Category Archives: Euthanasia

The Nazis began experimenting with poison gas for the purpose of mass murder in late 1939 with the killing of patients with mental and physical disabilities in the Euthanasia Program.

A Nazi euphemism, "euthanasia" referred to the systematic killing of those Germans whom the Nazis deemed "unworthy of life" because of mental illness or physical disability.

Six gassing installations were established as part of the Euthanasia Program: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein. These killing centers used pure, chemically manufactured carbon monoxide gas.

After the June 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union and Einsatzgruppe mass shootings of civilians, the Nazis experimented with gas vans for mass killing. Gas vans were hermetically sealed trucks with engine exhaust diverted to the interior compartment. Use of gas vans began after Einsatzgruppe members complained of battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers of women and children. Gassing also proved to be less costly. Einsatzgruppen gassed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and mentally ill people.

Chelmno

In 1941, the SS concluded that the deportation of Jews to killing centers (to be gassed) was the most efficient way of achieving the "Final Solution." That same year, the Nazis opened the Chelmno camp in German-occupied Poland. Jews from the Lodz area of German-occupied Poland and Roma were killed there in mobile gas vans.

Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka

In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in German-occupied Poland. These gas chambers used carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines. As victims were "unloaded" from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in "showers." The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the "showers" with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.

Auschwitz

The Nazis constantly searched for more efficient means of extermination. At the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland, they conducted experiments with Zyklon B (previously used for fumigation) by gassing some 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 ill prisoners in September 1941. Zyklon B pellets, converted to lethal gas when exposed to air. They proved the quickest gassing method and were chosen as the means of mass murder at Auschwitz.

At the height of the deportations in 194344, an average of6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz.

Gassing Operations: Oral History Excerpts

Concentration camps like Stutthof, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrck, although not designed specifically as killing centers, also had gas chambers. The gas chambers were relatively small, constructed to kill those prisoners the Nazis deemed "unfit" to work. Most of these camps used Zyklon B as the killing agent in their gas chambers.

Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC

Read more from the original source:

Gassing Operations | Holocaust Encyclopedia

Reading Time: 4 minutesAn unidentified man suffering from Alzheimers disease sleeps peacefully the day before passing away in a nursing home in Utrecht, Netherlands. Ethicists, experts and political leaders have repeatedly warned against the dangers of legalising the killing of patients. Open the door to euthanasia and the categories of people who can be killed by doctors and bureaucrats or pressured into agreeing to end their lives increases. Photo: CNS, Michael Kooren, Reuters

For decades, the specialised branch of medicine known as Palliative Care has made it scientifically and medically clear that euthanasia, as a measure to address the suffering of serious and terminal illness, is completely redundant. Palliative Care specialists and associated practitioners, all known medical studies in fact, the totality of all known medical data and evidence have declared, argued, pleaded and demonstrated that no patient ever needs to be killed by anyone under any circumstances ever. There is no form of pain, it has been repeatedly pointed out, that cannot be controlled and neutralised by the wonders of modern medical techniques and the stunning advances in pharmaceutical technology of the last 60 years which now underpin the relatively new branch of medical practice known as Palliative Care.

If what the science of Palliative Care declares was not true or did not exist, if medical practitioners and medical studies were nothing more than a bunch of liars, then opponents of euthanasia would certainly have a real problem on their hands. The suffering produced by illness when Palliative Care does not exist would pose we Australians with a serious ethical issue. But in fact what Palliative Care specialists and practitioners say (and have said for decades) is, in fact, true. Just as smallpox and polio were eliminated by advances in the science of vaccination in the 20th Century, there is now no illness, nor the pain associated with it, that cannot be overcome by the science of Palliative Care. Anyone with any terminal illness can be assisted to live without suffering and pain until they come to their natural end. Medical science is now in a position to guarantee that living with our illness or eventually coming to our end because of it does not need to mean facing unbearable suffering and distress.

So why are a substantial portion of the Members of the Parliament of NSW apparently completely committed to the idea proposed by independent MP Alex Greenwich that doctors should be able to kill patients despite all known medical evidence and two millennia or more of ethical reasoning to the contrary? The fundamental reason is that a lie has been sold to the people of Australia and the same lie is currently being sold to the people of NSW. Like many lies, there is a grain of truth at its core which has been, as all lies must be, twisted and distorted out of all proportion to reality. As a result, a substantial group of NSW lawmakers and a substantial proportion of the people of NSW appear to see no apparent problem. Yet the fact that some people in NSW do undoubtedly die in pain and suffering (see Monica Doumit, this edition) is due not to any need for euthanasia, but because of consistent and protracted NSW government negligence over decades of Palliative Care in this state and the advances in medical science and techniques which can deliver peace and serenity in all cases to those suffering serious and terminal illnesses and their families and friends. This is how the lie of euthanasia has been sold in NSW.

