United Poultry Concerns - [link removed]
June 18, 2020

Understanding Euthanasia: When Life and Words Become Worthless
By Karen Davis and Barbara Stagno

This article was first published by Sentient Media on June 17, 2020:
[link removed]


If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought A bad usage can
spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know
better. Debased language is in some ways very convenient.
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language


The American Veterinary Medical Association's Guidelines for the Euthanasia of
Animals rightly defines euthanasia as a "good death." But the Guidelines make
all kinds of exceptions for situations in which the inhumane killing of animals
- a very bad death - may be considered "euthanasia."

People take their beloved companion animals reluctantly to the veterinarian to
be euthanized, not to get rid of an inconvenience or for some other selfish
purpose, but because their pet's suffering is profound, cannot be alleviated,
and will only worsen. Euthanizing a hopelessly suffering nonhuman animal or
human being is an act of mercy. In such cases, the decision-makers implicitly
understand the true meaning of euthanasia. The sufferer is not going to die
slowly and painfully with an infusion of, say, carbon dioxide gas (CO2), or be
baked to death "humanely," as described in How to kill half a million chickens
at once and in Pigs roasted alive in coronavirus mass-extermination, probe
uncovers where the investigators errantly refer to the killings as
"euthanizing."

This verbal corruption confounds our discourse when, instead of a companion
animal or human sufferer, the subject is a chicken, a pig, a turkey, or a mouse
on a farm or in a laboratory. In these settings, the individual is one of
hundreds, thousands, or millions of captive individuals who exist solely for
human use. They are born to be harmed - injured, infected, killed - for human
"benefit." When the researcher or the farmer decides in the interest of
expedience to kill them, by whatever means, the term that is used to
characterize the procedure is "euthanasia."

An example appears in the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine
publication, Water Based-Foam for Poultry Depopulation, which cites the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in support of the mass-suffocation of
poultry under rolling carpets of chemically irritating fire-fighting foam:

Euthanasia of large numbers of birds in a quick, efficient manner with welfare
consideration. The process is used to control disease spread or end suffering
of dying birds during disease outbreak or natural disaster situations.

Though decades of research have confirmed that exposure to CO2 gas causes pain,
panic and slow suffocation in mammals and birds, who will desperately seek to
escape a CO2-filled chamber, the AVMA Guidelines 2020 equivocate, as in this
directive for killing small animals in experimental settings:

In addition to humane outcomes, an important consideration in the choice of
method for euthanasia of laboratory animals is the research objectives for the
animals being euthanized (p. 60).

For small animals like mice and rats in laboratories: Carbon dioxide, with or
without premedication with halogenated [inhaled] anesthetics, is acceptable
with conditions for euthanasia of small rodents (p. 61).

In other words, a "humane outcome" - a manner of death that is painless, swift,
and compassionate - may be sacrificed to "research objectives" and still be
called "euthanasia," and even absurdly at times, "humane euthanasia."

Appallingly, the AVMA has fostered a language of impunity for agribusiness and
the animal research industry to the point of elevating, in public and
industry/institutional discourse, the opposite of what euthanasia and humane
treatment literally mean. This fraudulent usage is a perfect example of
Orwellian "newspeak," which Merriam-Webster defines as "propagandistic language
marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings."

It's easy for the public and for animal advocates to get lulled into a sense of
complacency when all around us the authorities use terms like "euthanasia" to
not only characterize but endorse the mass killings of farmed animals and
animals in laboratories by asphyxiating, baking, or engulfing them in deadly
chemicals with fire-fighting foam. Animals subjected to the cruelties of carbon
dioxide, fire-fighting foam, and ventilation shutdown can take up to ten
minutes, even hours, to die while struggling together in agony; and many survive
these automated, crude procedures only to be trashed, buried or bulldozed,
alive.

Where does this leave us - the animal advocacy community - in confronting the
massive, unrelenting, painful carnage of living, breathing beings? Do we ignore
it because the problem is too big for us to change? Do we justify our position
because, as even animal advocates have said on occasion, fraught with
frustration that can degenerate into apathy, "They're going to die anyway"?

Of course, we're all going to die, but when it comes to our own species and our
beloved companion animals, we do not invoke our mortal fate as an excuse for
abuse. The conundrum in the case of laboratory animals and farmed animals isn't
simply that they are "going to die anyway." It's that they are going to die
inhumanely in a slaughterhouse or as part of an experiment, or in the inhumane
circumstances that surround slaughter and experimentation - transportation,
neglect, rough handling, overwhelming stress, fear, and learned helplessness.

There is no quick or easy answer, because if there were, animal advocates would
champion it. But this much we know: Silence and euphemisms like "euthanasia" are
not the answer. We may be uncomfortable with a problem that is so immense and
seemingly intractable, but we need to speak up - and speak accurately - even if
we feel we're shouting in the wind.

As animal advocates, we cannot allow animal exploiters to define the
conversation for us, lull us into false rhetoric, or determine how we regard
animals. Succumbing to these pressures, we degrade the lives of the animals down
to the level at which the exploiters abuse them. By submitting to linguistic
subterfuges, we accommodate virtually any mistreatment of animals as acceptable.
This is the moral downslide that allows agribusiness and animal researchers to
inflict pain, torment and death on animals unfazed. It's the type of
"convenience" that debased language facilitates. As advocates for animals, let
us not call the brutal mass-extermination of innocent, defenseless creatures for
the sake of human convenience, "euthanasia."

For the animals' sake, we cannot let ourselves, or the public, be "put to
sleep."


_________________

George Orwell, Politics and the English Language:
[link removed]

Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals:
[link removed]

How to kill half a million chickens at once:
[link removed]

Pigs roasted alive in coronavirus mass-extermination, probe uncovers:
[link removed]

Water Based-Foam for Poultry Depopulation:
[link removed]

Research confirming exposure to CO2 gas causes pain:
[link removed]

AVMA Guidelines 2020:
[link removed]

Fraudulent usage of 'euthanasia' and 'humane'
COVID-19 Revealing Inherent Cruelty of Agribusiness:
[link removed]

_________________

KAREN DAVIS, PhD is the President and Founder of United Poultry Concerns, a
nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful treatment
of domestic fowl including a sanctuary for chickens in Virginia. She is the
author of numerous books, essays, articles and campaigns advocating for these
birds. Her latest book is For the Birds: From Exploitation to Liberation: Essays
on Chickens, Turkeys, and Other Domesticated Fowl (Lantern Books, 2019).
[link removed]


BARBARA STAGNO is the President and Founder of Citizens for Alternatives to
Animal Research & Experimentation (CAARE). Since 1995, Barbara has worked to
oppose the exploitation of animals, especially the use of animals in
experiments. She founded CAARE in 2014 to disseminate information about the
power of emerging science to end the use of animals in research, while also
raising awareness of their immense suffering. Before starting CAARE, Barbara was
a campaign director for a national animal protection organization.
[link removed]

--
United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don't just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
[link removed] [link removed]
[link removed]

View this article online
[link removed]

Forward email
[link removed]





This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected].

Update Profile/Email Address
[link removed]


Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
[link removed]


Privacy Policy:
[link removed]





Online Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com



United Poultry Concerns | PO Box 150 | Machipongo | VA | 23405