3 ms·

> Killing a non-suffering animal is never euthanasia These animals were exposed to a fatal virus. I suppose it would be more humane to let them live until they

> Killing a non-suffering animal is never euthanasia These animals were exposed to a fatal virus. I suppose it would be more humane to let them live until they exhibit sings of the disease, but this would lead to faster spread of the virus because infected birds have more time to transmit it. Testing every individual bird is logistically impossible, so culling those populations in infected areas is the only feasible way to stop the spread of disease. > it is eu because it is “sweet”. Otherwise it is just thanatos: death. My point is that drawing a distinction between these things is nonsensical. Executed. Put down. Murdered. Euthanized. Slaughtered. All these words fall under the umbrella of meaning "to kill" but they all have distinct meanings about the circumstances of the killing. Since this is an intentional killing for medical reasons, euthanasia is the most accurate word to use. You could say "slaughtered" but that would incorrectly indicate that these animals were killed for meat consumption. You could say "executed" but that would incorrectly imply that these animals were killed as some sort of punishment. You could just say "killed" but that is less specific and does not indicate that this killing was done deliberately for medical reasons. > No ned to sweeten something which is not bitter. It doesn't "sweeten" anything, the article makes it clear that the owners of these birds are not happy to have them euthanized.

dmos62 7y ago
I think you might be misinterpreting parent. He's just talking etymology, and he has a point. The eu- prefix means good/pleasant/easy, the rest of the word means death. So euthanasia, as a category of killing, implies that it's giving a good death, where otherwise there would be a bad death. A synonym would be mercy-killing. So you can argue that if the animal is not yet ill, it can't be euthanasia. Of course you could imagine non-standard scenarios where killing someone healthy might be considered euthanasia, like intentionally inhaling fire (thus rendering self unconscious) when you expect to burn to death. We're just talking semantics, not debating choices.

dmos62 7y ago

I think you might be misinterpreting parent. He's just talking etymology, and he has a point. The eu- prefix means good/pleasant/easy, the rest of the word means death. So euthanasia, as a category of killing, implies that it's giving a good death, where otherwise there would be a bad death. A synonym would be mercy-killing. So you can argue that if the animal is not yet ill, it can't be euthanasia. Of course you could imagine non-standard scenarios where killing someone healthy might be considered euthanasia, like intentionally inhaling fire (thus rendering self unconscious) when you expect to burn to death. We're just talking semantics, not debating choices.