Should the legalisation of euthanasia pass the NSW Parliament, medical malpractice the killing of patients by doctors and medical administrators will have become the law of the state. That we should even be as close to this possibility as we actually are almost beggars belief. If euthanasia becomes law a vast range of abuses will inevitably inevitably arise: the pressure on family members to get it over and done with, the rising conviction among our sick parents and grandparents that they are a burden to us who should voluntarily end their lives now, the pressure from those who will gain from the death of an individual to do it for everyones good, the offering of suicide to the mentally ill and the depressed who have no terminal illness at all, the implicit message from faceless government bureaucrats that if we do not have the top-of-the-line health insurance that only the wealthy can afford to guarantee them the Palliative Care that our government has refused for decades to adequately fund, that we might as well shuffle off and die because our jobs and our bank accounts were not good enough.

Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP has issued a passionate appeal this week (see Page 1) for Catholics and all men and women of good will to act now in a moment of crisis. Now is the urgent moment for every single one of us to act decisively with the greatest possible force. Every Parish Council chair, every priest, every deacon, every concerned Catholic should circulate the petitions and passionately urge their fellow Church goers to make submissions to the NSW Parliament website, lest it be said at some point in the future that evil triumphed because Catholics had chosen instead to remain silent, allowing those who would impose evil upon NSWs vulnerable to get off the hook Greenwich free.

Related

Follow this link:

Editorial: making euthanasia, malpractice and its lies the law of the land - The Catholic Weekly

My father asked me to kill him. He was 74, had suffered a stroke at 71 and couldnt speak properly. He also had paralysis on his left side. He was a widower in a nursing home. We had tried home helps who came in every day, but he was also severely depressed, which made things difficult. He would say to me in his slurred voice: You work in a lab. You have the chemicals to do it. He also regularly said, If I were a horse, youd shoot me.

My father, Kevin ONeill, had a dark sense of humour, so I used to brush these conversations, but I knew he meant it. I would sometimes cry when I left him in his room, his own separate hell.

Should I, out of sympathy and love, have bumped him off? That would have been murder. But what if the law had allowed me to help him die? How would that have worked and would I have had the guts to do it?

Will a time come when euthanasia will be as routine as childbirth, as we head towards a population where the majority are sick and old, with lots of older people actually wanting to die? Or will the discovery of new treatments for diseases and better palliative care make euthanasia unnecessary?

The topic has been widely discussed in the UK again recently, with the Assisted Dying Bill being debated in the House of Lords. We must face this topic head-on.

Active euthanasia is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia and Canada. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the State of Victoria in Australia and the US states of California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Washington DC, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont and New Jersey. It is illegal in all other countries, as is non-voluntary euthanasia (where the patient is unable to give consent).

Although legal in the countries mentioned above, it is only allowed under certain circumstances and requires the approval of two doctors and in some places a counsellor. Treatment or medical support being withdrawn because it is considered futile will also hasten death but is not illegal.

The Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. Yet in the Netherlands and Belgium it is defined slightly differently as termination of life by a doctor at the request of the patient. It doesnt necessarily have to involve the relief of suffering, which is an important distinction.

The medical understanding of suffering can be hard to pin down. Does psychological suffering count, and how would that be measured? Perhaps the Dutch and Belgians have simplified the definition for that reason.

A historic case of euthanasia in the UK happened in 1936 when King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine to hasten his demise from cardio-respiratory failure. This wasnt made public until 50 years later. But it suggests that euthanasia might not have been so rare in Britains past.

Questions about euthanasia will come up more as the population ages. The debate centres on four issues: the right of people to choose their fate; that helping someone to die is better than leaving them to suffer; that the ethical difference between the commonly practised pulling of the plug and active euthanasia is not substantive; and that permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. This is the case in the Netherlands and Belgium.

On consent, perhaps the person is not able to make the decision determining competence is not straightforward. Perhaps they feels that they are a burden on medical services or on their family. How do we know unscrupulous friends or relatives arent pressuring them? Do hospital personnel have an economic incentive to encourage consent?

