Animal euthanasia is an extremely controversial subject in today's society. Euthanasia, also referred to as mercy killing, is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary 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" ("Euthanasia" Merriam Webster Dictionary).  It is necessary in certain cases like when an animal has a severe aggression issue and has no chance of being adopted, or when an animal is deathly ill and euthanizing it would be quicker and less painful. But the manner in which it is often gone about is under great 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.  The Humane Society of America, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and animals lovers all feel the same way about the gas chambers, about premature euthanasia of animals, that it is morally wrong and legislation needs to change.  These animals cannot speak for themselves, so we need to decide what is ethical and how the euthanasia process should be administered and when it should be administered.

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 unjust killing. 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.  In Carrie Allan's article (Carrie Allan is an avid animal rights activist who works for The Humane Society and writes articles for them), 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." (Allan 1) 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 (ASPCA 1). 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 cannot 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 the people who care for the well-being of all life, no matter how seemingly insignificant.

Regarding the psyche of shelter workers, Michelle Knight talks about how working there can be very emotionally draining.  Donna Gillesby speaks first hand on account of a shelter worker by saying that "it really takes a toll on the staff, emotionally" and that "it's horribly sad" (Knight).  This just furthers how this process is so draining and horrible on everyone involved. There isn't a way to quantify or measure the pain and suffering the animals experience, but we can definitively say that euthanasia is helpful to no one and only causes negative feelings for the workers and death to animals. No one wants to put these animals down when it isn't yet their time, but unfortunately, shelters don't have enough funding and space to hold a large population of animals.

It's hard not to make the comparison to the Holocaust when we say that these animals are being gassed to death in chambers by carbon monoxide.  On no grounds does that make this an equal event in magnitude, the method is just the same.  Carbon monoxide poisoning is known to be a terrifying and torturous way to die, and yet, we use this technique on innocent animals.  No one wants something comparable to the Holocaust to happen again since it was such an atrocity, and we know that the systematic killing via gas chambers was a brutal way of ending someone's life. So, a change in law needs to be made on those grounds.  We consider animals to be living, feeling, conscious things, so if we must take their lives from them in the means of space conservation, this technique is unacceptable.  This is more of a reiteration of the general argument, first change needs to be made in the method, and secondly, change needs to be made in the rate at which we put down animals.

Euthanasia by injection is the method preferred by all shelter workers.  As stated in Allan's article outlining the issues of pet ownership and sheltering of stray animals in today's society, "professionals say that their ability to calm the animals while injecting makes all the difference to them and hopefully the animals."(Allan 1)  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 lethal injection and stands by the point that "the animals deserve a painless death"(Allan). 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. However, 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 Allan from the Humane Society, "Each county that transitions is a victory, for hundreds if not thousands of animals."  One may hope, 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. That is finally to eliminate the execution of healthy animals.

In terms of legislation passed to protect the innocent cat and dog populations in the United States, Minnesota has taken the lead.  The Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation bill has been introduced for the 2013-2014 Minnesota Legislative session.  It will provide protection of dogs and cats in Minnesota commercial breeding facilities.  It basically ensures that animal care standards are met, and criminal penalties will be given to violators of the law.  This bill doesn't necessarily address animal euthanasia, but it does make improvements and put a focus on animal safety.  If these standards can be implemented into shelters hereafter, a great stride will be made towards redacting the use of carbon monoxide chambers and ensure that there is a habitable environment in shelters (Animal Folks Minnesota).

Animals Folks Minnesota states that out of the estimated 60 million pet dogs in the United States, 2.15 million are sold from puppy mills, better known as profession breeders.  There are roughly 10,000 puppy mills, or breeding farms, in the United States. This statistic includes licensed and unlicensed puppy mills. Between 300,000 and 400,000 puppies are sold via pet stores every year and sadly enough, 20,000 families were estimated to have bought puppies online in 2004 (Animal Folks Minnesota). These figures could, and should, be drastically reduced. There is already a huge issue of overpopulation of dogs and we continue to breed more and more while animals continue to live on the streets and waste away in shelters. Animal Folks Minnesota also states that 38% of the public acquire their pets from breeders or pet stores, 14% acquire their pets from shelters, and 48% of the population get their pets as strays or from friends and animal rescuers (Animal Folks Minnesota).  In addition, of the animals euthanized in animal shelters, 25%-30% are estimated to be purebred, and in some regions this number jumps up to 50% (Animal Folks Minnesota). This means that a large portion of the animals purebred end up like any other stray. This points the finger at pet owners and how they often stop caring for and/or end up losing their pet.

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? Sarah McLachlan and the ASPCA are putting in hard work and spending tons of money on commercials to start making strides of progress towards good pet ownership and adopting strays from shelters rather than going to a breeder.

One solution to the overpopulation in shelters is to implant microchips, tattoo pets, or put a tag on the animal so that if the animal is lost or goes missing, its owner can be properly identified and notified.  According to the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP), less than 2 percent of cats and only 15% to 20% of dogs are returned to their original owners (Animal Folks Minnesota) once they have gone missing.  These numbers mean that for most stray animals, an overwhelming majority will never see their original owners ever again.  There are simple solutions to these problems like if more pet owners were responsible and implemented the use of tags, tattoos, or microchips then fewer lost pets would end up in animal shelters and subsequently euthanized.

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.

Michael Houdmann addresses the euthanasia from a biblical perspective and cites Genesis 1:26, Genesis 9:2, Proverbs 12:10, Luke 14:5, and Exodus 21:28-35 to basically say that human beings are superior to animals and have the right to utilize them as resources but we should do so in caring matter.  Morally, the bible says that we, as human beings, have the authority over animals to euthanize them when we deem fit, we have the authority to kill them for food, and we have the obligation to kill them mercifully (Houdmann).  The bible is a source for Christians to find and specifically define what is moral and how people should act towards other people and, in this specific case, towards animals.  Right now, shelters disobey when to euthanize these animals because the large majority of them are in good and suitable health.  Some shelters do not euthanize these animals mercifully, as seen by the use of carbon monoxide chambers, also known as "gas chambers".  These ideals are ancient and should be still at forefront of making these types of decisions.  Not everyone is Christian and not everyone follows the ways that the bible teaches, but this ideal of taking life mercifully and with good reason should be a universal truth.

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 from suffering as well as being 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.  People need to know what has to be done, like forcing shelters to gather and keep accurate data of the animals they are sheltering, forcing the government and legislation to enforce policies of no kill shelters and until that happens, more no kill shelters must be opened.  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.  There is a long way to go but the tough battles are often the one's worth fighting for, especially when it comes to animals who can't physically argue for themselves, they depend on us as life advocates to bring what is going on here in America to light and force some major change.
