Category Archives: Euthanasia

LAREDO, TX. (KGNS) - John Orfila Jr., the public works director, will take over the position of Karina Elizondo, who was serving as the interim director at the Laredo Animal Care Services Facility.

The switch in command is a result of some disturbing images that surfaced online and created shock waves in the community.

Some of the pictures in the video above might be upsetting.

During the council meeting we heard what had happened- we immediately took off to the shelter, assessed the situation, grabbed hold of things because people who worked there, they worked all night and they will continue to work into the night, said Orfila.

Its work thats too late for some animals who have lost their lives at the city facility.

Troubling photos appeared online during a city council meeting that prompted immediate reaction.

The dates of the images, however, have not been confirmed.

Im asking the city manager to initiate an investigation to images that were sent to us and posted on social media, said Councilman Alberto Torres, Jr. Im asking that a thorough investigation be conducted.

The city has already partnered with the sheriffs office to develop a program that will have inmates helping to clean the facilities in the future.

Sadly, the outcome for any pets taken to the shelter now remains bleak.

So, when people are dropping off their animals currently, theyre making a decision the doctor must look at the animals and they must be put down, said City Manager Robert Eads.

Rescuing isnt just about taking the animal in, its about vaccinating them, taking care of them, spay and neuter them, everybody can afford to spay and neuter one, said Carol Leyendecker.

The city manager points out the halt to intakes has been practiced in other cities like San Antonio and can avoid mass euthanasia.

What we have to realize is that when we are receiving 800 animals in a shelter that normally receives 500, that has shelter for 184-185 animals, the math doesnt work.

The problem will be assessed and will not happen again. I can guarantee that what we need are people to get to applying. Nobody has applied for these positions for months now- we have no applications.

The city is extending an invitation for people to apply to be kennel workers, someone who can help keep conditions sanitary at the shelter.

Theyre looking for more than ten employees, you just need to be 18 years of age- no experience or high school diploma is necessary.

The position pays $13.50 an hour.

The city animal shelter is operating at above capacity with limited staff after shutting down due to the pandemic.

Laredo Animal Care Services is hopeful that this issue will motivate the community to support the shelter by adopting more pets.

See the original post:

City shelter temporarily suspends intake of animals - KGNS.tv

Where did the term eucharistic coherence originate?The term eucharistic coherence originated in the final document of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Aparecida, Brazil, in 2007. Then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, a principal draftee, lauded the document and Pope Benedict XVI authorized the final text praising the wealth of reflections in the light of the faith and the contemporary social context.

This is the full paragraph:

We hope that legislators, heads of government, and health professionals, conscious of the dignity of human life and of the rootedness of the family in our peoples, will defend and protect it from the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia; that is their responsibility. Hence, in response to government laws and provisions that are unjust in the light of faith and reason, conscientious objection should be encouraged. We must adhere to eucharistic coherence, that is, be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.

Why is eucharistic coherence linked so closely to abortion and euthanasia?The theology of eucharistic coherence builds upon the teachings of the Church contained in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae and the post-synodal exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis. U.S. bishops referencing the term are thus using a term squarely coined by reflection upon magisterial teaching.

Evangelium Vitae, footnoted in Aparecida document paragraph 436, highlights the gravity of abortion and euthanasia, the clear need to oppose all laws that claim to legitimize them, and the prohibition against formal cooperation with this evil, whileSacramentum Caritatis more specifically explores the ramifications of living these teachings on reception of the eucharist.

According to Benedict XVI, eucharistic consistency, a term coined in Sacramentum Caritatis, recognizes the objective connection between the Eucharist and the fundamental values a Catholic must hold to in personal and public life, including respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.

Why is eucharistic coherence linked with Catholic politicians in particular?Published just three months before the Aparecida document, Sacramentum Caritatis reflects the development of the thought of Pope Benedict XVI. As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he wrote a memorandum to the U.S. bishops in 2004 in response to debate concerning Democratic presidential candidate and abortion proponent John Kerry presenting himself for reception of holy communion.

View post:

Eucharistic coherence and the USCCB spring meeting: Five questions you need answered - Malaysian Christian News

Pet adoptions in the United States increased significantly at the start of the coronavirus pandemic last year as people found themselves spending more time at home.