There seems to be a growing acceptance of euthanasia in the UK. In a 2019 survey of 2,500 people, more than 90 per cent believed that assisted euthanasia should be legalised for those suffering from a terminal illness. Eighty-eight per cent believed that it was acceptable for people living with dementia, provided that they consented before losing their mental capacity.

In another survey, 52 per cent would feel more positive towards their MP if they supported assisted dying, compared to 6 per cent who would feel more negative.

So what concerns people, apart from religious beliefs?

Guidelines and safeguards are important. Physicians and counsellors are all involved in assessing people requesting euthanasia in countries where euthanasia is practised. In the US, Canada and Luxembourg, the person must be over 18. In the Netherlands, the age is 12, while in Belgium there is no age limit as long as the person has the capacity for discernment.

In the US, there is no need for unbearable pain or any symptoms. In the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, patients must have unbearable physical or mental suffering with no likelihood of improvement, although the person doesnt have to be terminally ill.

There is a danger that people with severe long-standing depression might want to have their life ended if they are terminally ill. This might be difficult to evaluate, as many with a terminal illness may also be clinically depressed.

In the US, assisted suicide must involve a 15-day period between two oral requests, and a 48-hour waiting period after a final written request. In Canada its 10 days and in Belgium its one month. The Netherlands and Luxembourg do not have any waiting period.

Across all places where it is legal, around 75 per cent of people who undergo assisted suicide are suffering from terminal cancer. The next-highest condition on the list is motor neurone disease, at 1015 per cent. Pain is not that common as a motivating factor, with issues such as loss of autonomy and dignity being more important.

The bottom line is that euthanasia, when properly regulated, can give us hope of a better quality of death. We must also strive for scientific advances in bringing better treatments or palliative care for those who suffer.

When I think about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, I think about Christian de Duve, a famous Belgian biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for the discovery of the lysosome. This is the garbage disposal system for cells: it destroys parts that are old or worn out and can digest a cell whole when it becomes old or damaged. Lysosomes are a bit like a euthanasia machine for the cell.

Christian died by euthanasia in Belgium at the age of 95, suffering from terminal cancer. De Duve wanted to make the decision while he still could and not to be a burden on his family. Christian spent the last month of his life writing to friends and colleagues to tell them of his decision. In an interview published after his death, he said he intended to put off his death until his four children could be with him. He was at peace with his decision, saying, It would be an exaggeration to say Im not afraid of death, but Im not afraid of what comes after, because Im not a believer.

The second person on my mind when I think of this topic is my father. During the winter of 19956, Dad suffered several bouts of pneumonia, almost dying on one occasion. In January of 1996 his GP asked to see me. He suggested that perhaps he wouldnt prescribe another course of antibiotics and would see if my Dad could fight the latest bout on his own. I knew what he was saying by the way he looked at me.

My dad died peacefully of pneumonia (or the old mans friend as he used to call it) in his sleep on 20 February 1996, with me sitting beside his bed, holding his hand. Not a bad way to go, Dad.

This is an edited excerpt from Never Mind the B#ll*cks, Heres the Science by Professor Luke ONeill, out now (9.99, Swift)

Originally posted here:

My father asked me to kill him as we age, more of us will face questions over assisted dying - iNews

The shelter said they don't want to turn to euthanasia, but it's an option if they can't open up some space.

GREENFIELD, Ind. A central Indiana animal shelter is putting out a plea for help as they begin to run out of space.

Greenfield-Hancock County Animal Management posted the urgent call for pet adoptions on Facebook Monday morning. The shelter said they are struggling for space and need people to adopt the dogs to free some room.

"We have so many animals that have been here for a long time. Dogs are now starting to go kennel crazy. We are pleading for your help with getting animals out of the shelter," the post read.

Shelter officials said they pride themselves on being an open admission shelter with a low euthanasia rate, but said without adoptions to free some room for incoming dogs, it may be an option they need to consider.

"We are at a point that we are busting at the seams here and have not a single cage open. We have a wait list of people needing to bring animals in and we get more calls daily to add to that list. We are trying and we are spent. We DO NOT want to euthanize for space but that is what we are looking at if we don't get some adoptions going out of here," the post continued.

!!! HELP !!!We are really struggling with space here at GHAM. We have so many animals that have been here for a...

The shelter asked people who may pick up a stray dog to bring to the shelter not to do that unless they can care for the pet at their own home. It asked people with "space at home and in your heart to adopt" to visit the shelter to see the dogs.

"We are a temporary house for them, but you are their and our last hope," the post concluded.

In another post, the shelter shared a video of the dogs currently at their facility at 2195 W. U.S. 40, west of Greenfield.

