Animal euthanasia is an extremely controversial subject in today's society. Euthanasia, also referred to as mercy killing, is defined as "The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition."  It is necessary in certain cases, but the manner that it is often gone about is under scrutiny. Premature euthanasia and the carbon monoxide "gas chambers" that are in use in several counties across America are cause for grave concern, in addition to the issues surrounding housing space in shelters, and a lack of record keeping by these shelters, among others.

As is evident in its definition, euthanasia is not even the proper term that should be used when discussing the implementation of gas chambers in animal shelters. The accurate label in these instances is murder. The utilization of so-called "gas chambers" is very controversial and is viewed as inhumane by an overwhelmingly majority. However, the practice is in continuation and is, in fact, legal in many counties and animal shelters today. The process is tortuous and anyone can recognize the suffering that carbon monoxide imposes on terrified, unwilling to die, helpless creatures.  For example, "a puppy who had been gassed with other animals was reported still alive and crying after the rest in the holding room were dead, so he was gassed again, and then again, until he finally died, too."  Exhibit B - "A cat is reported to have been running back and forth in the cage slamming his body into the sides attempting to escape." These are just two of the countless gruesome and inhumane first-hand accounts that illustrate an animal's unwillingness to die, and the suffering it must endure before finally coming to a fate it does not desire or deserve. Euthanasia by carbon monoxide has been outlawed in many states, while other states still permit the practice itself but forbid the construction of any new gas chambers. One estimate that sheds even more ghastly light on this overwhelming issue is that 80% of gas chamber facilities do not even meet the AVMA's guidelines. This implies the troublesome notion that there are animals forced to endure even more suffering than a normal carbon monoxide chamber would warrant. These horrendous death-traps contain leaks and cracks, which make the process longer and more painful. Furthermore, there are no lights present in the gas chambers so that the shelter workers can not witness the suffering and subsequently develop feelings of empathy or compassion for these mistreated animals. In fact, the majority of shelter workers despise the practice and the inhumane action taken against defenseless animals; it takes a huge toll on these people who care for the well-being of all life, no matter how seemingly insignificant.

Euthanasia by injection is the method preferred by all shelter workers.  As stated in Carrie Allan's article, "professionals say that their ability to calm the animals while injecting makes all the difference to them and hopefully the animals."  Even though the shelter workers never want to or have any desire to put down an animal, injection allows them to feel more in-tune with the animal and to help it relax as it takes its final breaths in peace. The ASPCA advises injection and stands by the point that "the animals deserve a painless death". They, the ASPCA, assert that "the advised action taken in euthanasia is the injection of sodium pentobarbital".  The injection process is viewed as more humane, safer, faster, and less stressful for the animals.  Basically, the only downside to injection is the resulting death itself.  No one wants to kill the animals, but if it has to be done, injection is the only suitable way to do it.  T.J. Dunn Jr. from Pet MD talks about how animals who are sick and dying, animals who are suffering, should be administered this shot that puts them out of their misery. But he also goes on to say that they should be in a comfortable environment and surrounded by those who care about them. In many shelters, there is no comforting touch that puts the animal at ease before everything fades away. Instead there is often fear, additional suffering, and chemicals that take too long to do their job.

One of the primary difficulties and controversies surrounding the euthanasia process in its entirety, is the legal situation. At the moment the laws concerning euthanasia and how it is performed vary from county to county and state to state.  As is said by Carrie Allan from the Humane Society, "Each county that transitions is a victory, for hundreds if not thousands of animals."  One may hope and wish and pray for a way to simply eradicate the practice altogether, all at once. However, the only way to make the change is to take baby steps. By outlawing inhumane euthanasia via carbon monoxide as a whole and then moving on to the injection of sodium pentobarbital, the necessary strides are being taken towards the ultimate goal. That is the immediate concern, to change the way euthanasia is performed. The long-term goal, however, is of just as great a magnitude if not greater; to eliminate the euthanasia of healthy animals once and for all.

Another issue that the shelter community faces is the issue of correctly and accurately gathering euthanasia data. Shelters are not required to keep records, which is something that desperately needs to change. If keeping records were mandatory, the areas of the country that require the most assistance could be more easily identified and assisted accordingly. However, a lack of systematized record keeping across the board yields nothing but rough estimates and educated guesses. According to rough percentages taken in 2003, approximately 1.6 million dogs and 2.2 million cats had been euthanized that year. These numbers are not particularly accurate or precise, but this is the most reliable data accessible considering the current system of documenting animal euthanasia. Another reason any accessible euthanasia data is skewed is that many of the animals reportedly euthanized were so justly and for good reason; due to disease or extreme behavioral problems.

Attempting to get all of the animals currently housed in shelters adopted is a daunting task.  In 2003, 76,321 cats were euthanized in Michigan, which roughly translates to 57% of the shelter population.  Of Michigan's dog population it was 56,972, or 40%, that were euthanized. Here in Columbia, South Carolina over half of the 17,000 stray, homeless animals that enter animal shelters are euthanized. Those are staggering numbers. The most concerning problem with these numbers is that the number of animals euthanized more than doubles the number of adoptions.  In order to correct this trend, many changes need to be made. More shelters need to be opened, people need to rescue pets as opposed to breeding them, and responsible pet ownership still needs to improve. Pet adoption is now being promoted by many emotional and targeted commercials, and the word is spreading more effectively than ever before, but there is and always will be room for improvement until there are no more healthy animals being euthanized. It is a known fact that private shelters have greater adoption rates than local government facilities, and smaller shelters generally have higher adoption rates than larger facilities that house more animals. This is mostly due to the fact that a greater amount of care is administered in private shelters, which results in an animal's general welfare being maintained far more effectively than that of an animal in a government facility. In addition to the good work being done by private animal shelters, there is another positive force that has been making a difference in the battle against animal cruelty for the past couple decades. The promotion of responsible pet ownership has seen a drop in animals euthanized by over 100%.  Yet despite this encouraging development, the unfortunate truth is that the number of animals put down still exceeds two million as of last year.  However, responsible pet ownership is an easy way that any one person can make a difference. It should not even require promotion really, just being a good pet owner. Yet statistics show that the more widespread this positive message is, the less unwarranted animal deaths will occur. So why should we let undeserving animals meet such a horrible fate when there is good work that can be done to prevent it?

The euthanasia decision is tough for any human being to face; however, one should want not only their pet, but every animal to be free of suffering as well as calm and comfortable in its final moments. That being said, the long-term initiative is to eliminate the practice of putting down animals in good health altogether. Nevertheless, for the time being small steps make all the difference and will help pave the way for a much more humane system. As Carrie Allan says, "Everyone in the animal sheltering field dreams of the day when the euthanasia of healthy, adoptable animals is a thing of the past." It could not be put any better way. This is the end game, the ultimate objective, and the guiding ambition of every individual that has an invested interest in seeing to it that the necessary changes in euthanasia policy and legislation are made.