Now, people are fostering animals as they decide they don't want the full-time pet ownership role while working at home with a mind toward eventually returning to work. But even those numbers are falling.

As folks prepare their hearts and homes for new companions, end-of-life care is not always at the top of their minds. That is why services like Lowcountry Pet Hospice and Home Euthanasia are important.

Dr. Lauren Orvin is veterinarian at the mobile practice in Charleston and provides pets and their caregivers with information, comfort and dignity during the dying process.

But also on the minds of pet lovers is adoptions. More than 35,400 dogs were adopted in the United States in March 2021, according to the national PetPoint adoption report. That is a 10.4 percent decrease from reported adoptions in March 2020, the same month when the first COVID-19 cases were reported in the Palmetto State.

Locally, staffers at the Berkeley Animal Center haveseen anincrease in both adoptions and pets coming into the shelter during the pandemic. But more than anything, an abundance of people are choosing to foster animals from the shelter, according to director Heather McDowell.

She said she believes more people opted to foster pets than adopt them during the pandemic so they would not have to deal with long-term commitment.

And while they were home, they figured theyd have something there with them to play with and, you know, do stuff with, McDowell said. But once they had to go back to work, they didnt want to continue to have to take care of it, so they would bring it back.

As people go back to work and life begins to return to pre-pandemic norms, McDowell said the fostering numbers at the shelter are beginning to decrease. But the need hasnt.

From May 1 to June 1 of this year, almost 500 cats and kittens were brought into the shelter. They thrive better in foster environments where they can be bottle fed and cared for until theyre old enough to be spayed or neutered.

McDowell said folks are always encouraged to foster or adopt animals from the shelter. As of the beginning of June, 378 dogs and 337 cats have been adopted this year from the shelter.

It is important that people are prepared to take careof the animals once they adopt them, McDowell said.

When people are coming to adopt, we always suggest that they bring the pets that they currently have to do a meet-and-greet with the animal that theyre wanting to adopt just to make sure that theyre going to get along, McDowell said.

And if the adoption does not work out, the Berkeley Animal Center will take the animals back. Families have returned pets to the shelter for various reasons, including food aggression and illnesses.

During instances of illness, Orvin said families are faced with many decisions.

Initially, those decisions may include whether or not to pursue treatment options like chemotherapy or surgical interventions, Orvin said. Later on, decisions regarding the pets physical and emotional wellbeing while undergoing treatment often surface.

Families may also have to make decisions regarding financial, physical and time limitations and abilities when dealing with a sick pet. Ultimately, caregivers could have to decide when and whether to euthanize, Orvin said.

Lowcountry Pet Hospice and Home Euthanasias services are geared towards cats and dogs and include an initial home consultation during which staff discusses the familys concerns and the pets diagnosis. A plan is then created for the animals care.

Orvin said her companys goal for hospice care includes detecting and managing physical and emotional pain and supporting a pets mobility, nutrition and hygiene. She said hospice care is appropriate for almost every pet with a terminal diagnosis.

Hospice care is a collaboration between the caregiver, aftercare providers, pharmacists and mental health professionals, Orvin said. Each of these team members help families navigate the decision-making process of end-of-life care.

Orvin said she has seen an increase in the number of families that need in-home hospice services during the pandemic.

We believe this is because more families were home to observe their pets and then desired to be home for hospice care and eventually to help them pass in the home as well, Orvin said.

In addition to in-home hospice care, Orvin offers palliative care, euthanasia and aftercare services. Information and pricing for each service can be found online atlowcountrypethospice.com. Phone consultations are available from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday at 843-640-9755.

Follow Shamira McCray on Twitter @ShamiraTweets.

See original here:

Pandemic brought increased pet adoptions and need for in-home animal hospice care - Charleston Post Courier

A journalist has opened up about the "heartbreaking decision" to euthanise her adopted dog after just six months. Photo / 123RF

A journalist has opened up about the "heartbreaking decision" to euthanise her adopted "pandemic dog", sparking heated debate online.