See the rest here:

'You are their and our last hope' | Greenfield animal shelter puts out plea for dog adoptions - WTHR

Reading Time: 3 minutesA photo illustration shows tools used in euthanasia. Photo: CNS, Norbert Fellechner, http://www.imago via Reuters

To legalise so-called voluntary assisted dying is to legalise a practice that predictably and inevitably expands. There is plenty of evidence of bracket creep already in Australia and overseas.

From 2017 in Victoria through to this year in Queensland, the circumstances in which this service has been made available have widened as bills have been debated in state jurisdictions.

So, too, in NSW from 2017 when the state parliament debated the Khan Bill to this year when it debates the Greenwich Bill: once again the conditions under which the service is to be available have expanded. And theres plenty of evidence of the same phenomenon from Europe and Canada.

Expansion should not surprise us. More important, however, than acknowledging these empirical facts is understanding why they have occurred.

There are, I think, two forms of pressure that cause this by-now familiar expansion of the laws. I will call the first pressure choice will not be necessary and the second pressure choice will be the only thing thats necessary.

The choice will not be necessary pressure works like this. The patient chooses VAD. Then two doctors assess the persons eligibility: a medical condition from which the patient will likely die soon, from which the patient is suffering intolerably. The doctors must judge whether these criteria are met. But, if someone else meets these criteria, why will choice be necessary? Why not expand the availability to people who meet these eligibility criteria but who cannot choose?

The pressure to expand availability in this direction can be seen in the arguments of those who say euthanasia should be made available for newborn babies (as in The Netherlands) and/or to people with dementia (as in Canada).

Indeed, years ago the late Dr Rodney Syme, a proponent of these laws, predicted that once the service was legally available to those who could choose it, society might come to think that it would be unfair if it were not available to people who could not choose it. His reference was to people with dementia. Thus the choice will not be necessary prediction.

The choice will be the only thing thats necessary pressure goes in the other direction. A patient chooses VAD. Then the doctors must assess the patients eligibility. But the doctors, understandably, are likely to shy away from making what is mostly a medical judgment (that the patient meets the eligibility criteria) and prefer to rely on the actual choice of the patient.

The pressure to expand availability in this direction to anyone who chooses can be seen in Canada, where the requirement that death must be reasonably foreseeable has been dropped on the grounds that requirement discriminates against people with serious disabilities who are not terminally ill. Thus the pressure towards choice will be the only thing that is necessary prediction.

These two forms of pressure, which seem to go in opposite directions, in fact share an assumption: that we can know when a life is not worth living.

In the former case, that assumption is made objectively by others. In the latter case, that assumption is made subjectively by the person themselves.

This is why most of the debate about adequacy of the safeguards in these bills misses the point. However humane ones motives in supporting these laws, the likelihood of the criteria of eligibility being expanded cannot be set aside as though it were mere panic-mongering.

Parliamentarians, in framing laws for the wellbeing of everyone in the community, have a responsibility to deepen and widen their thinking.

The social policy before them is not simply a matter of how best to ensure that people do not die in unrelieved suffering. It is also a matter of how to protect the lives of those who, on their own or at the behest of others, have come to think their lives are not worth living. Their existential demoralisation is a challenge to us all.

Yes, Im a Catholic, so it will be said Im trying to impose my religious beliefs on those who dont share them. Well, any reasonable religion holds out its social teachings as matters that are apt for rational assessment.

But, that said, there is nothing religious in the claim that expansion of these laws is predictable and inevitable.

This article first appeared at http://www.theaustralian.com.au

Related

Read the original:

Expansion of euthanasia: it's inevitable - The Catholic Weekly

ATLANTA Your pets might be eating poison. Channel 11s sister station WSB-TV found many unusual ingredients in common dog and cat foods sold in grocery stores.

Things like mold, chicken feathers and even euthanasia drugs have been found in some wet and dry cat and dog foods, despite FDA rules to protect pets.

Hes doing great. Huh? Youre doing great, said Nikki Mael about her dog Tito. Hes one of five dogs Mael rushed to the vet in 2016 after giving them a can of dog food. Within 15 minutes, they could barely breathe.

By the time we got to the vet, they were lethargic. It had to be the food because I didnt give them anything else but the food, said Mael.

One of her dogs, Tallulah, died.

Tests at a FDA lab later showed the canned dog food had pentobarbital in it. Euthanasia solution pentobarbital, its been found in many, many pet foods, said Dr. Judy Morgan, a veterinarian and a nationally known animal advocate.

