anguish and suffering resulting from the change of the handler and familiar surroundings at a late stage in their lives.

If I may seek your indulgence to write about my experiences with dogs briefly, the point I am making will become clearer. Our family’s love for dogs knows no bounds; we are even willing to even sell family wares to protect and save the animals. When my last two dogs ate the snail pellets, the poison, one evening, the veterinarian bill, if you would believe me, came to $ 9986.40 for the two nights to wash out their stomachs. Putting both down, the option offered to me, was abhorrent. The moral is that in Australia, a terrific dog loving population, will put their pets to sleep (euthanasia) to avoid pain and suffering in old age. In fact my vet told me that he never knew of dogs dying at home. If I may be rude enough to say that in a capitalist society any emotive instance makes good money and can pass off as good ethics. Many a parent is shoved off to a nursing home, ostensibly to their own good that can also be seen as an avoidance of responsibility by the children. ‘Auctioning’ off parents is also good economics as the property settlement makes children happy. A euthanized dog costs around $1000 but seen by many as an avoidance of unnecessary suffering to the animal in old age. To see it as good ethics sanitizes the conscience of any guilt.

Being a Sri Lankan, I found it impossible to agree to my vet’s numerous pleas to put down my old dogs, because I could not in all conscience be assured that the dog would agree that its life needed termination. I took refuge under my Buddhist learnings to get away from the veterinarian and almost all my dogs lived to the fullest, 16-18 odd years each, and I do not suffer from pangs of guilt that I killed them. Of course they lived with lots of disabilities wearing socks, shoes, diapers etc. that come with old age. For me that was part of my responsibility to the animal who served me with utmost affection in good times. Since they ate well until the last day I believed that they were happy. But such is the nature of ethics and there is no unanimity on these matters. Dealing with members of another species is ethically problematic

Now to come back to the dog auction, it is obvious that all arguments emanate from one fundamental premise, and that is the pain of being removed from handlers. Therefore, by extension, dog lovers correctly believe humans are not the only beings capable of feeling pain, and that most animals that we habitually eat also feel pain. They also experience the distress of being separated from carers, being locked up in cages. We, therefore, are responsible for inflicting pain as well as not preventing pain when we have the wherewithal to do so.

Not being critical of all those who love dogs we must realise that our morality with regard to dogs must extend to many other animals like cows, pigs, chickens and fish that we consume habitually. The Animal Welfare Bill that the Prime Minister has taken an interest in hopefully will cover these grounds. The slaughter of cattle by cruel sufferance and the beating of pigs before killing are primitive, abhorrent practices that we must stop. We cannot disregard the feelings of other beings merely because they are not members of our species. Our grouse is not about killing animals for food. It is to stop unnecessary cruelty that we inflict on these animals in the process of killing or raising them in inhuman conditions. Our morality is on safer ground when we extend it to proscribe so-called culturally prescribed practices such as genital mutilation, child marriage, because they are all about inflicting pain on the voiceless.

It will also be a good thing that we extend our conscience to prevent killing our own humans on the road on a daily basis, because such unwanted deaths can be prevented if road users adhere to traffic regulations. A driver under the influence of drugs should be charged for murder and not manslaughter; numbing substances and driving do not go together and such drivers are killers on our roads. My assertion that animals deserve the right to live free of pain does not mean that we humans are the same as animals. Far from it. But being a member of the species of Homo sapiens is in itself the reason to understand the value of life that non-humans cannot understand, and that makes a big difference.

Dr D. CHANDRARATNA