Madeline Bilis, real estate editor with the website Apartment Therapy, penned a piece for Slate last week describing how just before Christmas she adopted Bonnie, "a six-year-old beagle whose photo melted my heart".

"Like many others last year, I was thrilled to adopt a dog," she wrote.

"The so-called pandemic puppy boom made for what felt like stiff competition at the time."

But according to the New York-based journalist, the New Jersey animal shelter failed to inform her about Bonnie's history of aggressive behaviour.

After six months of failed behavioural training, "daily dog anxiety meds" and unsuccessful attempts at rehoming Bonnie, Bilis said she was left with no option but "behavioural euthanasia".

"She was adorable and violent," Bilis wrote. "I found a resolution many choose but few acknowledge."

The article, which drew praise from some readers for honestly addressing a difficult topic, described how Bonnie was involved in a number of serious biting incidents.

"Last Christmas morning, I patted my bed, inviting my newly adopted beagle, Bonnie, to jump up and cuddle," she began the piece.

"My boyfriend, still under the covers, reached out to pet her soft little head, which was now wedged between us. I turned away to grab my phone, and it happened: a guttural bark, followed by a human scream. I whipped around to see my boyfriend's hand covered in blood. It was Bonnie's second bite in the week since I'd adopted her."

Bilis told of another incident where Bonnie lunged at a man walking past them on the pavement.

"Before I could react, she chomped into his calf, his pant leg in her teeth as he tried to pull away," she wrote.

"To my surprise, the man brushed off the incident. I did not."

Bilis said as Bonnie's "bite count continued to grow, so did my desire to stop living with a dangerous animal".

"I tiptoed around my two-room home each day, hoping I wouldn't cross any invisible boundaries," she wrote.

"As the weeks went by and no new options appeared, I realised I had a choice: I could send her off with a stranger one day someone she would certainly injure, and who would perhaps end up euthanising her anyway or I could allow her to leave this terrifying world peacefully with someone she loves."

She stressed that behavioural euthanasia was "not a decision made out of convenience".

"On the phone, I wept quietly as I made Bonnie's appointment, taking shallow breaths as the receptionist instructed me to make sure she was wearing her muzzle when we arrived," she said.

Bilis said she had nightmares in the days after putting Bonnie down.

"Crushed with guilt, I wondered if there was more I could have done to help my sweet beagle," she said.

"I didn't tell most people what happened. What if they thought I was a monster for not trying hard enough? Instead, I made a post on Instagram so I wouldn't have to talk to the people who had been gushing over Bonnie."

In the post, Bilis said she "explained she had an illness that went undiagnosed before I adopted her, and that I had to say goodbye".

"She was sick, just in a way that was impossible for most people to see," she wrote.

Unsurprisingly, the article sparked heated reaction online.

"I had to have my 16-year-old dog put down because he couldn't walk anymore," one user wrote. "I had to have my 20-year-old cat put down because he was dying in pain. It broke me. Twice. You ended a dog because her behaviour was inconvenient."

A number of people shared images of their own adopted dogs.

One woman said her mother's rescue dog had the same issues and had bitten her several times.

"But we figured out what behaviours WE were doing that triggered her reactions and adjusted accordingly," she said.

"She is now a bit of a diva for attention but she's ALIVE because we didn't PUT HER DOWN over it."

Another wrote, "You gave that six-year-old doggo less than six months' training to turn around a lifetime of trauma and fear and then you euthanised her when you couldn't get her to adjust quick enough. No back pats for you for this. That's just cruel."

One user said that in her "30-year-plus career as a veterinarian who works on dogs with anxieties and behavioural issues, I've only had to euthanise two dogs for child safety reasons".

"Both were 240lb [110kg] Mastiffs," she wrote.

Several took issue with the term "pandemic dog".

"If your motivation to adopt a living being into your care is simply because you're bored from lockdown, that's a good first sign that you shouldn't," one person wrote.

Many defended Bilis, however, agreeing she had no choice and praising her for the piece.

"Beagles are usually not aggressive so clearly poor Bonnie had a lot of trauma before you found her," wrote conservative podcaster Lyndsey Fifield.

"You did the best you could and did the most responsible thing preventing her from hurting anyone else. I'm sorry for the sick attacks you are facing for sharing this story."