Morgan said a lot of pet food companies use tainted and diseased animals for meat. These diseased animals may have been euthanized with euthanasia solution and that does not disintegrate in that rendering and cooking process, said Morgan.

We dont know what were buying. And to me that is unforgivable, said pet food consumer advocate Susan Thixton. She has spent a decade researching and advocating for better pet foods after what her vet told her about her own dog Samantha. He told me that the cancer was probably caused by a chemical preservative added to the pet food to extend the shelf life, said Thixton.

Along with preservatives, many pet foods also contain toxins like mold. And dont be fooled by the packaging: when it says real chicken inside, it might just be chicken feathers. It is a hydrolyzed poultry protein product, so that a pet owner wouldnt be able to tell that is chicken feathers in the food, said Morgan.

The FDA regulates pet foods, but doesnt always take action against violators and doesnt always alert consumers about possible issues. The FDA declined our request for an on-camera interview.

Were not asking them to pull a rabbit out of their hat and do something thats going to cost a lot of money. Were simply asking for the law to be enforced, said Thixton.

The Pet Food Institute, which represents pet food manufacturers, says the industry follows strict safety and health guidelines. They released this statement:

Pet owners have a variety of options when selecting food for their dog and cat, and pet food makers work internally and with their ingredient suppliers to ensure safety. As providers of the sole source of nutrition for many of Americas dogs and cats, members of the Pet Food Institute (PFI) take seriously their responsibility to provide safe and nutritionally balanced pet food. This includes working closely with their supply chain, regularly auditing suppliers and setting strict specifications for ingredients.

Beyond these steps, pet food is also one of the most highly regulated food products in the U.S., including at the federal and state level. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is the national food safety law, ensures a proactive approach to food safety and requires all U.S. pet food makers to implement good manufacturing practices, take necessary safety precautions, and maintain a written food safety plan. Pet food ingredients are also defined and regulated at either the federal or state level.

When creating a complete and balanced recipe that provides total nutrition, pet food makers will consider a variety of factors as they select ingredients. Some considerations include nutritional content, tastiness to the pet and preference to the pet owner. The final information about the foods nutrition and ingredients can be found on the strictly regulated pet food label, which includes a full ingredient list in descending order by weight and a nutritional adequacy statement.

Every animal advocate our sister station WSB-TV talked to said youre better off shopping at local boutique pet stores that offer raw and human-grade food. Victoria Park started her own boutique business in East Atlanta Village after she switched her dog Harleys diet to combat a skin condition. It was a matter of weeks before I noticed an improvement, said Park.

She said transitioning your pet to human-grade food may take several tries, especially since many regular pet foods contain addictive ingredients. They add a lot of artificial salts, sugars to get that animal addicted to that food, said Park.

Animal advocates said all those additives combined with chemicals and toxins can lead to major health problems. All these toxins that were seeing in pet food are contributing to more cancers. Mold, toxins cause liver failure in our pets, said Morgan.

Exposure to euthanasia drugs in pet foods not only can make them sick but also can kill them. Nikki Maels case prompted a recall by the brand she used. But she and others said euthanized animals are still getting slaughtered to feed pets. Its made people aware of what is going on in dog food, but I dont believe anything is being done as far as the FDA, said Mael.

In the meantime, Mael is no longer buying canned dog food. Honestly, I would say make time to make your own. You just dont know whats out there, said Mael.

A woman recorded cellphone video of piles of animal carcasses waiting to be rendered in the middle of the night for pet food.

2021 Cox Media Group

More:

Do you know whats in your pets food? It could be mold, chicken feathers or euthanasia drugs - WPXI Pittsburgh

When an owner and veterinarian decide that a pet is suffering or unlikely to make a recovery, euthanasia offers a way to end a pet's pain. The decision is difficult for both the owner and the veterinarian, but we should recognize that sometimes this is the kindest thing we can do in the final stage of a pet's life.

