Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This. OP, the way you titled this you implied killing the dog yourself by who knows what method. For all anyone knew you meant to brain him with an axe. The wording was deliberate. Obviously going to trigger people who've had a miserable time facing this decision with their own pets. IMHO it was an attempt to upset and spur outrage. Why do that? Its hard enough as it is.
Not cool at all.
I disagree. I think my phrasing was accurate. "Put him to sleep" or "put him down" are incorrect euphemisms. It wasn't designed to upset anyone, just to be accurate. Again, if I am in the position of deciding whether another being lives or dies, I think the least I can do is face the reality of the situation rather than sugar coat it.
"Kill" doesn't imply that I'm going to do it myself any more than "put him down" does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parnassia
PS: If a vet does the deed THE VET is technically killing the dog, not you. All you do is give permission.
I think this is the same line of reasoning that every mafia boss in history has used.
If I'm the one making the vet appointment, telling the vet to do it and then paying the bill, I am the one responsible for killing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
I had a small dog with dementia that pooped and peed everywhere for 2 years. It wasn’t fun cleaning up even with being retired. Your big dog would be much worse. She got very paranoid and we had to give her Xanax to sleep. We kept her longer than we should have because my husband couldn’t let her go. I second having the vet come to the house. It’s so hard.
I disagree. I think my phrasing was accurate. "Put him to sleep" or "put him down" are incorrect euphemisms. It wasn't designed to upset anyone, just to be accurate.
If that's the case, then you're being pretty tone deaf, which detracts from your accuracy and makes people question your motivation for choosing your word.
If you were in a forum of veterinarians, then your word choice wouldn't matter as much. But coming to a general interest forum full of pet owners and choosing an accurate albeit insensitive word is only going to inflame the feelings of those pet owners, and they'll be distracted from what you claim is your original purpose of posting this thread.
Yes, for gosh sakes, you should take your dog to the vet and end his misery. Celebrate the long life he shared with you and take away some lessons about sensitivity from the experience.
Our dog Murphy was 11. He had some type of cancer (liver, I think).
The vet told us he would let us know.
He stopped eating, then drinking. He still was such a good boy. Always went on his walk.
It killed us.
He was such a great dog, a real companion but he was suffering.
Someone suggested Lapp (or Lap) of Love. They come to your home and give you all the time you need.
Your other dog will smell and understand their friend is gone. That was helpful in our case because our younger dog was not as sad as we'd thought and seem to know her friend was gone.
It truly was one of the saddest days of my life.
Good luck with your decision. We all face this, unfortunately,
The first dog I had put to sleep I literally felt like I had killed him. Now I recognize it for what it is which is the last gift I give my loyal baby.
I disagree. I think my phrasing was accurate. "Put him to sleep" or "put him down" are incorrect euphemisms. It wasn't designed to upset anyone, just to be accurate. Again, if I am in the position of deciding whether another being lives or dies, I think the least I can do is face the reality of the situation rather than sugar coat it.
"Kill" doesn't imply that I'm going to do it myself any more than "put him down" does.
I have seen similar threads where people literally meant they were going to use a .22 or bolt gun. I don't know you. All I have to go on is your choice of words and my past experience. Most people use either euphemisms or the technical term euthanasia. These imply the involvement of a vet. Your post did not imply one way or the other. Thank you for clearing up the confusion.
I disagree. I think my phrasing was accurate. "Put him to sleep" or "put him down" are incorrect euphemisms. It wasn't designed to upset anyone, just to be accurate. Again, if I am in the position of deciding whether another being lives or dies, I think the least I can do is face the reality of the situation rather than sugar coat it.
"Kill" doesn't imply that I'm going to do it myself any more than "put him down" does.
I think this is the same line of reasoning that every mafia boss in history has used.
If I'm the one making the vet appointment, telling the vet to do it and then paying the bill, I am the one responsible for killing him.
. . .
I don't wish to distress you, or argue, but, as someone who on occasion helps non-English speakers learn English, I believe this to be, well, incorrect!
I think you should rethink your usage. Don't bother with doing so now, you've got more important things on your mind. Think about it in a year or two, when you are past the current stress of dealing with today's problems.
"Killing", in general usage, implies the use of violence. It certainly does not rule out violent means. "Put to sleep" or "Put down" are euphemisms, and they do have the same technical definition, but today they imply humane chemical methods. "Put down", the older of the two euphemisms, could, historically, have been used without any implication of method. Meaning, when I was a kid, "put down" could have meant doing it in the barnyard with a gun. Today, I don't think that would be the common usage. Thus, these euphemisms could more accurately describe one's plan of action. Euthanize is a verb with the same technical end result, but with the clear definition of using humane, non-violent methodology.
My take on your use of "killing" was not that you meant to raise a fuss with others, but I did see that as a predictable result. And, usage like that does leave it unclear as to whether you meant to do it yourself by taking the dog behind the shed and shooting it or getting a vet to do it. Half a century ago, when I was a kid, taking the dog out back was still done, but even then wasn't common. YMMV.
BTW, thanks for clarifying the current mental state of the dog. Based on those changes, and the nippiness, it would be my opinion, that the dog is no longer enjoying life as he once did. And being nippy with you would seem to indicate that even more strongly. That could indicate either that the dementia is so advanced that he does not recognize you, or that his sense of smell is gone, too.
My dogs have all let me know when they are ready to go. Then I take them to the vet to do it. In one case, the vet refused to believe me so I brought him home. The next night he refused to come in at bedtime and died in the yard that night. I said good-bye to him and let him be alone out there as he wished but stayed awake all night. My other dogs knew too that he was ready to die (hemangiosarcoma),sniffed him in the morning and one brought his ball to me to play while I was crying.
Listen to your dog and if he is ready to go, help him by taking him to the vet.
This dog is at an age and state where I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to putting the dog down now or later if he's not in physical pain. The questions my friends ask when making the decision and measuring quality of life are basically "What are the three things my dogs love most? Is he able to enjoy any of those three things?" And then they go from there.
But yeah, I will weigh in on this "killing" vs "putting to sleep" debate. I'm not much of a person for euphemisms and I take a pretty clinical approach to this type of decision, but in this case, "put to sleep" or "euthanize" is a complete explanation of what's going to happen. "Killing" could be anything and leaves a lot up to speculation. I come from a rather screwed up background where it could mean anything from drowning the dog to putting a bullet in its head, neither of which I consider appropriate for a beloved pet. Go ahead and eschew euphemisms, but not to the point that it results in imprecise language.
OP, I would deal with the incontinence. That's what belly bands and b-----'s britches are for. Well, that's not what B's britches are for, but they also handle pooping.
What I would not deal with would be snapping at the 4 month old human.
So probably, it is time.
I recommend a trip to the vet, but for those of you that have never lived on a farm and raised livestock, a properly placed .22 to the skull is the very fastest and most humane way to end a dog's (or any other livestock's) life. However, it many places, that would be illegal.
If cost is a consideration, the local humane society will often put a dog down for you at much lower cost than the vet charges. Usually, if you make an appointment, they will let you be there with the dog in order to make it easier for the dog.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Losing our dog.....