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh wrote, "A lot of people angry about this article but obviously the correct thing to do with a violent and dangerous domesticated animal is put it down."

See the original post:

Journalist sparks debate over 'heartbreaking decision' to euthanise adopted 'pandemic dog' - New Zealand Herald

Death cannot be denied, but it can be edited. In 1981, the US Uniform Law Commission proposed a model law for the determination of death. It says that individuals have died when they have experienced an irreversible end to either their respiratory and circulatory functions or their brain functions. The commission is now considering whether to revise that definition. One proposal has been gaining influence, but has dangers that ought to keep it from prevailing.

That proposal has three crucial elements. It would specify that current medical guidelines should be followed in diagnosing brain death, whereas current law is silent on that point. It would list criteria for brain death that would allow it to be declared even when patients show some function in the hypothalamus, a structure deep in the brain. And it would allow doctors to dispense with getting a proxys consent before conducting an apnea test to check whether the patient can breathe spontaneously as an indication of whether brain death has occurred.

The revisions offer several potential advantages. They would align the law better with medical practice: US law specifies that all functions of the entire brain" have to have irreversibly stopped, while the medical guidelines for declaring death do not require checking hypothalamic function.

Why not align the two the other way, by having the guidelines follow the law? As one author of the proposal has explained, that would probably lead to fewer organs being available for transplantation, since doctors would not be allowed to remove organs from patients with that function.

Despite all the arguments in favour of the revisions, more than 100 experts in medicine, law, philosophy and bioethics have signed a statement of opposition organized by D. Alan Shewmon, an emeritus professor of paediatric neurology at UCLA. The signatories come from around the world, as US developments can have a global ripple effectand have widely varying views about how death should be determined.

John Finnis, an emeritus professor of philosophy at Oxford University and law professor at Notre Dame who is well-known for his belief in the sanctity of all human life, signed. So did Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University who expressly rejects the sanctity of life principle and is known for his utilitarian arguments for the moral permissibility of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

The Shewmon statement raises a serious objection to each revision proposal. It contends that the current guidelines pose an unacceptably high risk of classifying people as dead when they arent. They could have this effect, for example, in cases where blood flow drops to a level that prevents brain function but might be raised again. Patients could also be categorized as dead, according to the statement, if they are judged comatose because they are unresponsive even though they are possibly conscious. It notes multiple examples of patients surviving even after meeting the guidelines criteria for death, and points out that there would likely be more if meeting those criteria did not so often lead to the withdrawal of medical support or the removal of organs.

The objecting experts insist that informed consent is necessary for an apnea test, given that many procedures that are much more beneficial and much less risky require" it. If a patient is in sufficient peril, the test can cause the brain death it is attempting to diagnose. They even suggest, although they do not explicitly say, that the test is simply unethical. (It is doubtful that any proxy, after being truly informed about the procedure, would ever consent to it.")

Singers distinctive perspective is worth considering. He has no objection in principle to taking the organs of living human beings and thereby causing their deaths; he has written that it would sometimes be the right thing to do. He does not, however, favour changing our standards for what constitutes death to obscure what we would be doing. He wants us to do it with a clear understanding.

Those of us who disagree with him on the ethical question should agree all the more with him on the definitional one. There is even a utilitarian argument to be deployed here: People may be less willing to designate themselves as potential organ donors if they believe the quest for usable organs could influence the way patients are treated. You start blurring those lines and the worry on the part of the family members starts to be, Youre just encouraging me to take him off the vent so you can get his organs," says Aaron Kheriaty, director of medical ethics at UCI Health.

But even that weighty consideration is ultimately only secondary. We should strenuously resist a system of classifying who is alive that is under-inclusivesomething that is, after all, literally the stuff of nightmares.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a senior editor at National Review and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

See more here:

A scary American proposal to revise the definition of death - Mint

St Peter's - Image ICN/JS

Source: Vatican News

Cardinal Luis F Ladaria, SJ, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) has written to the president of the US Bishops Conference, Archbishop Jos Gomez, concerning moves by the conference to formulate a national policy regarding admission to Communion for Catholics in public office who support legislation permitting abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils.