Understanding how the procedure is performed may help an owner in this decision. It may also help an owner decide whether they wish to be present during the euthanasia. Initially, a pet is made as comfortable as possible. Some veterinarians will perform the procedure in a pet's home. If the animal is brought to the hospital, veterinarians often chose a quiet room where the pet will feel more at ease. Sometimes a mild sedative or tranquilizer is first given if the animal appears anxious or painful. Frequently an indwelling catheter is placed in the pet's vein to ensure that the euthanasia solution is delivered quickly. The euthanasia solution is usually a barbiturate- the same class of drugs used for general anesthesia. At a much higher dose, this solution provides not only the same effects as general anesthesia (loss of consciousness, loss of pain sensation), but suppresses the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. As the solution is injected, the animal loses consciousness and within minutes the heart and lungs stop functioning. Since the pet is not conscious, they do not feel anything. Most times, the animal passes away so smoothly, that it is difficult to tell until the veterinarian listens for absence of a heartbeat. The eyes remain open in most cases. Sometimes, the last few breaths are what's termed "agonal", meaning involuntary muscle contractions but again, the pet is not aware at this point. After the animal dies, there is complete muscle relaxation, often accompanied by urination and defecation. This is completely normal and is something an owner should expect. In addition, after death, chemicals normally stored in nerve endings are released causing occasional muscle twitching in the early post-mortem period. Many owners who chose to stay with their pets are surprised how quickly and easily the pet is put to rest.

The decision to stay or not stay with a pet is a very personal one. Some owners feel they could comfort their pet in its final minutes. Others feel their emotional upset would only upset their pet. Those who choose not to stay may wish to view the pet's body after the procedure is complete. Euthanasia is emotional for veterinarians as well. Sometimes, the veterinarian has known the pet for a long time or has tried very hard to make the animal well again. James Herriot stated the view of most veterinarians in All Things Wise and Wonderful:

"Like all vets I hated doing this, painless though it was, but to me there has always been a comfort in the knowledge that the last thing these helpless animals knew was the sound of a friendly voice and the touch of a gentle hand."

If you have any questions regarding the process of euthanasia, please contact your local veterinarian. He or she should be happy to provide the answers for you. Or, please call us at the hotline number.

- Dr. Laura Eirmann, DVM

Here is the original post:

Facts About Euthanasia (Small Animals) | Cornell ...

woman kissing Buddy, the blind horse

Courtesy of Catskill Animal Sanctuary

Known as Buddy No. 4, this 31-year-old Appaloosa isn't the first blind animal at Catskill Animal Sanctuary, nor is he even the first non-sighted horse to pass through its gates. Founder Kathy Stevens, who grew up on a horse farm, opened the sanctuary in Saugerties, N.Y., 20 years ago so at-risk animals like Buddy would have a forever homeeven if they had one before.

"We were contacted by Buddy's owner, a woman who'd had him for his entire life. She was not in a position to care for him as a blind animal and was going to euthanize him," Stevens tells Daily Paws. "This is an extremely common phenomenonfolks don't have the knowledge or patience [for these animals], or they don't want to make the adjustments to make their pasture/barn safer or sometimes, they simply don't understand that a blind animal can live an incredibly full, joyful life. They think that euthanasia is the most humane option."

Buddy arrived at the sanctuary in early October, and the affectionate equine immediately responded to Stevens' gentle but repetitive direction that helped him understand his new surroundings: changes in terrain, when he's stepping in water, where his food is, and how to move into his trailer. She says that although he was loved before, he still has the capacity to learn, even as an animal advanced in years. (The average lifespan of a horse is 2530 years).

RELATED: Steve Grieg Continues to Adopt Unwanted Senior Dogs and Farm Animals

"Working with him was truly a matter of applying common sense when answering the question: What additional support do blind animals need in order to feel safe and confident?" Stevens says. "And oh my goodness, he's incredibly smart! I was blown away by how quickly he 'learned his words': up, down, stop, choppy, water, and so on."

Buddy's making headlines now because of an inspirational viral videowith more than 1.3 million views! that shows the incredible bond he and Stevens have formed in such a short time. "Teaching Buddy language also communicates loudly and clearly that you've 'got their back,' so it's an important trust builder," Stevens says.

Story continues

As you can see in the video below, it's truly amazing how quickly Buddy understands the cuesand even runs!by having faith in the love and dedication he receives from Stevens and her team.

"It takes patience and time to build trust, but oh my, what a payoff it is!" Stevens says.

Approximately 25 percent of all Appaloosas (including Buddy) develop equine recurrent uveitis, an auto-immune disease that causes blindness, and Stevens says they're eight times more likely to have the condition than other horse breeds. Plus, one of Buddy's best mates at the sanctuary is Buddy No. 3, also a blind Appaloosa who, at 35 years old, is the sanctuary's oldest resident. After days spent wandering the pasture, Stevens says, "at night, their stalls are next to each other, and we cut a large window in the wall so they could nuzzle and feel less isolated."

