Why We Are A No-Kill Medical Fund
AnimalCare 
Apr 28, 2012 
AnimalCare, NGOs 
0 comments
| Tweet |  |
A reader seems very upset (please see comments in post above) and she is of the opinion that we are condemning people who opt for euthanasia for their pets or rescues and that we are saying that it is wrong.
Let me clarify here, and this is our official stand, that we are promoting no-kill in animal welfare but we are NOT condemning euthanasia nor saying that it is wrong.
Promoting no-kill is not synonymous with condemning euthanasia.
It is not about who is right or wrong (haven’t I always said this whenever I wrote about euthanasia?). It could very well be two rights, and we have a choice on which option we think is better. If we opine one to be a better option, it does not make the other one wrong.
The reason AnimalCare adopts a no-kill policy (thank you, Ginny Wong, for reminding me to reiterate this) is that our donors come from different religious backgrounds and in most religions, one of the major tenets is not to kill. It is found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Christianity, etc. Many of our Muslim friends also support no-kill. We need to respect this and thus, cannot use our funds to subsidise any form of killing (euthanasia and abortion).
We will subsidise and support palliative care if the rescuer opts for it. If, however, the rescuer prefers euthanasia (as in the case of Moon Moon), we respected Evelyn Wong’s decision and even subsidised all earlier treatments aimed at saving Moon Moon’s life. The only thing we did not subsidise was the euthanasia which was carried out at the end. That was Evelyn Wong’s decision as she was Moon Moon’s rescuer. We certainly did not condemn Evelyn Wong.
Why I personally do not opt for euthanasia when nursing dying animals is because I can afford to give palliative care for them. The fact that I believe in giving palliative care instead of euthanasia does not mean I condemn those who choose to have their animals euthanised.
I hope this clarifies once and for all.
One of our former panel vets and is still one of the vets I trust the most in his veterinary skills and accurate diagnosis is pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion. We work together very well because we respect our differences and we have long agreed to disagree most amicably. He listens to me talking about no-kill and I listen to him talking about euthanasia and abortion. We choose to respect and understand each other, and neither of us have ever said who is right or wrong. Yet, we stand firm on what we believe is the better option and when we need to make a decision, we go by what we believe.
The shelter that we work with very closely is PAWS and it also has a euthanasia policy. We also have mutual respect for each other and work very well. We recommend rescuers to surrender their animals to PAWS as a last option should they fail to find adopters, but we also advise them that PAWS has a euthanasia policy. We shared a portion of our SunsuperDreams prize with PAWS as a token of goodwill and gratitude for the three years of working together.
In life, it doesn’t have to be “I am right, you are wrong” or “If you don’t agree with me, you are my enemy”. That is the source of unpleasant relationships and conflict. It can be “I am right, and you are also right”, so let us agree to disagree and let goodwill prevail.
We are a no-kill medical fund, and we will continue to promote and push for no-kill practices. Our readers may or may not support us in this and that is totally their prerogative.
But please do not accuse us of condemning euthanasia again, because we don’t.
Thank you.
Source: http://myanimalcare.org/2012/04/28/why-we-are-a-no-kill-medical-fund/
| Tweet |
|
Facebook Comments