Cardinal Ladaria's letter dated 7 May, comes in response to a letter from Archbishop Gomez in March, informing the CDF that the US Bishops were preparing to draft a document following some controversy related to US President Joe Biden and some of the policies of his administration.

The Cardinal expressed gratitude for the information received, including the intention on the part of the US Bishops to send in a draft for an "informal review, prior to its submission to the body of Bishops for a vote."

He also responded to a request that the Congregation make available a copy of a letter sent in 2004 by the then prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope emeritus Benedict XVI) to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick on the same issue. Cardinal Ladaria explained that the letter was written "in the form of a private letter to the bishops" and the future Pope had stipulated that "these principles were not intended for publication". Therefore, Cardinal Ladaria insisted that the CDF will continue to respect that desire.

However, Cardinal Ladaria acknowledged that some of the principles contained in the letter assist the US Bishops in the drafting of the document, but they "should only be discussed in the context of the CDF's authoritative Doctrinal note of 2002: "On some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life." He further noted that the text predates Cardinal Ratzinger's letter and provides "the teaching of the Magisterium on the theological foundation for any initiative regarding the question of the worthy reception of Holy Communion."

The Prefect of the CDF also recalls that the question about Catholic pro-choice politicians and their admission to receiving Communion had been raised during the ad limina visits of the US Bishops. He noted that the CDF had then recommended that "dialogue among the bishops be undertaken to preserve the unity of the episcopal conference in the face of the disagreements over this controversial topic. The formulation of a national policy was suggested during the ad limina visits only if this would help the bishops to maintain unity."

Cardinal Ladaria further stated that the CDF notes that "such a policy, given its possibly contentious nature, could have the opposite effect and become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger Church in the United States."

The CDF advised during the ad limina visits that the effective development of a policy in this area requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.

The Cardinal urged that dialogue among the bishops is important to help them "agree as a Conference that support of pro-choice legislation is not compatible with Catholic teaching" in light of the 2002 Doctrinal Note which states "Christians are called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism and accept that democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society."

Having done this, the Bishops are to "reach out to and engage in dialogue with Catholic politicians within their jurisdictions who adopt a pro-choice position regarding abortion legislation, euthanasia, or other moral evils, as a means of understanding the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching," Cardinal Ladaria said.

After these two stages of dialogue, the USCCB "would then face the difficult task of discerning the best way forward for the church in the United States to witness to the grave moral responsibility of Catholic public officials to protect human life at all stages."

The Cardinal however stressed that "If it then decided to formulate a national policy on worthiness for Communion, such a statement would need to express a true consensus of the bishops on the matter, while observing the prerequisite that any provisions of the Conference in this area would respect the rights of individual Ordinaries in their dioceses and the prerogatives of the Holy See."

He added that "any statement of the conference regarding Catholic political leaders would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of Holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, reflecting their obligation to conform their lives to the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ as they prepare to receive the sacrament."

Furthermore, he pointed out that ""it would be misleading if such a statement were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics."

Cardinal Ladaria urged that "every effort" be made to dialogue with other episcopal conferences so as to "preserve unity" in the universal Church.

Tags: Biden, President Biden, USCCB, Abortion, Cardinal Luis F Ladaria, SJ, CDF, Archbishop Jos Gomez, Vatican

ICN aims to provide speedy and accurate news coverage of all subjects of interest to Catholics and the wider Christian community. As our audience increases - so do our costs. We need your help to continue this work.

Please support our journalism by donating to ICN today.

See the original post here:

Vatican: Cardinal asks US Bishops to preserve unity in debate on Communion and abortion | ICN - Independent Catholic News

For years now, the euthanasia debate has still not ended, as no middle path has been struck to pacify those who are for and against this practice. The right to life and the gift of God are the major arguments that surface when the topic arises.

While some believe it is only humane to enable a human being to end his suffering by means of assisted suicide, others believe that all pain and suffering endured by human beings is Gods will, and should be accepted as it has been given by God. In this heated debate are also included religious, political, and personal views. Among all this, those who desperately want to end their lives because they simply cannot go on in any way are the ones who suffer.