RELATED: Animals Find Second Chances and True Friendship at Iowa Farm Sanctuary

However, not all rescued residents of Catskill Animal Sanctuary are horses, or blind, for that matter. Buddy No. 4 is making friends with Mario the pig, Chester and Arlo the wonder goats, and Tucker the Holstein steer. The team at the sanctuary specializes in geriatric animal care, so our new pal Buddy receives a customized senior diet and holistic treatments, plenty of fresh air and exercise, and special bedding to cushion him as he ages.

"Every animal is remarkably individual. While most of us only understand this about dogs and cats, it's the same regardless of species," Stevens says. "Every pig, every chicken, every blind horse, every cow, no matter their age, wants their lives as we want ours, and much like our companion animals, they require extra support to grow old with joy and dignity."

After a long life, it sounds like Buddy No. 4 is in retirement heaven!

See the rest here:

Saved from Euthanasia, Watch as Buddy the Blind Horse Enjoys New Life at Catskill Animal Sanctuary - Yahoo Lifestyle

ATLANTA Your pets might be eating poison. Channel 2 Action News found many unusual ingredients in common dog and cat foods sold in grocery stores.

Things like mold, chicken feathers and even euthanasia drugs have been found in some wet and dry cat and dog foods, despite FDA rules to protect pets.

Hes doing great. Huh? Youre doing great, said Nikki Mael about her dog Tito. Hes one of five dogs Mael rushed to the vet in 2016 after giving them a can of dog food. Within 15 minutes, they could barely breathe.

By the time we got to the vet, they were lethargic. It had to be the food because I didnt give them anything else but the food, said Mael.

One of her dogs, Tallulah, died.

Tests at a FDA lab later showed the canned dog food had pentobarbital in it. Euthanasia solution pentobarbital, its been found in many, many pet foods, said Dr. Judy Morgan, a veterinarian and a nationally known animal advocate.

Morgan said a lot of pet food companies use tainted and diseased animals for meat. These diseased animals may have been euthanized with euthanasia solution and that does not disintegrate in that rendering and cooking process, said Morgan.

We dont know what were buying. And to me that is unforgivable, said pet food consumer advocate Susan Thixton. She has spent a decade researching and advocating for better pet foods after what her vet told her about her own dog Samantha. He told me that the cancer was probably caused by a chemical preservative added to the pet food to extend the shelf life, said Thixton.

Along with preservatives, many pet foods also contain toxins like mold. And dont be fooled by the packaging: when it says real chicken inside, it might just be chicken feathers. It is a hydrolyzed poultry protein product, so that a pet owner wouldnt be able to tell that is chicken feathers in the food, said Morgan.

The FDA regulates pet foods, but doesnt always take action against violators and doesnt always alert consumers about possible issues. The FDA declined our request for an on-camera interview.

Were not asking them to pull a rabbit out of their hat and do something thats going to cost a lot of money. Were simply asking for the law to be enforced, said Thixton.

The Pet Food Institute, which represents pet food manufacturers, says the industry follows strict safety and health guidelines. They released this statement:

Pet owners have a variety of options when selecting food for their dog and cat, and pet food makers work internally and with their ingredient suppliers to ensure safety. As providers of the sole source of nutrition for many of Americas dogs and cats, members of the Pet Food Institute (PFI) take seriously their responsibility to provide safe and nutritionally balanced pet food. This includes working closely with their supply chain, regularly auditing suppliers and setting strict specifications for ingredients.

Beyond these steps, pet food is also one of the most highly regulated food products in the U.S., including at the federal and state level. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which is the national food safety law, ensures a proactive approach to food safety and requires all U.S. pet food makers to implement good manufacturing practices, take necessary safety precautions, and maintain a written food safety plan. Pet food ingredients are also defined and regulated at either the federal or state level.

When creating a complete and balanced recipe that provides total nutrition, pet food makers will consider a variety of factors as they select ingredients. Some considerations include nutritional content, tastiness to the pet and preference to the pet owner. The final information about the foods nutrition and ingredients can be found on the strictly regulated pet food label, which includes a full ingredient list in descending order by weight and a nutritional adequacy statement.

TRENDING STORIES:

Every animal advocate Channel 2 talked to said youre better off shopping at local boutique pet stores that offer raw and human-grade food. Victoria Park started her own boutique business in East Atlanta Village after she switched her dog Harleys diet to combat a skin condition. It was a matter of weeks before I noticed an improvement, said Park.

She said transitioning your pet to human-grade food may take several tries, especially since many regular pet foods contain addictive ingredients. They add a lot of artificial salts, sugars to get that animal addicted to that food, said Park.

