Are You Serious Jo

I guess you have no problem lying to a dying person, I personally couldn't do that. As I said, integrity is important and if your word is worth nothing then what have you got.

No one is saying that everyone should be fine doing it, it's perfectly understandable that a lot of people couldn't do it. The thing I have issue with is lying and pretending that you would when you know you won't. That's deceitful, just say no rather than lie. I may be harsh as all buggery at times but integrity is important to me.

My previous answer about attitude to another's different ethical choice: Someone else would not make that choice but would PTS the dog .... saying they wouldn't betray the person's wish. But I'd weigh up the young dog's 'best interest' to live out its life.... against the thinking of a person suffering & facing death. Ethically, neither of those solutions would be right or wrong. Each of us would say we made a call according to how we sorted thro' our own values. Best any of us can do. I am with Jo on this one. You can make no guarantees for the dog's safety after the dog leaves your care, therefore you rehoming the dog is not in the dog's best interests. The same measures apply to rehoming any dog as well as possible. The dog I rehomed for the elderly lady who's health is failing is doing nicely. You seem to be arguing that I should have said to her..... there's no 100% guarantee of your dog being safe in a new home, it'd be better PTS. You want to rehome your dog fine, you have chosen to do so, it is your choice. But your friend who died made a choice and you would decide that you knew better than she did and did something she did not want. Do you see the difference, one makes a choice, one has her choice taken away. How would you feel if you died and your "friend" decided that your dogs were better off being PTS? What if they lied to you and knew they'd do it but told you they wouldn't?

A guide dog is different to a pet. I have rapidly lost faith because we have one person who said she'd ignore the owner's wishes and from comments I suspect a few more. These are dog people who should understand how unreliable some people can be with pets. Now I'm going to do more research to make sure that "do gooders" cannot over turn my wishes.

You're really are getting very emotional. I still have the same view of my values in the specific scenario I've described. Made my ethical choices in relation to it. I'm not emotional, just trying to communicate with you in your italics language, thought it might get through because you keep ignoring the relevant parts of the argument :laugh:

I'm starting to think we need a list of people we can trust to carry out our wishes, people who trust we know what is right for us and our dogs. If you are terminal it's not as bad but if you go via accident then there could be issues. I thought something like this had to be carried out by law if you specify it in a proper will? As long as someone doesn't kidnap your dog and hand it out to anyone.

Do you think you have any legal say over a dog you give away? You are very mistaken if you do, therefore the owner's fear is entirely rational, you CANNOT guarantee a good home UNLESS you keep the dog yourself. You keep ignoring the key points. Dog will be out of your hands, no control! The only way to ensure a good home is found permanently is to keep the dog. Still doesn't make up for the fact you lied to a dying friend but at least the dog would be ok.

Who are you to make that call that your friend is irrational? I've already shown you how her fear could become very real because you would rehome the dog leaving you with no legal control over the outcome. I'd say if she was your friend her fear is very justified! Not only would her fear for the dog be realised but she is dealing with someone who didn't have the integrity to either follow her wishes or decline the request in the first place. I'm quite surprised that someone who espouses ethical behaviour could do something so lacking in integrity. You have no right to deceive a friend because you have placed your moral sensibilities above hers. I don't know what would be worse, lying to a dying friend about something so fundamentally important to her or the losing control of her loved dog.

Yes, if you have problems with the request just don't agree to it in the first place. I sort of always thought people held a dying wish as sacred but I guess not.

You can be on the radar all you like but if the new owner wants to get rid of the dog anywhere they like you can't do a thing. Like desexing and breeder contracts, you are powerless once they have ownership of the dog. Imagine how your friend would feel knowing you took it upon yourself to not only go back on your word but then not keep the dog yourself. Why not just tell them you can't follow through so they can find someone who will keep their word. Don't you find lying about it an issue?

But once you rehome that dog you lose all control over the outcome, which then makes your friend's fear in danger of happening. The only way you can make sure that the dog will be safe for the rest of it's life is to keep it yourself. Your post is a perfect example of what I wouldn't want happening, the dog could end up anywhere. If you want to keep the dog yourself then I can understand breaking your word because then the worst couldn't happen. But to break your word then hand the dog off to someone else

He's not just any coolie, he's a coolie that will work all day and then has a perfectly working off switch Plus living with you would be like living with me because we pretty much think the same :laugh:

No take backs :laugh:

There is a big difference between someone saying will you take my dog, it's yours now and when I die will you take my dog to the vet and have it PTS.

I'm not into condemning shelters who have to PTS young animals if they haven't got room, worse things than being dead can happen. I try not to be a hypocrite.

One thing I've learned from this thread is that if you are terminal, take your dog in yourself to PTS because you can't reply on others to do it.

Hardly. But you have such strong views on this I thought you'd help a sister out :laugh: Thanks for helping prove my point by the way. Oh, people have strong views but when it comes to stepping up then that's another matter entirely. Yep. Lost count of the number of dogs I've seen being given away in a hurry by family members of a deceased relative, I think my dogs deserve better than that.

Hardly. But you have such strong views on this I thought you'd help a sister out :laugh: Thanks for helping prove my point by the way.

Nooooooo :p I suspect DD will be knocking down my door though so I think you will be safe :laugh:

It's harder to disinfect after a disease outbreak on dirt though. The problems at Moorook won't be solved with a change in flooring though, there needs to be a shift in ideology.

BTW, there is NO evidence that dogs understand the concept of death, they don't have the requisite cognitive capacities.

You're the one banging your discordant drum. You've made a judgement about a dead woman and her family based on a Daily Mail Online article. Wow. The woman is DEAD. She made a decision based on the dog she knew. You didnt know the dog but you take it upon yourself to call her an arrogant, self centred and self righteous person. You dont know her either! This matter should never have made the tabloids. Funerals are private matters and the fact this has ended up with death threats to the son at this time as well as a Vet assistant is just disgraceful! Pretty much this. I did say that things aren't as simple when it comes to a guide dog as it probably would have a safe future. But the rest of my comments were about the blanket condemnation of wanting to make sure your dog will never suffer. My shih tzu is coming with me no question, he's getting old and has done his time in the pound. My coolie is a lot younger and if I die tomorrow he would have probably another 12 years. I know none of my family can take him if I die so who would like to put their hand up to guarantee him a permanent home for the next 12 or so years? Who should I put down as taking him on, full name for the will please :laugh:

No, cruelty is an act that results in pain or distress to the organism involved, you can't just make up definitions for words. What you really man is that it is unjust :laugh: What would happen to Danny if you had no family able to care for him? It isn't about whether the dog can adjust to a new home, it's about the uncertainty of their future. What about people who have no one who can take in their dog for the rest of it's natural life? What should those people do?

I've seen some yard dogs that had to have tight muzzles on, they would have gotten any others off.

By that logic, only cases (of anything) judged to be extreme should be discussed . So you would ignore a child who was been beaten, because somewhere else in the world a child is being raped. You would ignore and not discuss a dog who is on a metre chain because somewhere else in the world a dog is being savagely beaten. Now don't accuse me of being over the top or over emotional, because that is the way your post come across. Very flawed and, frankly, very scary logic. In fact it is not logical at all. Your comparisons are flawed, no body hurt the dog. Your examples both involve pain and distress. This dog just went to sleep. There was no cruelty or pain involved at all. I do understand some people are upset when young healthy dog is PTS but there was no cruelty involved.