Every individual or group has a different viewpoint regarding euthanasia. Some are practical, some emotional, and some religious. There is also a deep history of euthanasia, which cannot be ignored when having a debate regarding this subject. Based on this history, beliefs, and viewpoints, certain arguments for and against euthanasia have been put forward.

When a person is terminally ill or in a vegetative state, it is often considered sensible to alleviate the pain and suffering by ending her/his life. But there are several arguments about this. Euthanasia allows a person to end their perpetual state of suffering and die with dignity. When a person is not in a condition to perform any physical tasks, experience any emotion, or on the other hand, is in extreme physical pain, propagators of this method of ending life argue, why should a person like this continue to live in pain? This is one of the biggest arguments for euthanasia. The problem is that at times the patient is in no condition to make this decision, and such a decision is made on behalf of the family. For situations like these there is a specific government regulation that demands complete evidence that euthanasia is the only option left. Such appeals can only be made when all other methods to ease the suffering of the patient, or to treat her/him have been made and failed. Again, those who believe in euthanasia and are for it, believe that the right to die is a personal matter, and it has nothing to do with society or humanity at large. A persons right to die will not affect the state or harm it in any manner, and thus, they believe that no such regulation is needed to govern euthanasia.

On the flip side of the coin, it has to be understood that the decision to die will definitely affect family and friends. There will be guilt, remorse, anger, frustration, and sadness associated with the decision of choosing death. In this way, it is considered improper to demand death when so much depends on a person. Also, it is believed that the person in question has an obligation towards society, where she/he simply cannot choose to die. But what can a person who is terminally ill do? How can she/he ease the pain and grief of others when she/he is in immense pain her/himself? What kind of an obligation towards society can a person fulfill when she/he lacks the capacity to do so? Further, there are numerous costs of health care that need to be taken care of when it comes to keeping a person who is incapable of functioning in any manner, alive. Bearing these costs is difficult which is why, when the ill person her/himself cannot make a request for euthanasia, this request is put forth by family.

One of the biggest arguments against this process is belief about the casual nature with which it will be approached in the future. If euthanasia is permitted without the necessity to abide by government regulations and laws, people will use it as a means to get out of even simpler troubles. Moreover, there may be ways in which pressure may be put on individuals to die or end their lives because they may seem as burdens to the family. They may also use it as a method of avoiding heavy medical expenditures that may be needed in cases that are complicated. Religious views suggest that only God has the right to take life, and it is something us human beings should not meddle with. Further, they believe that life is a precious gift that has been bestowed upon us by the Almighty, and giving it up due to some pain is no way to value it. Political views suggest that euthanasia will have an effect on society, no matter how personal a decision it is. As a society that survives on following the footsteps of others, deciding to request for death will cause other individuals (in less deplorable situations) to follow these methods too.

These are simply some thoughts on the ongoing debate that is a cause for concern all over the world. From the humanitarian point of view, the right to die (with dignity) belongs to every individual, and this cannot be ignored no matter how many arguments are put forth against this practice. Though several facts may be presented to you to persuade or dissuade you about this practice, it is ultimately your belief that will allow you to think whether or not such a practice should be legalized. It is a good idea to remember that death and dying is inevitable and an ultimate eventuality. In effect, the legalization of euthanasia under the strict governing of laws and regulations will allow those who wish to avail of this right, to do so with dignity. It is a process that will take a while, while the pros and cons of euthanasia are considered, and till all human beings are convinced that it may be a boon when viewed from the perspective of the right to life.

Originally posted here:

Euthanasia Debate - Opinion Front

ESSEX COUNTY, NJ For the fifth year in a row, Essex County's animal shelters and pounds euthanized the most dogs in New Jersey, according to state statistics.

Every year, the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) conducts a voluntary survey among the state's licensed animal shelters and pounds. This document the "Shelter/Pound Annual Report" includes the numbers of intakes, adoptions and euthanasias performed at each facility that year.

See the full county-by-county list for 2017 here.

According to the 2017 report, 427 dogs met their end in Essex County facilities last year the most of any New Jersey county. The next-highest totals came from Mercer County (254), Camden County (184) and Morris County (169).