Animal advocates said all those additives combined with chemicals and toxins can lead to major health problems. All these toxins that were seeing in pet food are contributing to more cancers. Mold, toxins cause liver failure in our pets, said Morgan.

Exposure to euthanasia drugs in pet foods not only can make them sick but also can kill them. Nikki Maels case prompted a recall by the brand she used. But she and others said euthanized animals are still getting slaughtered to feed pets. Its made people aware of what is going on in dog food, but I dont believe anything is being done as far as the FDA, said Mael.

In the meantime, Mael is no longer buying canned dog food. Honestly, I would say make time to make your own. You just dont know whats out there, said Mael.

A woman recorded cellphone video of piles of animal carcasses waiting to be rendered in the middle of the night for pet food.

Watch WSB Tonight at 11 for a closer look at this operation and if it is even legal.

.

2021 Cox Media Group

Go here to see the original:

Do you know whats in your pets food? It could be mold, chicken feathers or euthanasia drugs - WSB Atlanta

WARNING: Content may be sensitive to some readers.

Animal shelters are supposed to be loving places that work hard to save animals. Yet, all it takes is one heartless employee for things to spiral out of control. Anyone who doesnt love animals shouldnt be working in animal rescue, but Animal Care & Control Team (ACCT) in Philadelphia supposedly has several unkind individuals working there.

A familys Pit Bull briefly stayed at ACCT after an incident with the police. The shelter promised it was the safest place for the pup to be. But that same day, they euthanized the dog without warning the family. Even though months have passed, the family still hasnt gotten the justice they deserve.

Bryan Landis and Tiffany Lavelle brought home their Pit Bull named Saint when he was only a puppy. Landis had just gotten out of prison, and the couple wanted their newborn son to have a best friend to grow up with. Landis was in prison due to crimes he committed during his heroin addiction, which is still a struggle for him today.

In August 2021, police pulled Landis over while he was in the car with Saint. Landis had to temporarily go to the police station. So, officers took Saint to ACCT during that time, which is normal protocol. Landis wasnt charged with a crime, and he was told Saint could be picked up after he was released. But when Landis arrived at ACCT a few hours later, he was horrified.

When he arrived at the shelter, he was told Saint had been injured by the police, a Facebook post reads. Bryan was taken to the back where Saint was covered in blood and his jaw was hanging by soft tissue! Saint had not been medicated nor had he received any medical attention. Saint was calm but couldnt even lift his head to look at Bryan

Animal control wouldnt let Landis take Saint home unless he had a vet appointment for the broken jaw. Landis couldnt schedule anything at such short notice, so ACCT staff assured him that Saint would be safe with them for the time being.

Landis went home without Saint, but he was furious. He and Lavelle called ACCT several times to find out more information, but no one answered. The shelter even hung up on them even though they scheduled a vet appointment for Saint.

Then, Lavelle got ahold of the police, who assured them that they hadnt hurt Saint. The shelter later claimed that Saint broke his jaw by biting a metal bar, but the officer had a more horrific version of the story.

Officer Corvey swore Saint was in perfect condition when he was dropped off at the shelter. He stated when they arrived at the shelter a male employee from the shelter was pulling Saint from the car so aggressively that there was blood and feces left in the back seat of the squad car, a Facebook post read. The employee then dragged Saint towards the building. At that point, Sergeant Dayton then called the shelter himself to get the name of the male employee. The shelter refused to give him that name.

So, Landis and Lavelle rushed to the shelter the next day to pick up Saint. When they arrived, staff told them he had been euthanized after Landis left the day before. No one had attempted to contact the family before the euthanasia.

The family has video footage of them talking to shelter staff before and after Saint was killed. Before, the staff never said anything about his condition being life-threatening. After, the woman claimed that she had no idea where his ashes and collar were. The family had no piece of their furry friend left.

Aurora Velazquez runs ACCT, and she has been linked to numerous incidents like this. There have even been multiple reports of abuse and unapproved euthanasia at this facility. Even so, no one has been fired for abusing or euthanizing Saint without consent.

I feel bad because he died alone, Lavelle said.

Sadly, unapproved euthanasia like this happens far too often. No matter the reason for it, this is never acceptable. Any animal control employees who think its okay to euthanize animals without even telling their families should be fired. Lavelle and Landis will keep fighting to ensure that Saint gets justice. Theyve even created a Facebook page to share updates on the situation.

H/T: YouTubeFeatured Image: Facebook

Follow this link:

Animal Control Vows To Protect Family's Dog, Then Euthanizes Him That Day - iHeartDogs.com