Essex County shelters took in 2,470 dogs last year, a kill rate of 17.2 percent. That rate was down from 2016, when the county's shelters took in 2,425 dogs and euthanized 613 a 25 percent kill rate.

Essex County's 2017 dog euthanasia totals were also down from 2015, when the county's shelters killed 614 canines. And last year's total was a huge drop from 2014, when the county's facilities reported euthanizing a staggering 913 dogs.

In addition to the high number of dog euthanasias, 546 cats were euthanized in Essex County last year with 2,668 total intakes, a kill rate of 20 percent. Gloucester County led the state in cat euthanasias with 1,305, followed by Ocean County (1,258), Atlantic County (945) and Burlington County (941).

However, despite Essex County's grim euthanasia totals, significantly more animals were adopted or reunited with their owners, according to state statistics.

Essex County's shelters adopted 763 dogs (30 percent) and "redeemed" 667 dogs (27 percent). The county adopted 655 cats (24 percent) and redeemed 35 (about 1 percent).

The NJDOH includes the following disclaimer about the yearly survey:

Learn more about posting announcements or events to your local Patch site here. Send local news tips and correction requests to eric.kiefer@patch.com

File Photo: Shutterstock/ Geoffrey Robinson

See the rest here:

Essex County Shelters Euthanized Most Dogs In New Jersey ...

The first feature film by Argentine director Martin Kraut is a psychological thriller that exposes how not all hospital deaths are "natural,"and some are more unnatural than others.

The director said that when a country does not legislate in time on certain issues (like euthanasia), decisions on the matter are made in a "dark way, in the shadows."He saidhe is happy to have contributed to thedebate oneuthanasia withThe Dose.

The film was shot in 2019, and stars Carlos Portaluppi and Ignacio Rogers.

The Dosedebuted at the Rotterdam Film Festival, and was released in Argentina virtually in early 2020 amid the coronavirus crisis. This week, it will arrive in the United States via On-Demand and other digital forms from distributor Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Kraut, who was an integral part of thescript and direction of the project, declaredhimself an admirer of the films of Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrik and Luis Buuel.They inspired him to write the script for the thriller, based on a real event that happened in Uruguay.

In The Dose, the experienced Marcos (Portaluppi) and Gabriel (Rogers), the new and friendly nurse in the ICU of a private clinic in Argentina, compete in the daily chore of the night shift: helping to end the suffering of some patients.

"The strange and complex reality that we live today with the covid-19 definitely resignifies the film. To the extent that it revolves around the dynamics within an intensive care unit".

The filmwon a contest atthe National Film Instituteof Argentina and allowed Kraut to meet the biggest challenge for the director of an "opera prima,"which the film is: to get the money to produce it. Kraut is proud to be part of Argentine cinema, which has "great directors who have marked a path."

After passing through the genre festival circuit, Goldwyn will release it directly on U.S. digital and video-on-demand platforms on June 11.

Excerpt from:

Martin Kraut, the Argentine combining euthanasia and horror in 'The Dose' - AL DIA News

It's taken more than a quarter of a century, but South Australia is one step closer to achieving voluntary assisted dying.

The bill to legalise euthanasia passed the state's Lower House in the early hours of Thursday morning, marking a significant milestone after and 17 attempts.

Labor MP Susan Close, who introduced the bill to the Lower House was rapturous for South Australia in the historic moment.

- MP Susan Close

Shadow Attorney General Kyam Maher says it's a huge leap forward for the state and comes at a time when people are ready for change.

- Kyam Maher

Amendments to the bill, include exercising the rights of private hospitals to conscientiously object to euthanasia and instead refer patients to other institutions, means the bill needs the endorsement of the Upper House.

If approved, South Australia will become the fourth state to legalise assisted dying, joining the ranks of Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania.

Euthanasia bill passes major hurdle as SA's Lower House votes in favour

For Australians looking for intelligent and unbiased news coverage, join renowned journalist Natarsha Belling on Your Morning Agenda for breaking national and international stories as well as the top business and finance stories - every weekday from 6:30am on Listnr

More:

SAs Euthanasia Laws Pass After 26 Years of Trying To Die - Hit 107